Art Dyer's Attorney Talks About Parkland Mall Case

As the case surrounding Parkland Mall continues through the litigation process, Patch was able to talk with developer Art Dyer's attorney.

In a recent exclusive interview, Attorney Mark Leitner described the issues surrounding the property as being a “pretty complicated and tortured history going back a long, long, long way.”

Based on the interview with Leitner, the bulk of Dyer’s case appears to rest mainly on two main elements: The fact that a number of former city officials, both elected and appointed, have come forward with affidavits alleging that his efforts were systematically and deliberately obstructed by the city over an ongoing period of time; and two resolutions passed by the Common Council that are said to have never been rescinded and are therefore still floating in a limbo of sorts.

The resolutions, #293-96 and #122-98, passed by the Council in 1996 and 1998, respectively, suggest, upon a reading of them, that the city condemned, or intended to condemn, the property.

With the resolutions never having been rescinded, Leitner said a “cloud” has been placed on the title of the property. “It’s tantamount to taking the property without saying so,” he stated.

Both resolutions were passed during the incumbency of then-mayor David De Angelis, who is named as a defendant in Dyer’s suit, and, according to Leitner, Resolution #293-96, a Resolution of Necessity that passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0, pre-dates Dyer’s ownership of the property.

Asked about where he sees the case going, Leitner didn’t think a trial will be necessary. “But if we do go to trial, it will be a long, drawn-out process for the city to try to explain itself, given that so many former city officials have come clean.”

“They were brave enough to come forward,” Leitner said, referring to the former city officials who have signed affidavits.

Asked what his goal is, or rather, what he’d like to see come out of this suit, Leitner said that he would like to have the court declare that the property was condemned and proceed to the normal avenue of discussing a fair price for it.

As to why there are no records from city Plan Commission proceedings on any of Dyer’s ideas and proposals, Leitner explained that the process never got to that level, because of the many “municipal roadblocks thrown in the way of Mr. Dyer’s efforts.”

The last major, formal, written proposal of Dyer’s, according to Leitner’s recollection, was for a development Dyer called Beacon Square, in 2003-04. Also according to Leitner’s recollection, none of Dyer’s proposals for the property were developed elsewhere. “He has all his efforts and hopes tied up with this project,” Leitner stated, adding, “It was meant to be Art’s and the city’s crown jewel.”

The lawsuit, which started in state court, was brought into federal court by the city, according to Leitner. The federal court stated it did not have jurisdiction over the case and sent it back to state court, he said.

Asked for response, the city’s attorney, Remsey Bitar, declined to discuss the Parkland Mall matter, citing the fact that there is ongoing litigation.