Paul Smith does not care one bit that you didn’t want him for your state delegate. You big meanies! What? You didn’t want Mr. Smith up in Annapolis tearing apart our social programs and dismantling the state government?! Well, don’t expect Mr. Smith to go hide in the corner. Oh no, he’s going to use the power of his word processor to stay relevant! Remember a few months back when we had so much fun with his letter to the council about getting reimbursed for his legal fees? Well, as one of our good friends remarked, “What a gift this letter is!” Let us begin (you can click the images to enlarge):
Ah, the title page. Now look! This isn’t from C. Paul Smith private citizen! This is from the law office of C.Paul Smith! But we are really confused. Aren’t there three more people on the county council? Are they so repugnant to him that he can’t even be bothered to address them by name? So what “serious concerns” does Mr. Smith have about 520 N. Market Street? Let’s look at the next page:
Now, uninformed county council members, let Mr. Smith give you a history of this building. (The capitalization and moniker “Young Board” is all C. Paul Smith, not us).
…this building had been used by the County government by its Citizens Services Division for many years. The division director’s office was there, as was the Child Advocacy Center, the Human Relations Commission and a Head Start classroom. The Young Board of Commissioners was able to reduce the size of County Government by approximately 500 employees. One of the results of this shrinking was to consolidate many county services into fewer buildings, making 520 North Market Street available to be sold.
Ah, isn’t that sweet? We shrunk the budgets and manpower of these agencies so we could shove them all into one building. And it was the Young board that did it! So shouldn’t they get some kind of compensation? Or at least some gratitude you ingrates! Now, from what we can tell, Paul is trying to make two points with this letter. The first is that Jan, is “unilaterally” overstepping her power as County Executive in making land deals. And the second is, he doesn’t think she should be “giving” this building away. Let’s continue with the letter before we pick it apart.
So here are some of the main points from this mess:
With regard to the sale:
It should be observed that in most major corporations, the authority to sell or acquire major assets is routinely reserved for boards of directors, and are not matters of routine management that the chief executive officer has authority to do unilaterally. The same principle should apply in our county government-the Council should be required to confirm any such major disposition, sale or acquisition.
The proposed use of this County asset is clearly the transfer of a County asset that would amount to a give away of that asset. …; in fact it is worse than a sale–it would be giving away a major County asset.
Why do you think no one has made a reasonable offer to purchase the building? That is because there does not appear to be a market for what the building can provide. This building is not compatible for normal housing. It would be difficult for a developer to make this building into a profitable housing project.
With this background, now the County Executive wishes to draw from County resources to help subsidize a housing project that the private sector would not touch.
It would appear that Mr. Smith has some very strong opinions about this property and Jan’s “plans” for it! But nothing, readers, beats this conclusion:
Executive Gardner’s unilateral decision to turn 520 North Market Street into a “mixed income workforce housing” project is a decision that exceeds her executive powers and it is a bad business decision.
Those who don’t understand market and economic forces should avoid involving themselves in economic development projects.
That’s right, County Executive Gardner! The only things you understand are diapers, dinner and keeping my suits clean! Don’t involve your delicate little mind in these man decisions! But wait. Could it be, perhaps, that everything is this letter is untrue? Could that be possible?
Next page please:
Shall we continue?:
Not done yet:
As far as we can tell, unless our female brains are failing us, every single issue addressed in this letter is wrong. It’s as though he had no knowledge at all as to what was happening with this property. None! And we do remember listening to a very recent county council meeting about this very issue. Therefore, Jan did not act unilaterally, numerous people wanted the property, bought it for more than what he claims it was worth, and is there one single valid point in this whole thing?! We can’t figure out why he wrote this letter. If his intent was to embarrass Jan it certainly backfired. The only person that should be embarrassed by this letter is C. Paul Smith, Attorney at Law. Therefore, Mr. Smith, we are going to have to ask that you leave government to those who actually understand what they are doing. Thank you very much.