By Gordon Anderson and Richard Sullins | gordon@rantnc.com | richard@rantnc.com
Sanford city government announced Friday evening it had settled a lawsuit brought by a developer who claimed last year that a dilapidated downtown building he’d hoped to rehabilitate for commercial use was bought out from underneath him in violation of an enforceable contract.
The settlement paid $60,000 to Nick Jordan, the founder of Durham-based software development company Smashing Boxes, and was apparently approved by the city council in July, when a special meeting was called for an otherwise routine agenda which included a closed session. The meeting was held in the council’s conference room and not recorded.
Documents describing the settlement were posted to the case file on the North Carolina Courts website Friday afternoon, and a city press release issued at 4:54 p.m. the same day celebrated the settlement as an achievement of “its main goal, which is to retain ownership of the Singer property.”
Jordan filed suit last fall claiming he’d been negotiating a proposal with the city for years to purchase a property known locally as the Singer Building, which sits between Charlotte Avenue and First Street in an advanced state of disrepair.
“I’m glad we were able to recover the money that Mr. Jordan spent in connection with his efforts to develop the Singer property,” said attorney Will Gordon on behalf of Jordan’s legal team, which also included Jackson Wicker and Harrison Wicker. “Mr. Jordan continues to believe that the future is bright for the citizens of Sanford and is open to assisting in development opportunities in the downtown area. Resolving the litigation in this manner enables him to do that.”
Jordan and the city had come to an agreement whereby the city would relinquish its option to purchase the property if he was able to complete the purchase himself and enter a development agreement with the city. Jordan had renderings of his plans for the property – a mixed use hub including space for offices, retail and restaurants in which he hoped to invest around $25 million – and contended the city “intentionally delay(ed)” his “efforts to finalize and execute (a) developer agreement.”
The city ended up quietly purchasing the property in November, more than two weeks before approval by the City Council, and three days before notifying Jordan. He filed suit days later, after the city announced its own plans for the property, a “Sanford Central Green concept” that would be anchored by the Sanford Agricultural Marketplace on one end and City Hall on the other.
Sanford’s plan would have included a mobility hub to house a local stop for the upcoming S-Line passenger rail program, something Jordan had said he was open to accommodating as part of his plan. But those plans were thrust into doubt in March, when city leaders learned they hadn’t received a $33 million grant they’d hoped would fund the project. Further, the city was informed that it was actually ineligible for the grant because their purchase of the property by the city was in violation of federal grant guidelines.
That final detail leaves doubt about what – if anything – the city can do with the property. Between the building’s purchase price ($490,000), legal fees incurred fighting Jordan’s lawsuit (a request to city government made in July for the full amount of those legal fees had not been fulfilled as of this writing) and the cost of the settlement, Sanford government has sunk well over $500,000 into the Singer Building. Sanford city government’s press release indicated the settlement would be “paid by the City’s insurance carrier.”
Sanford Mayor Rebecca Wyhof Salmon told The Rant days prior to the city’s press release that the Sanford Central Green concept could now go forward, and said the fact that Sanford is ineligible for the grant it had sought wouldn’t impact the project.
“We are pleased to move forward with City Council’s long-term vision for the property, which is an essential piece of the Sanford Central Green, an innovative and inclusive public space for our community to enjoy. We are excited to be in the position to move forward with this transformational project,” she said in a statement provided by the city’s public information officer. “Our vision for the Sanford Central Green is broader than any one property or any specific grant. We want to reenergize and continue revitalizing downtown and East Sanford. To accomplish the bigger picture, the City has strategically acquired property in the area since the early 2000s. The work of Council is to see this vision through, starting this fall when we break ground on the Sanford Agricultural Marketplace. The Sanford Central Green will change the face of downtown. We are now free to pursue this vision and we are ready to get to work.”
Gordon, one of the attorneys who represented Jordan in the case, said he had hope there’s still a way for both Jordan and the city to find a mutually beneficial solution, and blamed a lack of transparency on the part of city staff for the entire situation.
“If the City Council ever learns the truth of how this dispute unfolded, I think they will be very disappointed in how City staff handled it,” he said. “To this day, I don’t think the Council really knows the whole story.”
The Parker Poe law firm, which has offices throughout the South and in Washington, D.C., represented the city.
https://sanfordnc.net/civicalerts.aspx?aid=616
Sanford just wants to keep Sanford in the hands of the “good ole boys” and NOBODY but nobody can come in and mess with Sanford, unless you’ve got big bucks like Walmart, or Pfizer, which, by the way.
***************************
RFK Jr. wrote in his post, “Five states — Texas, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana — suing Pfizer for knowing and concealing the vaccine causing myocarditis, pericarditis, failed pregnancies and deaths. That’s 10% of US states.”
“The tide is turning.”
************************
It all sounds a bit fishy. I don’t even try to understand you guys anymore. And I won’t shop down there, and I won’t worry about it, but it is my taxpayer’s money that’s paying for all of this (whether you are paying off this guy or doing the “green scape) and once the people of Sanford find out (I mean the good people of Sanford), I hope they get a spine and start speaking out. And, for those “new” people to Sanford, don’t move out, there are more of US then there are of THEM!
None of the people in office in Sanford or in Lee County have been elected, they are always {s}elected! Everything “they” do puts money in THEIR pockets.
When Sanford finally wakes up, I hope there is still something left here that can be salvaged.
If the city council does not know the details of this dispute, why don’t they know? Isn’t this their job?
The mayor and council either did not perform their responsibilities as elected officials or city staff misrepresented the circumstances. In either case, the taxpayers of Sanford are the losers.
On the surface and based on public knowledge reported by the local media outlets, it seems the acquisition of the Singer Building has been riddled with uncertainty, missteps, and a lack of professional performance on the part of the city. The mentioned legal bills for outside counsel certainly support that lack of performance.
