Exposing Corruption, Injustices and the Truth.
| O'Fallon Watchdog |
| Watchdog Headlines ! |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| O'Fallon Watchdog |
Exposing Corruption, Injustices and the Truth.
FRAUD 101
By The O'Fallon Watchdog
In Part 1 of a series on Koch Road we reported on the St. Charles County Councils' decision to vacate a portion of Old Koch
Road. As we explained, the councils' decision (it should be noted Joe Brazil was the lone dissenting vote) to vacate Old Koch
was wrong under the law but, of course, to be expected since the vacation benefited a developer at the tax payers expense.
Well once again the Watchdog got it right as a Judge in St. Charles County recently ruled that the councils decision to
vacate Old Koch was incorrect.
However, despite warnings from staff, Bob Lowery allowed the developer to proceed as if Old Koch was vacated. Building
permits were issued by the city and houses were built on our road! In fact, the employees who warned Lowery of the legal
problems with allowing the builder to proceed were suspended and subsequently fired by Lowery. Within days of their
suspension Old Koch was torn out despite the fact the road belonged to the public. Not only was this improper but it is a
crime in the State of Missouri to obstruct, much less destroy, a public road. Both O'Fallon and the County have been willing
participants in this illegal activity. So as we sit here today one road, New Koch, has still not been accepted by O'Fallon while
our road, Old Koch, has been illegally destroyed. The story doesn't end here.
In Part 2 of our series we discussed the City's attempt to use our money to pay the developer for a road, New Koch, which
was already completed. Again, this is in violation of the law but the law is secondary when a developer comes looking for a
handout. On April 12, 2007 the O'Fallon City Council will vote on whether to pay the developer $800,000.00. However, rather
than state that we are paying the developer $800,000.00 for a road which is already built (which is not allowed under the
law) the City is trying pull a fast one on the residents by claiming the payment is for the settlement of a disputed claim. This is
an obvious attempt by the city to get around the legal problems of paying for the road but plain and simple this is a fraud!
The ordinance and settlement agreement to pay the $800,000.00 discuss a dispute between the City and the developer,
Hyland Green. (The documents are available on the City's web site under "agenda packet.") The alleged dispute is as
follows: (and we are not making this up)
1. Hyland Green alleges it entered into discussions in 2005 in which it requested the City to pay $800,000.00 for the
construction costs of New Koch. (Hyland Green agreed to pay for this cost itself as part of the approval process for the
development.)
2. Hyland Green claims that 7 of the 8 members who sat on the board at that time "expressed their willingness for O'Fallon to
enter into an agreement with Hyland Green for the payment of $800,000.00." Note that it doesn't say 7 members voted to
pay the money or that a contract was signed but that they "expressed a willingness to pay."
3. Therefore, Hyland Green has a potential legal claim against the City.
4. While the city disputes this claim the City will pay $800,000.00 to settle the dispute.
Again, THIS IS A FRAUD! The City is well aware it cannot pay the $800,000.00 for a road that is not constructed so instead
it is framed as a "settlement of a dispute." Not much of a dispute at that since the City is willing to pay every dime in dispute.
The reason the City cannot pay the $800,000.00 is because there never was an agreement in writing, prior to the road being
constructed, to pay the money. And, of course, before a contract could have been entered it would have to have been
approved by the board, which never happened.
The pure lunacy of this ordinance is like something out of a Saturday Night skit.
Builder: "Yes, I'm calling to collect my ten billion dollars I was promised if I contribute to the campaigns...I mean planted that
bush to hide my nuclear reactor. I planted the bush so where's my money."
City Hall: "Mr. Builder we have no record of the promise to pay you this money."
Builder: "Well that's because it wasn't anything formal like that but I talked to 7 of the members of the board who told me they
would be willing for the taxpayers to pay me the 10 billion dollars."
City Hall: "Sir we dispute your claim besides the law would not allow us to pay you that money."
Builder: "Well I say you owe the money you say you don't...I guess we have a dispute. So since you aren't going to pay me
for planting the bush I suggest we avoid running up legal costs and you pay me to settle the dispute....oh, lets say 10 billion
even and we call it a day."
