Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Sale Oig topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Caller alleges city favored developer in sale of neighbor's lot and criticizes OIG report
Summary
A public commenter accused city officials of removing a neighbor's property from a tax auction, transferring it to Midtown Inc for under $3,000 despite a higher local offer, and said an Office of Inspector General report was delayed and inadequate; city staff said they are "working with" the affected resident.
A caller identified by staff as Miss Warwick accused city officials during the public comment period of improperly removing a parcel (498 Peterborough) from the tax auction and transferring it to a developer for a fraction of its alleged market interest. "The city is being dishonest," she said, alleging that Midtown Inc received the lot "for less than $3,000 even though Cindy offered 25,000." She added that the parcel was later flipped for a much higher amount.
Miss Warwick said she filed an inspector general complaint and criticized the city's Office of Inspector General, saying the report "sat on it through 2 inspectors for about 2 and a half years" and calling the final report poor. She said the city then transferred ownership to Midtown Inc and that documents reviewed by callers show subsequent resale and higher asking prices.
Responding to the caller, the meeting clerk said, "We are working with, Cindy Dara on this issue." The record does not include further details from staff or council about any specific legal or administrative remedies, the terms of the transfers, or confirmations of the sale prices the caller cited.
Why it matters: Claims that a city removed a property from tax auction and transferred it to a private entity at a low price raise questions about transparency in municipal land sales and whether proper procedures were followed. The caller also said an inspector general review was delayed and of poor quality, which if accurate could indicate weaknesses in internal oversight.
What is not in the record: The caller referenced documents and specific dollar amounts but did not produce them on the record in the public comment segment, and no city official provided confirmation or a timeline for further investigation during the call. The Office of Inspector General report referenced was not read into the record and no statutory citations were provided.
Next steps: The clerk stated staff are "working with" the resident, but the public record in this session contains no further action, resolution, or formal motion.
