Saving Rich Hill

[irshgrl500]

(10-31-2013 12:29 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I just got word that it is NO DEAL. There was only one clause that caused it to fall through, and that was the owner's demand that the Historical Society had to finish the work in five years, or it would revert back to him. That is a pretty hefty demand when you are looking at a $1.5 million (estimate) project.

It makes one suspicious that the intent might be to have a major portion of the stabilization, etc. done - but not completed in five years. The owner would then be handed back the much-improved site (by default).

What a shame.

---

I just learned from a member of the Historical Society's board that they found out just yesterday (tipped off by a high-ranking state government official) that the way the agreement was written with what is called a "reverter clause" would negate any attempt to get public money (bond bills, etc.) for the project.

There is no way that the Society would ever raise that amount of money through donations in five years.

This would be just for Rich Hill? That's awful. It makes one suspicious that the intent might be to have a major portion of the stabilization, etc. done - but not completed in five years. The owner would then be handed back the much-improved site (by default). - Was this "reverter clause" requested by the owner?