(from Melanie Markley of the Chron)
For more than 40 years, it has occupied a prime chunk of public real estate near River Oaks caring for, employing and housing the mentally retarded.
But now the city of Houston is planning to sell the land to the highest bidder, meaning the nonprofit Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation has to find a new home.
At the heart of this issue is the 99 year lease that the Center signed with the City back in the 60's. It seems the City Charter doesn't allow for leases longer than 30 years. Because of this the lease is invalid, and the land the Center is occupying is prime real estate right next to our White Liberal friends in River Oaks for whom it seems charity begins not in the home, but somewhere in someone else's neighborhood.
These are the same angry white folks who hold up signs at every rally in the world mind you, the same angry white folks who have made a cottage industry of bashing the Republicans for cutting the CHIP insurance program, but who have decided to put their anger on hold when its a Democratic administration that's proposing the cutting. In fairness, the Republican outrage that's sure to come will be odd as well, with many of the same supporters of those cuts now vociferously opposing this action. And does ANYONE not remember how terrible it was that Rick Perry was considering the sell off of some State Park land?
I can't imagine that Mayor White wants to be in this position. I can imagine the campaign ads down the line if he goes through with this. "Then Mayor White displaced hundreds of mentally retarded children in the name of Government revenues".
Eeesh.
Here's how other blogs are lining up behind this so far:
Red Ink: Texas - Agin' it.
BlogHouston: Agin' it
Slampo's Place: Agin' it (I think)
Off the Kuff: needs more information
No one can ever say I'm not responsive. :)
The Lose an Eye position? Same as with the CHIP cuts we shouldn't balance the budget on the backs of those who are incapable of helping themselves.
Posts
4 comments:
No, I'm really not sure what to make of this story yet. I can certainly see the Mayor's perspective, but as described it doesn't seem right to boot these folks out - it's not their fault that a previous Mayor agreed to an invalid lease. At the very least, I want to know what the city proposes to do with the current residents before I make up my mind. The article was not clear on that point at all.
Cory, Kuff, Consider this. The center likely as not did not know the lease was invalid on it's face, they signed it in good faith. therefore the city misrepresented itself and the deal. Were this a strictly private deal, the center would have a pretty good case for fraud under the deceptive trade practices statutes. In such a case, the city would be on the hook for three times the damages. One could argue that the damages are in the amount that it would take to acquire other land, build a new facility, move, and the difference in lease payments. That is a non-trivial sum. Now, whether the DTPA applies in THIS case due to the involvement of the city is unknown to me. But just because something is legal does not make it right. I'm against this because of the fraud aspect. the city promised something in writing that they could not legally deliver. That makes them guilty of fraud.
Cory - Thanks for the update.
Rorschach - I agree, as noted in my comment, that the center signed their agreement in good faith. And I think, having reflected and read a bit more about this, that it is incumbent on the city to not take any action that invalidates that good faith. They can do this by backing off the reported plan to force the center out, by making a new deal that everyone can live with, or by ensuring that the center finds new digs that are acceptable to them. Since it's not clear yet what offer they have made (the bit about "closer to market rate rent" leaves a lot of room for interpretation), I'm not ready to say the city has done anything wrong. I don't think it was wrong of the city to want to do something about this in the first place; the question is what they propose to do about it. For all we know at this point, the city has made a fair offer and was turned down. That's why I want more information.
I'm sure the center signed the deal in good faith, although I can see where "fraud" could be claimed there's a pretty high hurdle to clear there to make that charge stick. There's also the fact that the rental agreement was CLEARLY less than market value so the whole "fair compensation" clause of contract law could be said to be null and void right there.
The question is: what is a "fair" amount?
Should a charity be "forced" to pay a higher rent because suddenly there is money to be made on a property?
This is the exact same type of action that has spawned protests and preservation ordinances when enacted by private enterprises. Weingarten realty only offers to renew the lease at increased rates etc....
After all, all Weingarten is doing is bringing their revenue up to acceptable levels....maybe they had a "fair" offer that was turned down as well?
For now though it seems that there's been NO counter offer by the City. I'm not sure if this deal has gotten to that point. Mayor White may be a little naive when it comes to estimating political fallout, but when he sees things are bad he usually takes steps to make it look like he's "fixed" the problem before things get out of hand.
I'm expecting fairly soon to hear rumors of some "deal" that lets the developers get their share of the pie, and which allows the Center to relocate with some public money that's no really public money or something along those lines.
The best solution would be to rework a 30 year lease with the Center. The last thing Houston needs is another condo hi-rise anyway.
Post a Comment