Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Ho hum. Another ethics complaint against Councilman Greg E.F. Bird.

You'll have to buy a hard copy of today's T&G. Trust me, so long as the council conducts the investigation again - as the article states they intend to do - and so long as Bird remains another certified darling of the DMA - which he is and does - and so long as the other councilmen and mayor are present or former members of the DMA and all fear the DMA bloc vote - which they do - not a damned thing will come of it - just like last time. Question: How come this blatantly obvious conflict of interest does not rise to the level of meriting an inquiry by the State Ethics Commission?

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think they should take a look at Deborah Hase while they are investigating Greg Bird. That would be FAIR. Instead of just attacking the opposition to the Camden Partnership agenda.

Jay Moreno said...

For the sake of discussion, why don't you draw up a list of "particulars" upon which a charge of conflict of interest would be lodged against Mrs. Hase.
Surely, you had some specific charges in mind before you made the suggestion that it would only be fair to investigate her as well, right?

Anonymous said...

The fact that the Attorney from Sea Island stated that she approached them about this deal is enough!

She did'nt do it as a City Councilwoman/Realtor..........

She went to him to negotiate the deal. Then she came back to the Council and started implementing the plans of herself and Camden Partnership.

If this is inaccurate. Then she should publicly state ON THE RECORD that she will not be involved in any real estate transaction involving the airport relocation.

I personally feel if the airport is'nt profitable it should be closed. What I don't agree on is the taxpayers paying to relocate it to Sea Island property. BUT if Sea Island wants to pay FULL COST to have the airport relocated have at it. Then St. Marys can benefit by developing the land. JMO

Jay Moreno said...

I'm for closing the airport and selling it to a private developer whether they build a new one or not.

There is a reason I mentioned that Hase is not a broker. She is not likely as a licensed agent to approach Sea Island and say, hey, I greased the skids, so let me be the exclusive agent for your homes. As a licensed agent and not a broker, she could not legally do so, unless she became an employee of the company. I'm sure she is a very competent Realtor ( I know so becaue she worked with me until we found that there were no houses in Camden in my price range that would not require extensive renovations. Moreover, as a former Realtor myself, I know a good one when I see one. However, trust me when I tell you that it takes a special kind of obsequious butt kisser to wine and dine the class of prospective buyers that Sea Island courts. Just the "wining" part would let Deborah out of the picture. Sea Island will bring in their own team of in-house, major league butt kissers to make the first sales of their homes. Now, on subsequent sales, after the local Board of Realtors sues Sea Island to be allowed to do re-sale buiness on their property (as the Savannah Board had to do with The Landings on Skidaway Island) why shouldshe not have an equal shot at listing a Sea Island home for resale right along with any other Realtor?

All I see with Hase and Sea Island and the airport is a POSSIBILITY of a future conflict of interest. At the moment, I do not see even the appearance of a conflict of interest. By contrast, anyone who does not see the manifest CURRENT conflict of interest that Councilman and airport hanger operator Bird has is willfully deaf, dumb,and blind.

Anonymous said...

Jay said:
"She is not likely as a licensed agent to approach Sea Island and say, hey, I greased the skids, so let me be the exclusive agent for your homes."

Thats exactly what the Attorney from Sea Island told everyone at the meeting she did. The Mayor and City Manager seemed surprise because the Council did'nt know she had made the prior advancement.

I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm just stating whats being reported. We can't have two sets of rules.

Jay Moreno said...

No, Sir, or Madam, she most assuredly did not. There are only two choices: you are either carelessly guessing, based upon your personal enmity toward Deborah Hase, or, you are deliberately lying, based upon your personal enmity for Deborah Hase.

Here;s the proof: an actual transcript of a tape recording of the meeting betwwen the Mayor Eskridge, City Manager Shanahan, and Bill DeLoughey, at which it was ostensikbly "discovered" tha tthen Mayor Hase had approached the Sea Island people about donating the land. Bear in mind as you read this that Eskridge hates Hase' guts.
http://www.camdenganews.com/blog/?paged=15

By the way, what if she did approach them without the knowledge o the council? So damend what? She was not offering to give them anything. Quite to the contrary, she was asking them to make a multi-thousand dollar donation to the city? What's the problem? She was not speaking for the council, nor committing the city to any obligation whatsoever.
Again, whats the problem, other than her making the rest of the council and the mayor look like lethargic slugs with no vision or initiative, by comparison?

Notice: If you want to publish untruths on this or any issue, you can get away with that on TOPIX, Kingsland, but not here.

Anonymous said...

"There is a reason I mentioned that Hase is not a broker. She is not likely as a licensed agent to approach Sea Island and say, hey, I greased the skids, so let me be the exclusive agent for your homes. As a licensed agent and not a broker, she could not legally do so"

Jay,
Not that she would, legally she could. She does not to have to be a Broker, any agent can make such a deal. I am a Realtor and yes legally she can. I have no dog in this fight, just pointing out facts, as you like to do.

Jay Moreno said...

