Concern over a proposed property purchase by the City of Havre de Grace

The City of HDG is proposing on the May ballot to purchase a grouping of four parcels (Lts 441, 451,421,431) next to the lighthouse. The property has a 3,546 sq ft house existing on the property/s. The zillow zestimate of current property value is $965K. The Harford County assessment is $1,029,133. The city is proposing to purchase the property at a value of $1,299,000.  I am having a problem in understanding the value proposed to be paid as it relates to the benefits to be received by the citizens of HDG, and as it applies to the current
assessment.  Yes, it extends the city ownership of waterfront by about 250’ between the lighthouse and Heron Harbor.  However, the direct usefulness
of the property to the citizens is questionable since the city posts signs everywhere to not swim, or fish at varied locations, and the water depth is to
shallow for boating purposes.  It is simply a pretty view.  Look up the property on Zillow and the State Real Property Search for yourself.

Would the property be a nice to have extension to the existing lighthouse, park and museums? Yes, but is it necessary? The citizens of HDG have an extensive waterfront available to them at the north end of the city by the Lockhouse which could stand some money being spent on it to make it a bit more attractive for public use. The north end of town is historic as well, it has the Lockhouse museum and a huge parking lot. It has a pier which was never repaired after Isabel.  It could definitely benefit from some monetary attention.

The Concord Street purchase was brought up in a council meeting when the city attorney announced he had reviewed the offering and found it to be satisfactory at $1,299 million. This was about four council meetings ago, at the end, and without any fanfare or much discussion. There was no mention of an appraisal or discussion of the purchase price gauged against the ‘public value’ received. A question was presented about the city attorney having an interest in both sides of the transaction. That matter in and of itself seems to be a conflict in my mind. Is there real transparency in this planned purchase by the city, and is this really an arm’s length transaction? 

My biggest concern is that the city has ‘allegedly’ just asked the state for forgiveness on a water and sewer debt, and are planning to refinance a bond that is almost ready to be paid off in order to support the purchase of this property . During the past election, and subsequent budget discussions, the city staff and council have made a big deal about the water and sewer deficit, and repairs that are needed to the pumping facility. Those discussions ultimately resulted in an increase to all our water bills.  The city’s financial ability to purchase a nice to have, parcel of property appears to be inconsistent with the drama created over the current and future debt in the water and sewer department.  It seems to me that a Chicken Little syndrome is created with the county and state when we ask for debt forgiveness on the one hand, and then purchase a million dollar property on the other? 

Who from the city will speak to this issue? I have my own personal beliefs that the city budget is stretched to the max and massaged to look good for the public. But what do I know?  I believe that the city’s budget is presently way to dependant on ‘projected’ income from real estate development. Developers are
running from the city, and not to the city because of the fees associated with
city development.  The economy is not on firm enough ground to start counting eggs before they are hatched.  Is it not a better plan to be sure our present obligations are covered before taking on new ones?

I am not a believer in taking such a high dollar property off the tax rolls. That is less income for the city. The city derives much of its income from the taxes paid on private ownership of real estate.  With the loss of tax income there will be an associated increase in necessary budgeted monies to ‘maintain’ the property. The more properties taken off the tax rolls and registered  as city owned or non-profit ownership; the remaining privately owned properties will eventually carry more of a tax burden. When taxes go up, rents will go up as well.

The city previously purchased a property on Giles and Chesapeake that remains vacant and without improvement.  I never understood why that was a necessary purchase. Will this Concord Street purchase remain as a vacant and deteriorating property to be left unkempt in the same manner?

The city staff and council have not been transparent when it comes to disclosing the plan for the Concord Street property. Will the house be moved? At what additional cost to the taxpayers?  Has this plan been thought through at all?

The city staff and council have an obligation to disclose what benefit this purchase might have for the taxpaying citizens of HDG rather than asking us to vote on a ‘just because we say so’  basis. If this truly comes before the public for a referendum vote on the May ballot, educate yourself to understand what you are voting for and its potential effect on you, the taxpayer. When the city over obligates its finances, it will be property owners who pay the price.

 I offer this as a word of caution.  Be in the know, ask for the facts. The city money is YOUR money.