"Several people should have gone to jail over that MOU,"

.Putting the Shuck on the Rubes …
Making money and lots of it has been done in Riverwalk before without ever turning a shovel full of dirt thanks to a  Mayor who is up to his eyeballs in it, a Manager  who was as amoral as could be, and a Council that could not connect the dots with box full of crayons if their lives depended on it.
A  Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU)  that the City signed on May 3rd 2005  was all it took for the Riverwalk Promoters to flip their non-essential land for millions in profit 3 days later to a crop of investor suckers  — compliments of the City/Mayor’s willingness to sign a phony baloney MOU to a non-existent underlying contract.
The underlying contract was non-existent because the Riverwalk Promoters after months of City requests were  un-willing to produce personal financials,  AND  un-able to produce credible financials  on their throw-a-way shell corporations that were devoid of  equity and track records
Several people should have gone to jail over that MOU,
AND for anyone who believes the Mayor’s declaration that he  does not have a conflict of interest when his son works for the very Promoter who made millions on his May 3rd signature  then as the old saying goes  I have an ocean front lot for sale in Arizona that you might be interested in.
The latest ploy of the Promoter to obtain a portion of the non-existent  tax increment on  a non-existent project  based on nothing more than ever changing pictures looks like the MAYOR  and his BUDDY  are dusting off their  2005 play book in hopes of fleecing  another crop of  un-suspecting lender suckers.  The City’s role in that 2005 fleecing scam was despicable and must not be permitted to happen again.
The citizens of Port Orange should be outraged with the willingness of their current Council to continue making concessions for  this Promoter,  AS THEY have done with their approvals of a drinking barge and dirt parking lots,   AND AS THEY are planning on doing with non-equitable land swaps and moving right-of-ways,   AND WITH THE MOTHER OF ALL ERRORS agreeing to borrow millions to dress up the property that adjoins the Promoters property under the guise of a park for the people.
Ted Noftall

—– Original Message —–
From: Mike Gardner
To: Margaret Roberts ; Greg Kisela ; Bob Ford
Cc: Dianne Gardner
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:41 PM
Subject: Too late?
Councilman Ford,
Thanks for putting in writing many of the questions and concerns you raised at Tuesday night’s CRA meeting on the Riverwalk development.  Your comments are thoughtful and all need to be addressed before any further committment is made by the City to the developer.  In addition, I would encourage you to put in writing your verbal request that the City undertake an in-depth analysis of the developers financial and experiential wherewithal to bring a project of this magnitude to fruition.
Also, as was pointed out by Ted Noftall in a different forum, you asked another question on Tuesday night which deserves some further exploration.  You asked, as near as I can remember, “at what point do Council decisions affect our legal status?”  This means to me “at what point can Buddy sue the City for not living up to its promises?”  At what point can he say “you have prevented me from realizing the full use of my property, even though you promised me by your earlier actions that I could do so, by what you have done today?”
Those certainly aren’t questions I can answer but I’m sure that Margaret Roberts can provide guidance.  Speaking only as an interested citizen it seems to me that you have already agreed that seventeen-story condos are “conceptually” acceptable and to back off of that position now might be dangerous.  Backtracking to something more reasonable could make LaCour et al rich without them ever having to turn a shovelful of dirt.
Mike Gardner
618 Ruth St
Port Orange, FL  32127


click on link to view :  Memorandum Of Understanding

One thought on “"Several people should have gone to jail over that MOU,"

  • May 23, 2014 at 10:28 pm

    Thank you all for the history on Riverwalk. Let me guess the drinking barge will be classified mobile with no impact fees or ad valorem responsibility. I’m sure they will need water and sewer on the drinking barge. Let’s face it the developer of the drinking barge should pay huges taxes on that Pristine Riverwalk value. No property taxes no water and no sewer. He can haul in his water and stock up on porta potties. And pay a measly annual boat registration. Maybe he’s exempt it’s going to be parked.
    We definitely need more substance on this matter. The taxpayer in fact is going to be the silent partner with no say or return on investment. What a deal!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.