2/14/07 County faces suit over failed land purchase

(As published by Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

An attorney for two of the landowners involved in the county’s aborted land acquisition on south Main Street
has issued an ultimatum: either pay the landowners for their property by Friday, or expect a lawsuit.

Attorney Russell Ruthig sent a letter to County Attorney Ric Van Donsel Monday demanding that the county either move forward on closing on the properties — despite a vote against the purchases in January — or Ruthig, and potentially attorneys representing other property owners involved, would file suit.
Ruthig represents the Moose Lodge, which owns the property at 157 Main St. that is central to the deal, and James and Yvonne Cole, who own property at 11 Williams St., one of four homes also included in the deal.
The county initially voted in December to purchase nine parcels owned by six different property owners for $894,000 as the site of a future public health facility along south Main Street.
After residents of the surrounding neighborhoods spoke out, the Legislature backed off from its initial support, and ultimately reversed the initial decision at its Jan. 25 meeting.
Ruthig, however, says that the county is bound by contract by its initial decision.
“My opinion is that they can’t undo what they did — I don’t think what they did on the 25th of January let them off the hook,” Ruthig said.
The proposed lawsuit would essentially ask the court to compel the county to purchase the properties for the original agreed-upon purchase prices of $250,000 for the Moose Lodge, and $90,000 for the Cole’s property, Ruthig said.
Attorneys for two of the other property owners — Cal Fitts, who represents the owners of Robbins Tobacco Co., and Larry Knickerbocker, who represents Mark and Linda Abbatiello, of 9 Williams St. — are both mentioned in Ruthig’s letter as agreeing with his position. The county had originally agreed to pay $300,000 for the Robbins Tobacco property, and $85,000 for the Abbatiello’s property.
Fitts said this morning he “wholeheartedly” supported Ruthig’s letter and would join him in filing suit.
Knickerbocker was unavailable for comment.
Ruthig’s letter to Van Donsel cites an attorney general’s opinion from 1962 that states that a county legislature can reconsider any decision, but only if no contract has been entered into. He said the county entered into a contract to buy the land with its December vote.
The letter also draws a distinction between a “motion to reconsider” — which the Legislature utilized and passed with a simple majority vote — and a “motion to rescind,” which requires a two-thirds majority, and which, Ruthig said was the more appropriate measure.
Because the motion failed to have the two-thirds vote required for rescinding the vote, it is invalid, Ruthig said.
Furthermore, Ruthig’s letter points to the Legislature’s Rule of Order which say that a motion to rescind cannot be used when “something has been done which cannot be undone,” which, in Ruthig’s opinion, refers to the contract itself.
Van Donsel declined to comment on the potential lawsuit this morning.