RSS
Calling for interpretations
There's been much made in City Council meetings of late over the language in the deed of the South Side Recreation Field. The project's detractors say the dead precludes the possibility of a new facility at that site. The Mayor and City Attorney say there's no problem.
To lay rest to my own curiosity, I went down to the county and got a copy of the deed (OK, in actuality, I asked county reported Ann Marie French to pick the copy up for me, but I made it easy by finding the address. Regardless...)
The following is the last paragraph of the deed:
"THE PROPERTY conveyed herein is to be used solely for playground and recreational purposes by the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, or the Saratoga Springs Recreation Commission, for the use and benefit of all residents of the Enlarged City School District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York. In the event such lands shall cease to be used for such purpose, the all right, title and interest shall revert to the Enlarged City School District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, and this conveyance shall become null and void."
Nobody is contesting that the proposed building will be used for recreation, and given its location, it seems reasonable to conclude that it will be used primarily by people residing within the school district. However, there is question about whether "parking lot" fits the definition of recreational uses. The deed also raises questions about whether or not the city would thus be allowed to charge more for participation in basketball leagues for city residents, school district (non-city) residents, and non-residents, as it currently does for other recreation leagues.
I'm no lawyer, and City Attorney stated to the City Council last night that there is no issue, but I'd like to know what you think.
To lay rest to my own curiosity, I went down to the county and got a copy of the deed (OK, in actuality, I asked county reported Ann Marie French to pick the copy up for me, but I made it easy by finding the address. Regardless...)
The following is the last paragraph of the deed:
"THE PROPERTY conveyed herein is to be used solely for playground and recreational purposes by the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, or the Saratoga Springs Recreation Commission, for the use and benefit of all residents of the Enlarged City School District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York. In the event such lands shall cease to be used for such purpose, the all right, title and interest shall revert to the Enlarged City School District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, and this conveyance shall become null and void."
Nobody is contesting that the proposed building will be used for recreation, and given its location, it seems reasonable to conclude that it will be used primarily by people residing within the school district. However, there is question about whether "parking lot" fits the definition of recreational uses. The deed also raises questions about whether or not the city would thus be allowed to charge more for participation in basketball leagues for city residents, school district (non-city) residents, and non-residents, as it currently does for other recreation leagues.
I'm no lawyer, and City Attorney stated to the City Council last night that there is no issue, but I'd like to know what you think.
posted by The Saratogian City Desk at
4:43 PM
6 Comments:
I'd like to know what's buried there if indeed these detractors are saying "the dead precludes the possibility of a new facility at that site."
OK. Just a bit of grammar humor. Seriously, this is a half-ass attempt by a few lawyers who want to keep their pristine field there. And had they really wanted to keep it pristine they should have offered the city several hundred grand for the green swath or lobbied for it to be added to the land conservation trust under the prior administration, which seemed to support such a designation.
The bottom line is they don't own the land, nor did they ever. Your real question is with the SCHOOL DISTRICT. They're the ones who could throw a wrench into the works, not these neighbors. If the district says their cool with the project(and they haven't said otherwise), and the city holds clear title to the land, these people are simple being obstructionists.
Shut the project down and return the funding to the taxpayers. This hot potatoe for a location has been tossed back and forth far too long.
Also, cost verses what’s been appropriated is cutting back on the recreation amenities that can be provided is now surfacing, making the project less appealing.
HO -- Thanks for the tips, as always. Thanks also for catching my grammar slip. In a similar vein, I think you meant "If the district says THEY'RE cool with the project..." :p)
Touché, young scribe. Touché.
8:43 is an idiot! Hot Potato! There are no more than a dozen against this project. There are thousands from all over the city in favor. The Recreation Dept. will save money just by having its own facility. We, the tax payer are presently paying Ballston,Wilton and the schools money for the kids to have a place to go.
HO -- This didn't make it into my story in Saturday's paper, but I did talk to Janice White, Superintendent of Schools, who said the district is aware of deed, but has not discussed any kind of interest in taking the land back.
She also pointed out that the district owns a lot of land that it has to take care of, and turned this parcel over to the city in 1978 to reduce that burden.
Perhaps that position will help alleviate some concern over litigation.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home