Eddie A. Perez

Mayor

 

 

MAYOR ASKED CHIEF STATE’S ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE FAILED DEVELOPMENT DEAL

 

---NEWS RELEASE---

 

This past Monday, Hartford Mayor Eddie A. Perez asked the Chief State’s Attorney to investigate a proposed $100,000 payment by a city developer and city property owner to a city parking lot operator.  In an April 23rd letter to Connecticut Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane, Mayor Perez asked the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office to investigate, how and why a $100,000 “termination fee” to be paid to a city parking lot operator became part of a December 2006 amendment to a private purchase and sale agreement between Joseph Citino of Providian Builders and Edward Development LLC for the purchase of the privately owned 1161 Main Street in Hartford.  1161 Main Street and a city owned parcel at 1143 Main Street were to be combined as part of the redevelopment of the sites in question.

 

On November 13, 2006, the Hartford City Council approved the sale of the city owned lot at 1143 Main Street to Providian Builders subject to a number of conditions Joseph Citino had assured the Council he could meet.  None of those provisions included a $100,000 “termination fee” for the operator of a parking lot on the city owned parcel.  None of the Council’s requirements for sale of the property have been met to date.

 

In the letter to Chief State’s Attorney Kane the Mayor stated:

 

“Though private parties are free to include any provisions they desire in private sales of land, the city owned parcel was to be transferred to Providian Builders, pursuant terms set by the City Council, which did not include provisions for the purchaser to pay a “termination fee” as a condition of purchasing the parcel.  The city has decided not to proceed with the sale of its parcel, as Providian Builders has been unable to meet the city’s condition for sale which include the demolition of a blighted building located at 1161 Main Street and the timely execution of a purchase and sale agreement with the city.  However, I am concerned even though no city money or land was transferred, that one or more individuals may have intended to use city funds from the project to unjustly enrich one or more parties.”