Monday, April 24, 2017

Media Borough had an agreement of sale with the seller prior to the April 20th council meeting vote.

By request of a Freedom of Information Act submission to Media Borough, we received documents related to the sale.  Of interest is a Sales Agreement that was signed between Media Borough and the seller in March.  When was a vote made by borough council to enter into such an agreement?

Based on the email it appears to have happened as early as March 13, 2017.   That was two weeks before Brian Hall sent out a letter dated March 30, 2017 to some residents that a public hearing would be held to discuss the park.   Was it shared with that group that the borough had already secured an agreement of sale at the April 6th public hearing?

If the agreement of sale was already locked up, was the vote at the April meeting just a formality? Did Media Borough Council push this through not concerned about any input from the community at the April 20th meeting?  


  1. Would that not contradict that Paul Robinson said he no idea about it? What says you on that?

    1. Wouldn't it require a vote by council to approve the agreement of sale? When was that done? If it wasn't done by vote, PR may have not known about it despite the email.

  2. Either way, it appears settlement date isn't until June 15th, earlier if both seller and buyer agree, likely so Council could have the time to notify area residents and hold the vote. As I said in another post, would have been crazy for there NOT to have been an agreement of sale in place pending the outcome of the official vote. So IMO, this isn't the crazy thing you're making it out to be.

    1. It's about being open and honest with your constituents. Shouldn't people at the meeting be informed of the status of negotiations? Shouldn't they understand what happens from here if you vote to approve the plan or if you now back out of the agreement? This is just horrible the way it was handled.

  3. Since this appears to be a private sale between the estate representative and Media Borough, and an agreement of sale already exists, how is this not a violation of the Sunshine Law? Shouldn't there have first been a public hearing to announce Borough Council's intention to enter into an agreement of sale for this property? Notifying the public after the fact, does not seem to conform with the Sunshine Law, even if the settlement date "isn't until June 15th -- OR EARLIER -- if both seller and buyer agree." This seems to be a contractual agreement done in private, which can settled at any time, without further notifying the public. Suggesting the June 15th date is some kind of C.Y.A. protection is a real stretch. Perhaps this agreement of sale has already been settled between the estate representative and the Borough. How would anyone know? And if the property was delinquent over $100,000 for ten years, why wasn't the property put up for Sheriff's Sale that would have allowed the public to bid on the property, rather than orchestrate this private sale announced after the fact?

    1. Oh god, here we go... You call it the "Sunshine Law"... there is no such thing. The actual name is the "Government in the Sunshine Act" or "The Sunshine Act" for short.

      If you knew what that was, you would know that The Sunshine Act enumerates ten specific exemptions for categories of information that need not be disclosed, including:

      - related to information where disclosure would constitute a breach of privacy, &

      - related to information which would lead to financial speculation

      I would think either of those two exemptions would be claimed in this case.

    2. How does it constitute a breach of privacy? The owner's information and debt are both publicly available information with a phone call or visit to the county's website.

      Financial speculation, it seems that this property was exempt from the normal process that other properties go through when this much tax debt exists.

  4. To Mr. Know it All: maybe you should get to the library once in a while. See subsection 713 of Title 65 "Sunshine Act."

    1. Here, I'll be nice and try to not to insult you like you seemingly can't do when you respond to me.. let's read your link, shall we?

      § 707. Exceptions to open meetings.
      (a) Executive session.--An agency may hold an executive session under section 708
      (relating to executive sessions).

      You follow that?! ... then continue reading....

      § 708. Executive sessions.
      (a) Purpose.--An agency may hold an executive session for one or more of the following

      (3) To consider the purchase or lease of real property up to the time an option to
      purchase or lease the real property is obtained or up to the time an agreement to
      purchase or lease such property is obtained if the agreement is obtained directly
      without an option.

      Oh, good try again buddy.....