“Land issue” on Bærøy leaves many questions. If the municipality has good answers? “Land issue” on Børøya is about to leave politics world. The lawyers take over. As is known, costs an attorney fort 1500-2500 kroner per hour. The loser must usually pay the bill.
Read also: The municipality is sued
Also read: May need to abolish closure decision
Took
A brief summary for those who did not read all the VA’s articles last Saturday: in 2011 the council in Hadsel to buy Hurtigrutens House by Bernhard Wedding aS for NOK 137 million. In May 2013 adopted the Presidency to sell approximately 85 acres property to Bernhard Wedding. Wedding would pay 9.8 million for the site. When Wedding sold Hurtigruten Hus gave his Hadsel municipality vendor financing of part of the amount. This vendor loan would be reduced when Bernh. Wedding turns over deed site. The 85 acres of the property was separated last year, but in January this year slammed “the bomb.” The municipality will keep the area itself. The municipality will have 55 acres itself, Wedding will “only” get 27.7 acres. It has been negotiated on the matter. The parties have not reached agreement.
questions
There is reason to ask many questions of the process Hadsel Municipality has initiated. Siv Dagny Aasvik stood for election on “orderly political processes.” As things stand now, it looks just as anything but tidy. Kjell-Børge Freiberg wrote in his On a Saturday column: “The Contracting Party, the municipality sold the recreational area to, are informed by SMS the day before the case is sent out that it submitted the Presidency a proposal to run from the agreement.”
If Kjell Borge Frei Bergs premise is correct, the first question:
1. Why did not contact Hadsel municipality Bernhard Wedding and talked about the matter in advance of the Presidency surprisingly lifted sales decision from 2013 ?
As things stand now, it seems Presidency decisions more like a overrumplingstaktikk than a good and tidy political process.
Lack of contact is also available as an independent argument from Bernh. Wedding in the complaint on the Presidency decision.
– The owner of the plot, company Bernh. Wedding, was not contacted in advance and given the opportunity to clarify the case during the preparatory, writes lawyer Werner Frimannslund on behalf of the Wedding.
Two days before the presidency processed “empty case”, the politicians a note from Frimannslund where he argues that Hadsel can not reverse the «plot decision.”
2. Why did the presidency not better time. Suddenly it is an acute shortage of land that nobody knew about last land-use plan was handled?
And
3. Hadsel Municipality partitioned off last property on 85 acres. Is not that a strong signal that the municipality, as late as October 27 (surveying) and November 2 (registration), had intention to sell to Bernh. Wedding?
An email from former Councilman Jonny Karoliussen Roar Wedding sheds light on the question. In August 2014, he wrote:
– The chief administrative officer requesting a clarification on whether their company wants to complete the transaction, cf. Presidency decision, in which case the municipality will be able to start the surveying of the property and prepare the necessary transaction plans.
4. Does sentencing and registration in 2015 the parties agreed?
No comments:
Post a Comment