Agencies have to vote in public before real estate deals; AG’s opinion backs the Journal’s view of buying and selling property

Posted by

in Top Stories & Breaking News, Winder Archives

Monday, October 15. 2012

Comments (22)

Government agencies must vote in public before they sign a contract to purchase or sell property. That is the opinion from Georgia’s attorney general’s office which issued the view last week following a September request from the Barrow Journal.
“By strict legal formalities you must have the public vote before you sign the contract,” said Stefan Ritter, senior assistant attorney general. “If you sign the contact before the public vote, then the signatures are not authorized.”
The Journal filed a complaint against the City of Winder with the AG’s office following two recent land purchases by the City of Winder that were completed before a public vote had been held.
Winder city attorney John Stell had previously told the Winder council it could buy the land and sign contracts in secret and that a public vote could be held at any later time. He said there was no timeline for when a public vote to “ratify” the transaction had to be held.
The Journal disagreed with Stell’s view and asked for an AG’s opinion. The opinion was issued Friday.
“An agency can take an initial non-binding vote in closed session but they must have a public vote or it’s not valid,” said Ritter. “They generally have no authority to close on the contract until that public vote.”
Journal co-publisher Mike Buffington said the law was very clear on the issue.
“The law isn’t vague on this point and it was very clear to us that Winder was in violation of the law in its recent real estate purchases,” he said. “We’re glad it’s now clarified and we trust that Winder and other local government agencies will do the right thing and vote in public before they sign any real estate contracts.”
In May, Winder agreed in a closed meeting to purchase .45 acres on Punkin Junction Road. The city closed on the property on Aug. 27, but did not make it known to the public that deal had been done until Sept. 11.
The council also voted in a July 2 closed meeting to purchase a small parking lot in town and closed on that deal on July 13. No public vote or mention of that deal was made until after the Journal made an open records request after hearing about the deal.

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 xenophobic on 10/15/12 at 11:35 AM [Reply]

As said may time over and over...

"This is Barrow County. We don't allow an outsider like The Barrow Journal Newspaper tell us what to do. If we want to meet in secret we will. If you aren't on the inside of
the Good Old Boy System here then you can pack up and leave!"

Don't you know if John Stell says so, you best not question his divine providence.

More GOB(Not GOP)party types doing for themselves at the cost of the county.

#2 Anon on 10/15/12 at 12:30 PM [Reply]

Way to go Barrow Journal and Mike Buffington! I may not always agree with your opinion, but I appreciate your determination. Now, Mike, my question is this: Will these land transactions be voided since business was not conducted properly, or will this only apply to future transactions?

#3 It goes BOTH Ways... on 10/15/12 at 02:55 PM [Reply]

There is another angle on this issue, the deals may need to be negotiated behind closed doors, in sessions with those we elected to handle our business, but the final VOTE should take place in public meetings when a deal has been reached pending final vote/approval (for public questions oe input). If we do the Entire Process in the open, then we will have persons/3rd Parties run up the costs, try to bid in to make money on the governements attempt to secure property for the citizens, interfer with the deals to cost the citizens MORE TAX money or derail the deals entirely, This is the downside, so it is not a simple procedure. They make it sound so simple and easy and that our local govt is just doing backroom deals.

#3.1 Mike Buffington, publisher on 10/15/12 at 08:01 PM [Reply]

You are correct that the law allows agencies to discuss and negotiate a land purchase in private to prevent price manipulation. But this issue wasn't about that proces, but rather the fact that Winder was closing these deals before a public vote. The law was changed during the last session, but that did not do away with the public vote before a closing as the city attorney had advised the city council. That point was what we asked for clarification about.

#4 Wonder why on 10/15/12 at 04:08 PM [Reply]

Why is this a simple little story. If Chip Thompson was involved you would have already tried to have him impeached.

#5 Anonymous on 10/15/12 at 10:40 PM [Reply]

Mike, will this void the 2 previous land purchases mentioned in the article? Is it even possible to 'undo' a purchase that has already been closed?

#6 Sybil on 10/16/12 at 04:28 AM [Reply]

So what is the penalty for breaking this law? Do the city fathers just get a slap on the hand or will there be consequences for their actions? Based on previous actions by elected officials in Barrow County, I don't think having their transgressions published will be a deterrent to future illegalities, especially if they keep the same attorney.

