Resident objects to sale of 48 Barton Street; council holds item for follow-up

Robert Smith Rapley, speaking as a representative of a family with prior ownership claims, opposed the city’s planned transfer of the vacant parcel at 48 Barton Street and asked the Neighborhood Jobs & Housing Committee to delay any sale.

Rapley, who identified himself as representing the parcel, told the committee the property belonged to his father and said the family’s situation had been disrupted after a fire and a series of personal setbacks. “I respectfully submit the statement and formal opposition to the proposed sale of my family's property listed as unbuildable and slated for transfer for the nominal sum of $1 to the adjacent land owners,” Rapley said.

The committee’s corporation counsel told the panel the city currently holds title after a tax foreclosure action. “The short answer is the city owns it,” the corporation counsel said, describing the tax foreclosure process and saying the city received a judgment of foreclosure in November 2024, held a sale with no bidders, and recorded a deed in the city’s favor on March 31. Counsel said former owners who want the property back must be prepared to pay outstanding taxes, demolition costs and any other liens that may exist.

Why it matters: Rapley and his relatives say the parcel has family and community significance and asked the city to consider alternatives to conveyance for $1. Corporation counsel and committee members indicated they will facilitate a follow-up conversation between the family and the city to determine whether the former owners can reclaim the parcel or otherwise resolve outstanding liens.

Committee discussion and next steps focused on clarifying ownership and the mechanics for any repurchase. Rapley described the lot’s history, saying his father purchased it for $10,000 (in “February,” as Rapley reported), the house burned in 2022 and the lot has been vacant since. He said a $4,000 lien for back taxes was identified when he inquired at the county clerk’s office and that he had not been able to address the balance at that time. Rapley suggested the lot could become a small community garden honoring his father instead of being split and sold for a nominal fee to adjacent owners.

Corporation counsel explained that a former owner’s reacquisition is not the same as a third‑party sale for $1; to restore title to a former owner the city would “bring into existence the tax lien and any other liens that encumber the property.” Counsel added that the exact amount a former owner would need to pay depends on which liens and mortgage interests remain on the record and that demolition costs could be added to outstanding taxes if not paid immediately.

The committee chair said the item would be held to allow corporation counsel and the disputing parties to meet and try to resolve outstanding questions before the full council considers the item. The chair also addressed Rapley’s objection to the nominal sale price, urging him not to take the $1 figure as a comment on his family’s value: “Please don't feel a certain kind of way about it being sold for a dollar. It is not a comment on the value of your family or your memories or your father's ownership of the property. This is just our policy for disposing of these small lots to get them basically in the hands of people who are gonna care for them.”

No formal vote on the sale took place; the committee held the item for follow-up and staff were directed to arrange discussions between corporation counsel and the family. The committee asked for clarification of liens and the amount required to clear back taxes and demolition fees before a final council decision.

Rapley, Corporation Counsel and a consultant who accompanied Rapley will be contacted by city staff for the follow-up discussed at the meeting. If the family pursues reacquisition, corporation counsel said it will require addressing all outstanding encumbrances as part of any transfer back to a former owner.