Upon re-reading my statement, I can see where this was one of those rare occassions where I knew exactly what I meant, but failed to communicate it unambiguously.
What I meant was that she could not say to Sea Islnad that she would bring in a team of Realtors under her brokers license to market the properties because, so far as I know, she does not hold a broker's license.

As to your contention that she could, on her own, as a licnesee and not a broker, represent Sea Ilsand as an idendendent contractor and NOT as an employee of Sea Island, that was not the case when I was a Realtor, but that was 19 years ago. Unless the law has changed to allow free lance independent agency ont he part of a licensee not affiliated witrh a broker,then I'm still correct in either case. Is it your contention that the law has changed?

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how you rationalize a situation when you want to defend the actions of one of your own.

There are only two choices: you are either carelessly guessing, based upon your personal enmity toward Deborah Hase, or, you are deliberately lying, based upon your personal enmity for Deborah Hase.

I am NEITHER!!!!!!

Jay Moreno said...

As yuo will soon see, the law has not changed. Memo to the last commenter who had the temerity to challenege the accuracy of my assertion: I say again, you would
be better advised to sandpaper a rabid wildcat's ass inside of a locked phone booth than to challenege me to an intellectual pissing contest.

THE SMOKING GUN - straight from the Georgia real estate regs:

(2) Active or Inactive License.
(a) Every active Georgia associate broker, salesperson, and community association
manager shall be licensed under an active Georgia broker; and said associate broker,
salesperson, or community association manager cannot be licensed under more than one
Georgia broker during the same period of time. An active Georgia associate broker,
salesperson, or community association manager may also affiliate a license issued by
another state’s real estate licensing regulatory body with a broker in that state provided:
1. said state’s laws allow affiliations in both states; and
2. said Georgia resident associate broker, salesperson, or community association
manager has the written permission of the broker holding his Georgia license to affiliate
with a broker in another state and said written permission clearly delineates (1) the duties
that the licensee may undertake for each broker and (2) that the licensee may not
undertake brokerage activity on property located in Georgia except in behalf of the active
Georgia broker.
(b) After making an original application for licensure to the Commission, a salesperson
or a community association manager shall not commence work in real estate brokerage
activities until the broker has received the licensee’s wall certificate of licensure.
(c) After a licensee makes application to change the status of his or her license to a
broker of a sole proprietorship or qualifying broker of a corporation, limited liability
company, or partnership, the applicant shall not commence work in real estate brokerage
activities until the applicant has received the wall certificate of licensure for the sole
proprietorship, corporation, limited liability company, or partnership.
(d) Any licensee whose license is released by a broker shall not engage in the activities
of a real estate broker until the licensee:
1. affiliates his or her license with a new broker and mails a Change Application to the
Commission; or
2. receives from the Commission a wall certificate of licensure authorizing the licensee
to serve as the broker of a sole proprietorship or the qualifying broker of a corporation,
limited liability company, or partnership.
(e) Any licensee who seeks to activate a license which has been on inactive status for
two years or longer shall be required to attend a Commission approved course or courses
of study totaling at least six hours for each year the license was on inactive status. The
course or courses must be taken no more than one year prior to the date of the
reactivation of the license.
(f) This requirement shall not apply to an inactive licensee who can furnish to the
Commission evidence that he or she has met the continuing education requirement for
each renewal period that his or her license has been on inactive status.
(g) Every active licensee seeking to perform real estate brokerage activity must do so as
a broker or on behalf of a real estate broker. Inactive licensees may not perform real
estate brokerage activity on any real estate except real estate owned solely by the inactive
licensee. Real estate brokerage activity includes sales, leasing, community association
management services, property management services, and any of the activities identified
under the definition of “Broker” in O.C.G.A. Section 43-40-1.
(h) The license law contains an exception (not available to licensees) that allows an
unlicensed person who is a full-time employee of an unlicensed person to perform real
estate brokerage activity on property owned by that unlicensed person’s employer.
(i) A licensee may not place the licensee’s license on inactive status and perform real
estate brokerage activity for an unlicensed person. Whenever a real estate licensee
wishes to be employed by an unlicensed person in order to perform real estate brokerage
activity on real estate owned by that unlicensed person, such licensee must first surrender
such licensee’s license to the Commission and may not reinstate that license without first
qualifying as an original applicant.
(j) A licensee on inactive status may be an employee of an unlicensed person to
perform work other than real estate brokerage activity for the unlicensed person.

So, "Realtor," what part of that do you not understand? Don't let your high-powered visceral hatred of me overload your low-voltage brain.

Jay Moreno said...

"Anonymous said...
It's amazing how you rationalize a situation when you want to defend the actions of one of your own.

There are only two choices: you are either carelessly guessing, based upon your personal enmity toward Deborah Hase, or, you are deliberately lying, based upon your personal enmity for Deborah Hase.

I am NEITHER!!!!!!"

But of course you are! It's not so much amazing as it is maddeningly frustrating that when you tried to slip in a baseless canard, I was able to so utterly refute it with incontroveratable written proof.

Now, you are the proverbial bitten dog, yelping the loudest.

Be sure to read the "wildcat" allusion in the first paragraph of the previous post. It could save you a lot of frustration in the future.