#6.1 xenophobic on 10/16/12 at 07:08 AM [Reply]

Honey just like you said "I don't think having their transgressions published will be a deterrent to future illegalities, especially if they keep the same attorney."

Winder and the County are the definition of cronyism...

They use the xenophobic fears of the connected to run the county and run off anyone that differs with their petty views...

See if the following does sound familiar:

Crony capitalism is generally associated with more virulent government intervention, however. Intentionally ambiguous laws and regulations are common in such systems. Taken strictly, such laws would greatly impede practically all business; in practice, they are only erratically enforced. The specter of having such laws suddenly brought down upon a business provides incentive to stay in the good graces of political officials. Troublesome rivals who have overstepped their bounds can have the laws suddenly enforced against them, leading to fines or even jail time.

Just how is that cronyism working for you Barrow?

#6.1.1 Anonymous on 10/16/12 at 09:05 AM [Reply]

Stop with the lyrical sounding phrases and show us what you speak about. What business has been affected by crony capitalism? Troublesome rivals? Just give us a name. Which officials have strong-armed a business to "stay in their good graces"? And which business is it.

C'mon, inquiring minds want to know. You DO know, right?

#6.1.1.1 xenophobic on 10/16/12 at 11:16 AM [Reply]

What they have done to One they will do to ANYONE...

Example: State Licensed Home Health Care homes

The entrepreneur running the operation was being run out by the connected until the courts stepped in and told the county they can not play games with other lives and livelihood just because it offends the sensibility of the GOB(Not GOP) party types.

References:

BOC halts personal care home applications after approving two new permits in court settlements
Posted by
Mike Buffington
Wednesday, November 23. 2011

The resolution passed in a unanimous vote just after the BOC approved special use permits for two personal care homes that it had denied in July. The approvals were the outcomes of two lawsuits filed in August by the applicants. ... Yearwood appeared visibly uncomfortable but said to the audience that included most of other Chateau Forest homeowners: “Ladies and gentlemen, we have the (Unified Development Code) for a reason, and the purpose of this board is to make sure everybody is treated the same and equally. He said he hoped the code would be amended in the near future but in the meantime he felt he could “not go against the personal rights of somebody if our laws and codes support it. His comments mirrored those of the other commissioners voting in favor of the permits – Larry Joe Wilburn, Eva Elder and Steve Worley – who acknowledged they would not want such a business in their neighborhoods but felt it was in the interest of the county and its taxpayers to settle the suits. "

New regulations set for Barrow's personal care homes
By Lona Panter
POSTED: October 10, 2012 12:00 p.m.

Almost a year after the county’s regulations on personal care homes came under scrutiny, the Barrow County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday night made some changes to its Unified Development Code.... Tuesday night, commissioners made several changes to the UDC. Adding a formal definition of personal care homes was among one of the changes.

If my claims of coney capitalism are so outlandish, Why is the GOB(Not GOP) party type so upset?

Past Connected Empty Store fronts, Dollar (EBT) stores popping up on every corner, Bottom feeding retail operations everywhere within the rotting core of Barrow...

How's that working for you Barrow?

#6.1.1.1.1 Anonymous on 10/16/12 at 02:37 PM [Reply]

Pardon me while I muse.

First of all, under crony capitalism, the affected "personal care" homes in question would have been "..run out by the connected". As such, there don't seem to be many "connected" personal care homes around here. If it's politicians to which you refer, only if there was a political hack in the neighborhood who could "control" the county commission, would cronyism, as defined, come into play. What you point to is the commission working to defend the property rights of residents of the neighborhood. And per the Barrow Journal 10/24/11 edition, "In response to the ongoing criminal investigation of an illegal network of personal care homes for the mentally ill inside and outside Barrow County, the Barrow County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday night adopted a six-month moratorium on applications for new personal care homes."

Your eyes deceive, or you know not the "core" of Barrow. It's looking up these days, with new leaders on the horizon, development continuing, retail growing, unemployment dropping. So what's your problem?

#6.1.1.1.1.1 Joe on 10/17/12 at 07:34 PM [Reply]

Where is xenophobe to respond?

