Kraner Seeks An Out On His Granville School Agreement
Developer William Kraner signed a contract with the Granville school board on January 23 promising to record deed restrictions placing limits on the development of part of his 600+ acres in the school district. In a July 1 letter to school board member Amy Deeds, he offered to rescind the contract.
The deed restrictions were supposed to be in place March 23. As of July 4th, Kraner had not done what the contract requires. Today, the Granville Press starts a Kraner Clock that will record the number of days it takes for the developer to comply with the contract he signed. Current count: 103 days.
Kraner appears to be having buyer's remorse for signing the deal. On July 1, he wrote School Board member Amy Deeds a letter offering to rescind the contract. Read the letter here. Deeds voted against the deal in January, saying the board had not given the public an opportunity to comment. The board approved the agreement 4-1.
The agreement limited Kraner to building no more than 425 units on about 400 acres of his property. The units included 275 homes valued at $450,000 or more and 150 condos with no price specified. The rest of his property had no development restrictions.
Kraner was supposed to attach these restrictions to the property deeds and other relevant documents. The contract states:
"The Developer shall include all of the restrictions set forth above in any applications, drawings, or any other documents associated and/or necessary for the approval of the development of the Property by any governmental body. In addition, the Developer shall incorporate the restrictions contained in this Agreement in a recorded deed for all of the property within sixty (60) days after the execution of this Agreement, acceptable in form and content to the District, as well as in the deed restrictions acceptable to the District for each individual lot or parcel as they are developed."
The Granville school board has taken no action to enforce the contract's requirement of deed restrictions.
In his July 1 letter to Deeds, Kraner wrote, "I never coerced the school district into any action and have always attempted to accomodate the interests and needs of the school district as much as possible." Kraner sent a copy of the letter to the other four school board members and Superintendent Scot Prebles.
"If you (Deeds) truly believe that the Development Agreement is not in the best interest of GVESD and its students, and that a majority of the Board of Education agrees, then I am willing to rescind the Development Agreement. If this is your wish, please advise no later than July 15, 2008, as I am continuing to incur cost and expense in reliance on this agreement."
Kraner's offer to rescind the deal comes after Rep. Jay Hottinger won the passage in June of legislation prohibiting transfer of Kraner's land without the developer's approval. Previously, school districts could transfer land when it was in the best interest of the school systems. Now, school districts must secure approval of 75% of property owners on property 5 acres or more.
Hottinger defended the special interest legislation as being a property rights measure that had no longer helped Kraner because deals had been reached between Kraner and the school district. "This amendment does not impact or affect that situation at all," Hottinger told The Advocate.
By rescinding the deal with Granville, Kraner could use the Hottinger law to prohibit the Granville school district from having a say in the development of his property.
Some questions:
What are the options (of Granville Schools) if Kraner doesn't/won't sign the contract he worked so hard to get passed?
Just what is it that Cauchon and Deeds should be blamed for if he doesn't? What did or COULD they do to make him back off on the deal? The deal is done. I would think the crappy real estate market has everything to do with it.
I don't understand the thinking of nospin on this.
If anything it shows that Cauchon and Deeds have class by not coming out and saying "I told you so."
Some answers
My thinking on the article was that it really didn't tell 'the rest of the story'. Maybe I read it wrong, but after seeing the letter that Kraner sent to the school board, it looked like he wanted Deeds to stop bad mouthing the deal that both parties entered in to... don't get me wrong, she has her right to speak out against what the school board supported, but it doesn't help the cause and it apparently upset Kraner enough to write the letter asking her to refrain from her continued beat down of the agreement. He didn't have to sign anything, and the school board tried to 'settle' on something "we" could all live with. Whether it was the best deal is irrelevant. It was the only deal he was going to sign.
You say that the actions of Cauchon and Deeds show class for not coming out with the "I told you so" attitude, but that's exactly what each has been doing - she with the 'bad deal' commentary; and he with the 'complete vindication / I was right from the outset' routine (when Kraner said the exact same thing).
Mostly a handful of people (Kraner included) who like to hear themselves talk. I find it funny. That's all.
Cauchon was vindicated
I believe Cauchon was referring to the results of the lawsuit in his remark regarding vindication.
Yes, Cauchon was vindicated and Kraner doesn't look too good
That's the way I read it too.
Did Kraner outfox himself?
"By rescinding the deal with Granville, Kraner could use the Hottinger law to prohibit the Granville school district from having a say in the development of his property." - Wow. I believe the above is correct, but we should have professional legal guidance prior to making any changes to the current agreement.
I was strongly against the agreement and will be thrilled if it turns out that the agreement was actually good for our community. In this case, humble pie tastes great.
Perspective
When one reads the Granville Press, it sounds like Amy Deeds and Dennis Cauchon are without blame and treated as heroes against the 'evil developer,' Bill Kraner.
When reading The Advocate (where at least Kraner took the chance to express his side of the story), it appears as if all parties have some 'skin' in the blame game.
