Menu
City can't violate Arkansas state law
To the editor:
I read in the Blytheville Courier newspaper recently that the city is terminating the contract with E&S Materials Inc. to construct a 20-acre lake for the amount of dirt removed.
When the City of Blytheville terminates the existing contract (which by all indications is in violation of several state laws), the city is forfeiting it rights to collect the amount of money from the contractor for the dirt that has already been sold by the contractor and the destroying of the total 20-acre plot of land that has zero value as it presently exists (someone needs to come up with approximately $200 thousand for the 20 acres of land destroyed for zero benefit to the citizens of Blytheville).
Arkansas law pertaining to public works is very plain on the correct and legal manner in which to exchange city property for a benefit with outside agencies. These laws were not followed and have created a situation that looks as if it was a good ole boy action so as to gain city property for zero cost. This situation was developed by the former mayor and a contractor which appears to be a good ole boy approach for self-enrichment.
Cities cannot just act as they desire but as required by the state constitution and state laws. The original so-called agreement was to provide the dirt free to the contractor for constructing a 20-acre lake. The contractor sold thousands of cubic yards of dirt when Lowes was constructed, and when that job was completed and/or the dirt from the proposed lake did not meet specifications, the dirt digging and construction of a lake was halted or near halted. That situation, which was started in 2004, has not materialized into a finished lake nine years later.
There is nothing present in the 20-acre plot except many holes, which equates to the 20 acres of land becoming worthless. Therefore, it appears that this was planned and the city just lost 20 acres of land without receiving one cent. That is not the manner in which a city is required to operate, and if there is proof that there was intentions for self-enrichment, there should be action taken to fully investigate this happening and let the chips fall where they may.
Canceling the contract would only provide an out if there were shady actions involved in this so-called deal. The city's action should not be a means of clearing the way for a coverup for the guilty person or persons, but action to fully investigate this happening and take action to recover the cost of the city loosing approximately $200,000 of land while gaining nothing.
The total story has been furnished to (the mayor's) office and the City Council over the years and it is not pretty. The city is opening themselves to legal action if it continues to ignore the laws pertaining to giving away of property and value without receiving value. Now is the time to stop all of this nonsense of violating state laws and operate in the manner that the city should be operated.