Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Tenant Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and advocates say motel tenants were hastily displaced during sale; board and staff say eviction actions occurred before CRA ownership
Summary
During public comment at its Sept. 10 meeting, several speakers said tenants were hastily displaced during the July sale of the Country Haven Motel and that a letter drafted by an attorney falsely appeared to represent the city.
Several residents and an advocate told the Margate CRA on Sept. 10 that long-term tenants were displaced during the sale of the Country Haven Motel and that the process left people without adequate notice or promised compensation.
Margie Burzana, who identified herself as working with homeless clients, told the board tenants found a letter placed on their doors during the July sale that was drafted by attorney Josh Bridal and that the letter “claimed to be on behalf of the city.” She said tenants were given about four days to move over a holiday weekend, many had been long-time Margate residents and that promised compensation (“cash in envelopes”) was not provided. Burzana said several tenants were employed locally and that donated trucks were used to salvage some belongings.
Other public speakers echoed that account and asked the city and CRA to ensure displaced residents are compensated. Tracy Van Winkle and others described conversations with the attorney in which she said payments would be made; speakers said those payments did not happen.
CRA staff and the agency attorney responded in public comment and during the meeting. Staff said the sale closed legally and that the seller’s obligation was to deliver the property vacant and broom-swept at closing; the CRA and the city did not take possession until after tenants were gone. Staff told the board that the actions that led to tenant displacement occurred before the CRA owned the property and were between the motel owner, that owner’s attorney and the affected tenants.
Board members and members of the public expressed concern about the appearance of a letter that suggested city involvement and asked staff to follow up. Speakers said potential legal liability could include claims for unlawful eviction, misrepresentation and violations of Florida tenant protections; the CRA’s attorney and city manager said the agency was not the party that carried out the tenant removals because closing occurred after the tenants left.
No formal board action was taken at the meeting on this matter; public comment concluded before the board moved to agenda business.