City Hall: Sounds fair Mr. Builder...we'll draw up the agreement. Now you do plan to contribute more money to campaigns...I
mean plant more bushes in the City."
What a joke!
By The O'Fallon Watchdog
In Part 1 of a series on Koch Road we reported on the St. Charles County Councils' decision to vacate a portion of Old Koch
Road. As we explained, the councils' decision (it should be noted Joe Brazil was the lone dissenting vote) to vacate Old Koch
was wrong under the law but, of course, to be expected since the vacation benefited a developer at the tax payers expense.
Well once again the Watchdog got it right as a Judge in St. Charles County recently ruled that the councils decision to
vacate Old Koch was incorrect.
However, despite warnings from staff, Bob Lowery allowed the developer to proceed as if Old Koch was vacated. Building
permits were issued by the city and houses were built on our road! In fact, the employees who warned Lowery of the legal
problems with allowing the builder to proceed were suspended and subsequently fired by Lowery. Within days of their
suspension Old Koch was torn out despite the fact the road belonged to the public. Not only was this improper but it is a
crime in the State of Missouri to obstruct, much less destroy, a public road. Both O'Fallon and the County have been willing
participants in this illegal activity. So as we sit here today one road, New Koch, has still not been accepted by O'Fallon while
our road, Old Koch, has been illegally destroyed. The story doesn't end here.
In Part 2 of our series we discussed the City's attempt to use our money to pay the developer for a road, New Koch, which
was already completed. Again, this is in violation of the law but the law is secondary when a developer comes looking for a
handout. On April 12, 2007 the O'Fallon City Council will vote on whether to pay the developer $800,000.00. However, rather
than state that we are paying the developer $800,000.00 for a road which is already built (which is not allowed under the
law) the City is trying pull a fast one on the residents by claiming the payment is for the settlement of a disputed claim. This is
an obvious attempt by the city to get around the legal problems of paying for the road but plain and simple this is a fraud!
The ordinance and settlement agreement to pay the $800,000.00 discuss a dispute between the City and the developer,
Hyland Green. (The documents are available on the City's web site under "agenda packet.") The alleged dispute is as
follows: (and we are not making this up)
1. Hyland Green alleges it entered into discussions in 2005 in which it requested the City to pay $800,000.00 for the
construction costs of New Koch. (Hyland Green agreed to pay for this cost itself as part of the approval process for the
development.)
2. Hyland Green claims that 7 of the 8 members who sat on the board at that time "expressed their willingness for O'Fallon to
enter into an agreement with Hyland Green for the payment of $800,000.00." Note that it doesn't say 7 members voted to
pay the money or that a contract was signed but that they "expressed a willingness to pay."
3. Therefore, Hyland Green has a potential legal claim against the City.
4. While the city disputes this claim the City will pay $800,000.00 to settle the dispute.
Again, THIS IS A FRAUD! The City is well aware it cannot pay the $800,000.00 for a road that is not constructed so instead
it is framed as a "settlement of a dispute." Not much of a dispute at that since the City is willing to pay every dime in dispute.
The reason the City cannot pay the $800,000.00 is because there never was an agreement in writing, prior to the road being
constructed, to pay the money. And, of course, before a contract could have been entered it would have to have been
approved by the board, which never happened.
The pure lunacy of this ordinance is like something out of a Saturday Night skit.
Builder: "Yes, I'm calling to collect my ten billion dollars I was promised if I contribute to the campaigns...I mean planted that
bush to hide my nuclear reactor. I planted the bush so where's my money."
City Hall: "Mr. Builder we have no record of the promise to pay you this money."
Builder: "Well that's because it wasn't anything formal like that but I talked to 7 of the members of the board who told me they
would be willing for the taxpayers to pay me the 10 billion dollars."
City Hall: "Sir we dispute your claim besides the law would not allow us to pay you that money."
Builder: "Well I say you owe the money you say you don't...I guess we have a dispute. So since you aren't going to pay me
for planting the bush I suggest we avoid running up legal costs and you pay me to settle the dispute....oh, lets say 10 billion
even and we call it a day."
City Hall: Sounds fair Mr. Builder...we'll draw up the agreement. Now you do plan to contribute more money to campaigns...I
mean plant more bushes in the City."
What a joke!