Stephen M. Dearholt: Timing suspicious?

Advertisement

I believe the old City Council closed the purchase of the Iron Horse Inn on Oct. 31 for the sole reason of being able to ensure the purchase could not be reversed by a new City Council. I guarantee delaying the closing by only one week would not have turned off the seller.

Maybe it is still possible to resell this property to the Cafritz Interests of Washington, D.C., to help satisfy their required affordable housing issues. If Steamboat Springs is so good at running housing projects, why not have the city handle all of the rental projects in the city? I hope the city is prepared to follow IRS regulations and issue Form 1099s to all employees who receive this subsidized housing. If an employee receives reduced rent of $5,000 per year, that is the same as earning $5,000 per year and must be reported as income.

I wonder if in the secret sessions the idea of closing the sale of the Iron Horse before the election was ever discussed?

Incidentally, who gets to choose who receives these cheap rents? It appears that this is going to become a nice little voting bloc beholding to the City Council.

I hope I don't sound too cynical, but the timing of this closing does not pass the smell test.

Stephen M. Dearholt

Steamboat Springs

Comments

Scott Wedel 6 years, 9 months ago

It gets more cynical than that. Cafritz had the property under contract and transferred that to SB. So the cover story of needing to deal with the transaction in secrecy was far more for the City Council's benefit than the seller. There is no obvious reason why Cafritz would require secrecy except to be sure the City Council could close the deal without public objections.

And I'm told by insiders that Sheraton already has a deal to put their seasonal workers there.

Worst part of this deal is the type of employee housing this will provide. It is not what a full time employee would typically want. It is for temporary seasonal workers. So the City decided in secret that for the next 20 years that it has made a huge investment for providing housing for workers whom come here for a season.

And City Attorney Lettunich is full of crap to say the deal is not reversible. The bondholders are in it to make a buck so talk of City failing to pay on the notes is bad for bondholders (and the City). So the bondholders would sell the bonds back to the City as long as they got a reasonable profit. And City could also sublease it and thus neither own or operate it, but just be guarantor of the bonds.

0

bubba 6 years, 9 months ago

know it all, according to the previous articles on this, the city has no ownership interest in this until it is 100% paid for, so in essence, they are renting to own, they didn't purchase it, so this can't be sold for more than 20 years. Whether or not there is a profit worthy of being locked in for that time frame is certainly debatable, so if it just sounds smart because of the investment potential, you might need to look a little closer.

And Scott, I didn't think Cafritz was the seller, they were the buyer that backed out of a deal with the seller, and then the city came in, right?

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.