Laserfiche WebLink
think CRAL does not apply? And they would say that is our legal advice <br />and conclusion. <br />They would never say the truth, which is: "We concluded we don't have to <br />pay you relocation under CRAL, because the SLC says that residential use <br />has to go." <br />We believe they came to this conclusion because they said they were not <br />closing Docktown of their own volition, they were doing it (clearing <br />residential use) because the SLC told them they had to. This was their <br />plan all along, to invite SLC to the Inner Harbor Task Force (IHTF) (which <br />they did). As you know, the IHTF never approved any draft or final plan, <br />because it disbanded to allow the two developers to go their own way <br />under the General Plan (which was later amended for both projects, by the <br />way). <br />So the invitation of the SLC to the IHTF, and the invitation (whether by <br />solicitation or otherwise) of the Vogel Letter, was all for Ted Hannig to get <br />his $1.5 million, to get the Docktown Plan adopted, to get rid of residential <br />use, to take Docktown out (fully remove it), but to USE THE VOGEL <br />LETTER as the actual, literal basis for all of this, and especially, to NOT <br />PAY RELOCATION. <br />This is because under CRAL, relocation is owed when a project is <br />undertaken for a PUBLIC PURPOSE. Ostensibly, if they could get SLC to <br />say the homes have to go, then no one would be around to object to them <br />fully taking Docktown out. They could claim they were not doing it as a <br />public project and for a public purpose, but in reality they are. They were <br />using the Vogel Letter as the actual basis that this was not a public <br />project, and relocation benefits were not due because SLC said the homes <br />have to go. <br />The City Manager kept saying that residential use had to go to allow <br />"public access". But with residential use gone, why would they not allow <br />public access of commercial and recreational use (which they haven't)? <br />They also scoped a public land swap into the development, for a boat <br />launch and amphitheater type seating. So if they are going to swap public <br />land, and have a park and launch and seating, this is all a public project, <br />and CRAL relocation is owed (see the scope below). <br />Right now, they have not let in ONE new residential or commercial boat. <br />The entire full footprint of Docktown remains, but it is empty and unused. <br />That's b/c they want to remove it, as a public project, not b/c residences <br />are gone. They could had should have filled immediately upon each <br />residence leavings with commercial or rec use. <br />Since 2013, when the City (and the City is both the Port and Council) took <br />over, the DPW started to manage Docktown. The City Manager and Council <br />