The Virginian-Pilot
©
NORFOLK
City officials were confronted with angry, confused and disappointed residents Wednesday night at a town hall meeting called to discuss yet another lawsuit involving Virginia Beach developer Ed Clark.
Clark purchased deeds to large portions of East Ocean View years ago and has since repeatedly sued to claim the land as his own. The city paid Clark $1 million for 20 acres of beachfront property six months ago and City Attorney Bernard Pishko said at the time that he hoped the payment would make Clark "go away."
Now Clark has filed another lawsuit against the city, claiming a 50-foot-wide strip of property between the beach and homes along nearly 21 city blocks. The city says it owns the property, an undeveloped street it calls Bayside Avenue. Clark wants the court to declare the property his.
Pishko told about 75 residents gathered at the East Ocean View Recreation Center that they likely need to hire an attorney and become part of the lawsuit in order to ensure they can walk to the beach.
"We followed your advice last year and the city spent a million dollars and now you're telling us that we need a lawyer?" said an exasperated resident who declined to identify himself after the meeting.
Pishko explained that the $1 million purchased 20 acres of beachfront property. Without that, he said, "You're living on a beach owned by Ed Clark."
John Wilson, an attorney and Ocean View resident who represents Clark, said his client "is not a villain." Though City Councilman Tommy Smigiel has criticized Clark for not paying taxes on Bayside Avenue, Wilson said Clark would love to pay.
"The city will not send him a tax bill," he said.
Wilson said state law already guarantees residents who live along Bayside Avenue the right to walk across the land to the beach. He said "the fundamental disagreement is that what is in your backyard, what is in my backyard, is not a public street."
Smigiel disagreed. "This is about money," he said.
Years ago, Clark demanded the city pay $20 million to purchase Bayside Avenue, the councilman said. The city countered with an offer of $500,000 and most recently, Clark asked for $5 million, Smigiel said.
If Clark wins in court, Smigiel said, the developer can force residents to purchase land before they are able build walkways to the beach. In some parts of Ocean View, the dunes are so high that a walkway is the only way to access the beach.
"I can assure you that Mr. Clark is in this to make money," Councilman Barclay C. Winn said.
Wilson countered: "If you talk to people who have purchased property from Ed, they will tell you that he has been very fair."
No public consensus was reached on what to do. Pishko said another meeting will be held as court hearings proceed.
Harry Minium, (757) 446-2371, harry.minium@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Will The Pilot...
or anyone else get past the "he said she said they said" aspects of this and actually publish the relevant land records in question here? I grew up on a house that was adjacent to Bayside Avenue, and it has always been shown as city land. How can something that was city land for at least the last half of the 20th century be in private hands in the first part of the 21st century?
I'm baffled that the city
I'm baffled that the city sold my Chesapeake Bay waterfront park to the develepors of East Beach. It's still there, all the trees plowed under of course, (Norfolk has zero green accountability in managing greenspace) and being held out to the highest bidder.
My opinion
Smigel, please remember principal you were elected on and aligning yourself with Pisko and Winn you are not serving the interests we sent you there for. it is clear from past evidence (Oak park,Granby tower, Army core of engineers compound {Attempts by Winn to vilify them for their property}) that ulterior motive are rampant in Norfolk city government. Mr Smigel, Spill the beans man with the full truth. The individual property owners don't trust the city old guard, probably less then the developer (City should represent this and make it right.) its probably shoved under the rug but I wonder what old country clubbers of past and present profited here?
Mr Smigel, get back to us on this and don't loose your ethics, respectfully.
Still have my integrity and ethics
Addii,
I appreciate your past support, but felt that I needed to respond to your comments. Standing up for the citizens I have been elected to represent, shouldn't be viewed as unethical. Being a voice for the little guy is one of the principles I was elected on. While I don't always agree with my colleagues on council, I don't think it is fair to insinuate that there is a cover up when I agree with them. This is a very complicated situation. This probably could have been settled years before I was elected, even before Ed Clark purchased the underlying fee. It would be great if someone would dig deeper to see how we even got here. In the meantime, I am doing what I can to make sure my constituents are protected. - Tommy Smigiel
So, you don't think there was anything unthical in what went on
In these other instances? My suggestion are not conspiracy by any sense of imagination
That is my point sir
That clearly has to be why, it feels as if it is being taken at face value. In Norfolk, there usually is something much deeper. As you say, however, I believe those constituents will need you to do that discovery because given the history of the city, this is why you are there (Pisko would be representing the property owner's interest with the same ferocity they did when trying to get Oak Park.) I support you Tommy, and I'm going to be vocal as well. The emphasis you state here now was not fully articulated in the article. Thank you for taking the time to do so. I'm sorry it took me so long to see this. Pisko needs to go, this is one of a 101 reasons.
Makes sense
"Though City Councilman Tommy Smigiel has criticized Clark for not paying taxes on Bayside Avenue, Wilson said Clark would love to pay.
"The city will not send him a tax bill," he said."
If the city DID send him a tax bill, wouldn't that be tacit admission of Mr. Clark's ownership? I'm not a lawyer, but seems to me that if the City says I owe a tax on property, that means the property is mine!
my opine
Smigiel disagreed. "This is about money," he said.
"I can assure you that Mr. Clark is in this to make money," Councilman Barclay C. Winn said.
of course it's about money. I ask Smigel and Winn...if you had title to this land worth possibly $1,000,000 dollars you wouldn't pursue it??...nonsense
In the previous comments Mr Clark is referred to as a "sheister", his lawyer as a "crook". Why? Do you know these people and have reason to disparage them? Frankly I have more issue with Smigiel and Winn and their self serving unwarranted comments. I know nobody in this issue but find these comments outrageous.
How is this self-serving
So tell me how Smigiel and Winn standing up for over 200 citizens and protecting their beach access from a developer is self-serving? I believe the developer is self-serving by trying to make millions off of property in which he only paid thousands for.
"How is this self-serving"
I'll tell you how...they are taking the "popular opinion" side of the argument and playing to the masses. They should have simply spoken the truth, if this man owns the property he is entitled to just compensation, too bad soo sad. As I said....if Smigiel or Winn owned the property do you think they would simply walk away without compensation??...again I think not....I have no dog in this issue, just trying to look at it impartially