I read the letter Kraner sent as a way to ask Amy Deeds to 'put up or shut up'. She's going around saying what a bad deal the contract the school board and Kraner entered into is, so Kraner is offering to tear up the contract. She of course is decidely quiet. Kraner got a good deal, the schools got the best deal they could have hoped for, and Ms. Deeds needs to get on board with the situation or make a motion to recind the offer. The downside could be devastating, and we all know it. Meanwhile, I'd like the GP to start a new clock measuring the days until Deeds signs off on recinding the deal that she is so vocally opposed to.... I'll start my own clock to gauge when Hell freezes over. ;o)
The Cauchon / Kraner legal maneuverings are comical. Again, the GP tells only one side of the story. No problem. But in reading The Advocate (with whom Cauchon has a vested employee-employer relationship) it sounds as if Cauchon bailed on his lawsuit before Kraner dropped his. Obviously, the respective attorneys involved allowed cooler heads to prevail in this "no one's gonna win" scenario. But that was not discussed on this site.
Point being, the GP should stop using words like "factual" in describing their journalistic style. Simply be honest, and tell your readers that you are skewed in a particular direction a la MoveOn.org, Democratic Underground and The Huffington Post. They do quite well for being skewed way to the left, without regard to 'factual'.
News sources
Dennis does not have an employee-employer relationship with The Advocate; far from it. To write he works for The Advocate is highly misleading.
With respect to the lawsuit... What Kraner has stated is that he gave a deposition. There is no indication that Cauchon ever gave a deposition. Apparently shortly after Kraner's deposition the parties agree to drop the claims against each other. Most fair-minded people would find such a fact pattern interesting and telling.
The Advocate reported that Kraner stated the following: “They deposed me and 15 minutes later his attorney called my attorney and wanted to settle.” and “We dismissed it after he dismissed his. I was able to keep my land in the Granville school district. I think it was a big win.” (see http://www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008307040004)
Let's examine these statements a bit. Perhaps they will bear on credibility. Kraner says that Cauchon dismissed his suit first. But we know from the court filings that the claims were dismissed at the same exact time. Kraner also claims a big win as "I was able to keep my land in the Granville school district." If that is what was decided in this case, that would indeed be a big win. But as anyone can see by looking at the filings in the case, the case never dealt with whether or not his land would be in the Granville school district; that was not at stake in this suit. So, Kraner falsely states that Cauchon dismissed his suit first and falsely claims he won the right to keep his land in the Granville school district.
To summarize: the suit is dropped with prejudice shortly after Kraner finishes a deposition and Kraner is lying about how the suit was dropped and what was at stake in the lawsuit.
Given these facts, unless you have additional primary source information about what happened, I would recommend you not assert that The Granville Press is anything but factual.
However, what is clear is that The Advocate typically is not an investigative paper. In this case, The Advocate published statements without explanation that a simple check of the court records would indicate are false.
(Note that this is not a criticism of The Advocate reporter involved. The sad reality at most traditional local papers is that there is little or no funding for reporters to take the kind of time required to do real investigative reporting. The financial pressures on traditional local papers are just too strong with the declines in readership as people increasingly turn to the less attractive to advertisers, internet-based, sources for their news.)
kraner fact
Nospin refers to this statement made by Kraner in The Advocate: "We dismissed it after he dismissed his."
The court record shows this is false. The notice of dismissal was posted in the original story here http://granvillepress.com/files/u1/Kraner-Cauchon_dismissal_notice.pdf
What is more telling: Kraner spewing the bull or The Advocate repeating it unquestioned when the actual document was available for all to see?
Perhaps most telling is nospin regurgitating the unfiltered malarky, thereby keeping his credibility level intact.
?
You aren't any better informed than the rest of us if The Sentinel and Advocate are your sources for info.
There's a way to see what really happened:
Release the transcripts of the Kraner/Cauchon depos. Has anyone asked Dennis or Bill to do this?That way we all know,right? I don't think Cauchon cares, does Kraner? Did both parties give a deposition? I've only heard about Kraner giving one.(By his own admission.)
Kraner wants to break a promise? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you
This should not come as a surprise.
Consider the following comment by Kraner quoted in the September 2, 2004, Granville Sentinel:
"People are concerned about that [developing his farm], I know, because I have a lot of land in Granville and Newark Townships, but it's all in Granville School District," he said. "But as long as I'm living, I promised my girls I wouldn’t develop the farm. I like land and I like to preserve it and enjoy it."
If he is willing to break promises made to his girls, why would we think he would not break promises he made to the Granville School District?
Why did Kraner offer to rescind his contract with GEVS?
Could Kraner's change in heart be related to the housing market being in the tank and the cost of fuel?
My assessment is that the market for new construction of $450,000+ homes in Granville is very poor.
$4/gallon fuel also makes driving from his proposed development to jobs more costly.
I haven't checked for new building permits for his development. What is the easiest way to get this info? I get the info if someone gives me a place to begin tracking this down.