I hope that transparency will prevail regarding this debacle and that the facts referenced by Mr. Gordon, including the mentioned actions of city staff, will become available. You owe that much to Sanford.
I don’t know… bringing up Mr. Brainworm as a source isn’t really a good idea.
I agree with Mr Thompson. I don’t know the lawyer Mr Gordon but I have to believe he’s giving us a warning about the complete lack of transparency at city hall. What is the mayor trying to hide? Why is she trying to hide what happened with this purchase? As the mayor she is responsible for this boondoggle and we are all interested in her answers to a long list of questions.
$60K is a nuisance settlement amount that will be paid by the City’s insurance carrier. The City probably has a 10K deductible. If the so called developer actually had any case the settlement would be near to 7 figures. None of this changes the fact that the developer could never do what he claimed he wanted to do because of the specific geography of where the building is located, encroaching on the railroad line.
I encourage some of you rocket scientists to research State Law when it comes to Railroads and tell us how you improve an illegal encroachment on Railroad property in this State. Only a unit of government can effectively deal with what was left behind on the property – you have to use the specific powers of the Urban Redevelopment laws and Eminent Domain.
From E. Chisholm Street and along South Moore Street, following the rail line there are seriously overlapping rights of way scattered with some private ownership along East Pearl, Waddel, Weller, Wilson, and Chatham Streets. It is a remnant of two things – the power of the railroads to do what they want, and the weakness of legal descriptions written for black property owners before the Great Depression. On top of that the decision to improve what is now Horner Boulevard in the 1950’s meant that attention to Chatham, Moore, and what would have been a connection of Field Drive over the railroad to Chatham Street never happened. There are also some terrain issues that probably would have necessitated a tunnel. When Urban Redevelopment starts in the late 1960’s and more improvements are made such as at the railroad overpass near the dirty book store the land along Little Buffalo Creek between Weatherspoon, back to Weller and Alcott Street are somewhat abandoned until Downtown Redevelopment starts up in earnest along Chatham Street.
The area is a “mess” with regards to location of the City’s water lines, the actual location of some buildings (not exactly where they are supposed to be), the hard stabilized and the natural run of Little Buffalo Creek, and the right of way claims of not one but two railroad systems.
If the people who developed Chatham Park and Prestonwood were sniffing around to redevelop the area, they would have the money to do it. If the people who developed Briar Chapel were sniffing around they would have the money to do it. Newbies with limited funds can’t do it and they can’t get the funds because of the underlying right of way issues that go back 120 years. That leaves the City of Sanford, County of Lee, and State of NC as the only players with the pockets and the legal power necessary.
I encourage everyone to avail yourself of the Lee County GIS system maps. They have it all, topos, water and sewer lines, soils, rights of way, and aerial photos. Given that the City’s first and foremost concern has to be the drainage way of Little Buffalo Creek, why would anyone expect them to turn over control to an underfunded private entity?
Some of you are suckers,
Clearly based on your post you have insight on this proposed project. What was not included in your post is the most critical part of this story which is, did city employees provide untruthful information to any party including the mayor, city council, the developer and any legally connected party or entity. If the full and unfettered documents are released the suckers can be readily identified.
Cheers mate!
You accusing City Staff of crimes are you? Obviously the developer never did his due diligence. If he had he would have found his building on the ROW of the Railroad. I get that he might think he can encroach into all Railroads in NC because he got the abandoned line in Durham, but that’s an abandoned line, not an active line.
Surely he did not rely on the City Staff to tell him the width of the Railroad ROW since the City is an inferior entity to the Railroad in NC. If you have allegations to make, make them out loud.
Little known fact to follow up on some of the comments – somewhat minor, but will contribute it for what it’s worth – I was curious about the history of this site when this lawsuit matter first came up, and a little digging through the property records, found some easements relative to the property, and recall seeing an easement granted by the railroad that authorized the building encroachments to remain, so long as they are not demolished (i.e,, the existing buildings need to be rehabbed, versus demolition and an attempt to rebuild with the same encroachment). Saw that when this first came up so have assumed the railroad encroachment can remain in place. But clearly, there were likely a good handful of other issues that would have required city coordination and collaboration, and just stepping back and reflecting on the various news items along the way and the publicly known city actions, it appears the problem was the developer thought he would have that collaboration, and given the exchange of info back and forth about the stream relocation project, it might have been reasonable for the developer to see the stream relocation project as something that the city was doing that would be helpful for his project, all the while the city was apparently working on other plans. Still not sure the city’s scheme that has been made public has been as well thought out as it should be, may be just some architect’s pretty picture with details that should be changed in the future to really make it a nice asset for the downtown. If there really was this much poor communication in the past that led to the confusion, let’s be hopeful there is a better project manager for the city going forward, someone that thoroughly looks at all the details upfront, including those that the other commentators here have raised, and documents the internal city decisions well for the benefit of the public that may interested in following how decisions about public investment are made. Given the loss of the cotton mill years ago, and the importance of these furniture factory buildings at one point in time to the economic activity of Sanford, would be nice to see some restoration and re-use of some of the old buildings as a reminder that there was a manufacturing history right at the edge of downtown, but that is probably too complicated for the city to carry out, so prepared to watch the complete elimination of that history by the time the city green project is all said and done. There, you have it, my two cents worth, if it is even worth that…
Have you got a deed and book page on the easement from Seabord to Singer? At 372-516 it is not mentioned and even the survey is made from the centerline of the railroad and not the Western Edge. In 292-718 all that is reference is the tiny portion of Buffalo Creek that would have been an unopened part of the Street north of the City’s old Public Works yard.