The Virginian-Pilot
©
NORFOLK
Six months ago, the city paid $1 million to settle claims by Virginia Beach developer Ed Clark that he owned large swaths of waterfront property in East Ocean View.
Officials said they hoped the payment would make Clark go away.
It didn't.
In August, Clark filed another lawsuit in Norfolk Circuit Court claiming ownership of a "paper street" in East Ocean View.
The street, which the city calls Bayside Avenue, is an undeveloped slice of land located between hundreds of beachfront homes in Ocean View and the beach itself. The city has long said that it owns Bayside Avenue, which runs from just west of 1st Bay Street approximately to 20th Bay Street.
The question of ownership is critical, city officials have said, because if Clark is ruled the owner, he could bar hundreds of East Ocean View residents from access to the beach. City Attorney Bernard A. Pishko said the city's "primary interest is ensuring that adjoining property owners be able to walk to the beach."
Pishko sent a letter to Ocean View residents in late September, warning that "Mr. Clark appears to be trying to pressure you into purchasing" some of his land.
Clark's attorney, Norfolk attorney John Wilson, denied that contention. Wilson wrote a letter to the same landowners last week, saying Clark is not trying to deny anyone beach access.
"Most of us have grown accustomed to 'inaccuracies' by public officials, but this unsubstantiated and misleading supposition is hard to justify," he wrote about Pishko's letter. "Clark Investments has never contested the right of adjoining owners to access the beach, nor is it contesting that right in its lawsuit."
However, if Clark wins, residents would be forced to buy property from Clark if they want to build ramps over sand dunes to access the beach, Councilman Tommy Smigiel said.
Currently, residents need only to get an easement and approval from the city to build ramps, said Smigiel, who added that he is concerned that many residents may not be able to afford to buy land from Clark.
"Ed Clark has never paid taxes on that land," said Smigiel of Clark, a volunteer in Smigiel's 2010 campaign. "The city has spent millions for sand replenishment and to maintain the dunes.
"I'm not happy with the lawsuit," Smigiel said.
Councilmen Councilman Barclay C. Winn and Smigiel are hosting a public meeting on the issue at 6 p.m. Wednesday at the East Ocean View Recreation Center.
In the lawsuit, Clark is seeking a "declaratory judgment" from the court, which would state that Bayside Avenue is owned by Clark, Wilson said.
"The relief that is requested in the lawsuit is a declaration of whether the public has the right to use Bayside Avenue as a public street," Wilson said.
Clark and Wilson contend that Princess Anne County never dedicated Bayside Avenue as a public street, and therefore the city of Norfolk can't do so.
Clark said that he bought deeds to large parts of Ocean View eight years ago at an estate sale.
The deeds, he said, were passed down from the original developers of Ocean View, which was a part of Princess Anne County until annexed by the city in 1959.
Earlier this year, the city settled a number of lawsuits in which Clark claimed ownership of property along Pretty Lake and the Chesapeake Bay.
Harry Minium, (757) 446-2371, harry.minium@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
TIME FOR ................
An "OCCUPY ED CLARK PROPERTY" movement. :). Lets organize a flash mob of all the derelics that live in ocean view via social media. hopefully hey will have access :).
What about that scam they call Title Insurance
I'd let Mr Clark sue each and every home owner and let him roll up the legal costs. Then let the property owner's Title Insurance Cos. handle the beach access issues. Or were the people dumb enough to buy their property without having beach access? I agree with many posters, giving Mr Clark $1 million before just emboldens him to try it again and again and again, like Harvey Lindsay did.
OK, he may owe back taxes on
OK, he may owe back taxes on that property, 1% per year x8 yrs ain't a whole lot of money for a piece of property that is 20' wide.
The city cannot charge him for maintenance that he did not authorize, much like you cannot bill the city for mowing the grassy strip between the sidewalk and street !!!
Someone did a shoddy title search and he bought the deeds to those properties. If it is found that he owns the property, Norfolk or the property owners will have to pay up....sorry.
Norfolk did not just pay him to make him go away.....they paid him because they knew they would lose in a court of law!!!
This raises three important questions
My last comment got deleted. Sorry VP, I will try to play nice this time. There are just 2 things I don't understand. 1)If Clark owned this property for decades, then how can he get away without paying back taxes? 2)Why haven't the property owners been informed that they were behind this man's property? 3)Why is Clark just now filing a claim?
It's obvious that he is trying to extort the city of Norfolk even more (isn't $1 million enough?). Once everything is said and done, he will probably try to sell these resident's their own backyard.
What's the Big Deal?
Hey it's OV in Norfolk, not the Hamptons on Long Island. You can't swin there half the time with all the "stuff" in the water.
It doesn't matter when
he makes his claim, there could be a number of reasons he finds himself needing a decision from the courts. Maybe some action by the city triggered his filing suit. All I see is the city coughed up a million bucks to this guy so obviously his cases have merit. I see either another settlement or an expensive court fight with such high stakes that the city will have to hire some more experienced law firm like Kauffman and Canoles because the city attorney's office cannot handle cases such as these. More millions down the drain which we have seen demonstrated in the past, doesn't really bother our city leaders. After all, the taxpayers are footing the bill.
And of course Clark should
And of course Clark should end up paying the attorney's fees.
I can only Ask Smigel one question here
Does Tommy Smigel at least admit that Pisko has been responsible for years of corrupt dealings in the past? The Developer's Att.'s statement here is the one statement that can't be more true. I'll be asking the councilmen that question on the next opportunity. All areas being vetted, if there is truth spoken about the past dealings with the city then we can look logically as to whether there is an issue because just because the developer did not previously pay taxes on the property; judement is still out. I mean, how much has the city done on behest of developers, just seems like this developer is not in the fold. My point, Pisko can play devious any way you push it, the city suspends real-estate property for all kinds of, "Friends.".
Comment deleted
Comment removed for rules violation. Reason: Personal attack, name calling
It is OBVIOUS that Ed Clark,
It is OBVIOUS that Ed Clark, born and raised ON the beach in OV, does not want to prevent anyone from going to the beach- this claim is as idiotic as those who formulated it and those who believe it. I pity you all. Perhaps, Ed Clark, like many in this time of economic repression, is struggling to provide for his family because of the injustices of this corrupted city aka the past law suit drawn on for nearly a decade in which more was lost than gained. I believe ONE DAY this city will show compassion for thy neighbor rather than the greed and bitterness many of you display. Open your eyes Norfolk, maybe then you'd see that Clark is one of US. Compassion and understanding... even a little intelligence will bring you much further in life.