City Council member questions land deals
Alderman Steven Mays is calling foul on property purchases made by the city’s Urban Renewal Agency, saying the money could be better used to fix up dilapidated conditions in the neighborhoods — particularly in Ward 4, which he represents. But agency officials are defending their actions, saying they are fulfilling the agency’s mission in what they have purchased and in the plans to develop those areas.
Mays has questioned land purchases the agency made in the downtown area, and at one point during last Monday’s City Council meeting, while the council was considering the reappointment of URA board Chairman Jimmy Dill, he demanded that Dill come forward during the meeting to answer questions about those expenditures.
Mays and Alderman Ivan Whitfield, who has also raised questions about how the agency operates, both opposed Dill’s reappointment, which passed with six votes in favor. Whitfield also opposed the reappointment of Lloyd Franklin Sr. to the URA board. Franklin’s reappointment also passed with seven votes in favor, including Mays’.
“This committee has made decisions I personally don’t feel are in the best interests of the community,” Whitfield said, arguing against Dill’s reappointment.
“I’d like to echo my colleague,” Mays said, at which point he alleged that the board had approved property acquisitions at costs far above the value of some proper
ties, and he called for Dill to answer questions regarding some of those acquisitions.
Mayor Shirley Washington reminded Mays that the issue in front of the council was Dill’s reappointment and that Mays’ issue had not been placed on the agenda.
Contacted by phone on Thursday, Mays said he had obtained records regarding the sale history of the properties, and he said the numbers appeared to show that URA had paid vastly inflated prices for the properties in question.
“The value of the property that they’re buying downtown, it seems like, I don’t know if the numbers are wrong or if they’re right,” Mays said. “But we’re looking at it. They’ve got the property valued at $560,000, and we just want to make sure the numbers are correct.”
Mays said the numbers that concerned him showed vastly disparate property valuations for the same piece of property.
“They paid the going value for it, which was $30,000 or $40,000 for the property,” he said. “But now it seems like the set value of it is over half a million dollars.”
The property in question is actually seven separate land parcels that the Urban Renewal Agency purchased in 2019 in the Old Town Addition, which consists of 3½ acres between West Third and West Fourth avenues to the north and south and between South Pine and South Chestnut streets to the east and west. South Pine Street is situated one block west of South Main Street in the downtown area of Pine Bluff.
According to a resolution approved by the Urban Renewal Agency board in November 2018, the agency was authorized to purchase the properties from Elvin Moon for $560,000, which came to $3.67 per square foot for 152,227 square feet of land, including the old bingo hall that sits at 304 S. Chestnut St.
According to deed transfer records on the seven properties, in seven separate sales from 2005 to 2017, the combined transactions from those sales amounted to $191,000. The seven parcels, all of which are adjoining into a 3½-acre plot of ground, were purchased by the Urban Renewal Agency with the intention of developing downtown housing, which Dill said is currently in the planning stage.
“We paid him a good price for it, we did,” Dill said. “That was the kind of property we needed next to downtown to put together this project that we’re doing, and Mr. Moon was in a position to hold it out for a pretty good price, which we paid.”
Maurice Taggart, director of the Urban Renewal Agency, said the site was exactly what Urban Renewal was searching for when it began planning the proposed housing project.
“There’s not any other land down there,” he said. “Mr. Moon took a gamble on the property when nobody else had faith in Pine Bluff and that was the property we needed. I’m a businessman, and that was business.”
Mays said purchases like the Old Town Addition acreage are what have him concerned. He said the money that is being spent on downtown by Urban Renewal would be better spent fixing up the neighborhoods.
“A lot of their money, that money was supposed to be used for blight inside of the community,” Mays said. “Now, this other stuff, buying property up downtown, it’s a whole different ball game. People are still complaining about burning dilapidated houses in the neighborhoods.”
Mays said he has been complaining about blighted properties in Ward 4 for several years and has seen little done about them.
Taggart said blighted properties in the Urban Renewal Areas are being dealt with, but he said Urban Renewal’s mission encompasses more than just tearing down blighted properties. Three buildings the agency purchased along Main Street are currently undergoing renovation in anticipation of new retail tenants. And, he said, blighted properties that lie outside the Urban Renewal Areas are under the jurisdiction of the city’s Code Enforcement Department.
Dill confirmed that the neighborhoods inside the Urban Renewal Areas are receiving attention from the agency in dealing with blight removal.
“We are working in some neighborhoods,” he said. “He says we’re not working in the neighborhoods; we are because that’s where we’ve been tearing down houses that are in our area.”
Even so, Mays said, he wants to see blighted properties in Ward 4 prioritized and dealt with.
“I don’t have a problem with rebuilding downtown,” he said, “but let’s get the citizens first as much as we can. These people are still complaining about issues in their neighborhoods that should have already been done.”
One sticking point for Urban Renewal is that it cannot legally operate outside the Urban Renewal Areas. Mays said he might pursue legislation to change that.
“I can get with the city attorney about doing legislation on that,” Mays said. “But it should be automatic.”
Mays also said that he has asked Urban Renewal to explain the expenditures it is making downtown but that the agency has not been responsive to his inquiries. Taggart said that is not the case.
“If he wants something from us, all he has to do is ask for it,” Taggart said. “We’re not hiding anything. Everything we do is posted online for everyone to see.”
Dill said he believes much of the pushback Urban Renewal has gotten has been partly out of opposition by Whitfield and Mays to the initiatives being pursued by Go Forward Pine Bluff.
“It’s frustrating because the two who are making the main gripes are the two who ran against the mayor,” he said. “If you look up the percentage that each one got, the mayor had like 73% and that left the two of them to split up the other 27%. The citizens of Pine Bluff spoke up very loudly in that election, and they said they loved what Mayor Washington is doing and they want her to continue.”