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1 xenophobic on 10/17/12 at 08:58 PM [Reply]

See #9

#6.2 WontEverChange on 10/16/12 at 09:25 AM [Reply]

John Stell and his counter part for the BOC are paid for with county taxes but they represent the interest of the elected arrogance, their friends and family Not the County. This is evident in their advice that always seems to validate even the most biased decisions made by the elected arrogance.

Why would you tell the man signing your pay check that he is an idiot?

Why would they represent a position that was in the interest of the County but opposed the elected arrogance?

#7 Mike Buffington, publisher on 10/16/12 at 06:49 AM [Reply]

We do not plan to challenge those. From here on, we just want the correct process to be used.

#7.1 Sybil on 10/16/12 at 02:00 PM [Reply]

Are there no penalties under law that can be applied even if there is no challenge? Wouldn't the fact that the state now knows about the illegal acts prompt some type of punishment? What good are laws if they have no teeth? Is it to make us think the elected State officials we pay are actually doing something when in fact they are not?

#7.1.1 Anonymous on 10/16/12 at 02:33 PM [Reply]

Yes Sybil! I totally agree with you! We need to RISE UP!!! I am fed up with the elected arrogance in this city/county. I'm going to contact the AG's office myself and see if we - the citizens- can do anything. Apparently this council has adopted the policy 'It's better to ask forgiveness than permission."

#8 Silence Doogood on 10/16/12 at 03:34 PM [Reply]

It's an opinion from the AG, not an infraction. No laws were broken.
The Journal disagreed with Stell’s view and asked for an AG’s opinion. The opinion was issued Friday.
“An agency can take an initial non-binding vote in closed session but they must have a public vote or it’s not valid,” said Ritter. “They generally have no authority to close on the contract until that public vote.”

#9 xenophobic on 10/16/12 at 05:18 PM [Reply]

Don't play stupid with the title of the first article. The Barrow Journal ran two stories (Illegal flop houses and an Illegal BOC refusal for a licensed business) under the same article...

The county WAS TOLD BY THE COURT "CHANGE YOUR MIND OR IT WILL COST AND COST BIG"

Even the County's biggest bully (BOC) will back down when their actions are shown in the light of day outside of the County Annex.

I find it interesting that the credo of the BARROW COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY is

We are THE FREEDOM PARTY.

We believe in lower taxes (not raising taxes).
(The BOC has Raised your TAXES and has spent every dime except for last year)

We believe in less governmental intrusion into our lives.
(The BOC never misses a chance to use its poorly written UDC to protect the connected and run off anyone else they please... Unless the court tells them they can't under threat of sever financial penalty)

We believe in equal opportunity for all of our citizens (not equal results of misery).
(All the while, Their socialistic mantra on the "State Of The County... a place where taxes are a shared cost of living and the burden of funding ...)

The County Government never misses a chance to sit on the back of any one that dares to make it on their own...

Really is this a REPUBLICAN COUNTY or just GOB(Not GOP)party that hasn't finished the keg.

#10 Lenny on 10/16/12 at 08:57 PM [Reply]

So will they put Chief Dorsey in jail for taking the land from the indians.

#11 Teacher on 10/16/12 at 10:34 PM [Reply]

The City could care less if the law is broken or not. If they did. They would stop all the city owned over weight trucks and tractors from using Beulah St. The street has a weight limit and the city breaks it everyday.

#12 sad to say on 10/17/12 at 10:38 AM [Reply]

but yes when a few canuse the force and threat of oss of liberty and property by the "powers of Govt" to make neighbors do as they wish rather then as a neighbor is doing, when laws are used to keep one person a monopoly in an area and others out, to use the "" govt approved licensing as aafety for public rather then let the market decide... so sad...

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment: E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.
To leave a comment you must approve it via e-mail, which will be sent to your address after submission.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.

Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
Phone*

What is four plus four?
: Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Agencies have to vote in public before real estate deals; AG’s opinion ...

Barrow Journal

Agencies have to vote in public before real estate deals; AG’s opinion backs the Journal’s view of buying and selling property

Recent Comments

This Week's Poll

Sister Sites

Archives

Community

Keyword Tags