Housing of Last Resort, Part 4
Posted on Tuesday, May 22 2007 by Heather Brandon
Shalom Segelman, owner of 192 units at Longhill Gardens Condominiums in Forest Park, was handcuffed and ordered incarcerated early yesterday afternoon by Judge Henry Abrashkin in Springfield Housing Court.
Segelman was ordered held until he deposits a court-ordered $150,000 into an escrow account for repairs at the five-building condominium complex.
The incarceration took place after yet another compelling hearing in the suit filed by Concerned Citizens for Springfield (of which I am a board member; see interviews one, two, three and follow-up), recently enjoined also by the City of Springfield, and as of yesterday, additionally Citibank, the $6 million mortgage lender.
The Court previously ordered Segelman to deposit the $150,000 into an escrow account in March, and then again by April 30. It is the approximate amount of capital tax gains that Segelman would defer by doing a 1031 tax-free “exchange” on a property he was selling in Waterbury, Connecticut, and his acquistion of the 192 units at Longhill Gardens.
During a hearing the first week of May, Segelman told the Court that on the advice of his accountant, despite the court order, he would not deposit the $150,000, at that point past deadline. Segelman is on record as having recently purchased a 146-apartment complex in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, for $8.4 million.
A receiver has been appointed by the Court, Valley Real Estate, to oversee the condominium trust and other aspects of the operation of Longhill Gardens (conditions of receivership have been revised and approved). During yesterday’s hearing, VRE offered an initial report of its findings at the complex, which, according to CCS board member Russell Seelig, indicated unpaid bills in the range of over $100,000. Many records have not yet been turned over, after they disappeared from the rental office and VRE had to drill its way in through a locked door.
“There were structural problems that need evaluation. None of the records of rents, security deposits, [or] vendor contracts had been turned over to the receiver by Segelman,” Seelig wrote in an email. “In an out-of-court conversation, VRE said there are major settling issues, a couple of really bad roofs among the five buildings, and probably a history of at least two leaking oil tanks, in addition to the report’s [other] findings.”
Seelig explained that the structural issues at the complex are related to the landfill on which four of the five buildings were built in the early 1950s. CCS verified this with soil borings done about five years ago. “Remedies are very expensive,” Seelig wrote. “We knew about roofing issues from inspections done at the same time by Sun Roofing, with reports having been provided to VRE. Oil tank leakage, which is suspected but not confirmed, could cost $50,000 and up (say $100,000 to $200,000) to remedy.”
I spoke with Seelig, as well as CCS board member and attorney Bill Malloy, on May 8 to try to catch up with some of the recent labyrinthine turns in the case. Below is more of their side of the story as they reflect on VRE coming into the picture as receiver, and some speculations about Citibank’s possible role, among other things.
Russell Seelig: There was a [recent] emergency hearing that neither Bill nor I went to, because it came up very quickly. It was a motion by the receiver, by Valley Real Estate, to capture May rents and condo fees, and the judge allowed [it], even though the receiver hasn’t been officially appointed. The receiver has been designated but not appointed.
Bill Malloy: The order was a draft about the receivership, and then people made comments, and then [the judge] will send out a final order.
RS: There were two things. One was the appointment of the receiver, and that was a final document. And then there was a draft about the conditions of receivership. So the receiver has been appointed, and that’s Valley Real Estate. The conditions of receivership have not been finalized yet, and therefore, the receiver’s not in place yet.
BM: Now the receiver has this emergency order about the May rent.
Heather Brandon: So how does that strike you?
RS: Well, collecting May rents and condo fees is wonderful, because it gives the—
BM: You need money.
RS: The receiver probably won’t be in place for another week or ten days. The original draft of the receivership conditions talked about April, but April would have been inappropriate, because half of April had gone by already. One of our suggestions in the comments was, make that May instead of April, because May is more appropriate.
HB: The emergency ruling last week says that rents and condo fees for the month go to the receiver directly.
RS: That’s correct.
HB: Does that mean that tenants are writing checks to the receiver? What happens?
RS: Probably not. Any rents and condo fees the trust receives for May [must be turned] over to Valley Real Estate.
BM: Valley Real Estate has a tremendously challenging situation here.
HB: They have to make sure they’re chasing down the collection of all the rent.
BM: Citibank is involved with a $6 million mortgage. We’ve been giving them notice of this court action, but they only recently emerged in a substantive way. Their attorneys from Boston communicated with our attorneys, inquiring as to what was going on. Apparently they sent an employee from Boston to copy every court document. It seemed like they were gearing up to show up on our recent court hearing, but they just didn’t show up. Our attorneys might have heard from Citibank, but we’re not aware of what’s followed up. What they could do is foreclose, because allowing a court action against you—this would be an extreme case—is a breach of the mortgage agreement. They could step in and foreclose, and regain ownership of 192 units. I think they’re obligated to do that, as far as representing their client, but they might sit down with their client and say, do we want to get deeper into this, or do we want to just let it play out? The receivership will suspend interest payments to the bank, which is $37,000 a month, so that allows—the main of it is cash, the other nub is cash, and the other problem to face is cash. So it’s a need for cash, cash, and cash. One way to get cash is to not make a $37,000-a-month payment, but the first thing a receiver’s got to do is find out what’s going on. A receiver can’t create a plan without information; in other words, how many vacancies are there?
HB: For example what repairs are needed—which is fairly well-documented at this point—but they need to assess all that?
BM: I guess that raises a whole different issue. Getting repairs done that just get it up to code will still leave it an unattractive place. That’s probably $1 million. Another $1 million will get it to a place where people that aren’t necessarily desperate for housing would be comfortable. But that third million, or maybe more than another million, would get it to the dream location of being re-sold as condos to owner-occupants, as an attractive place. I’m not sure how many more millions that is if you go back to the fact that structures have to be shored up and everything is in need, you know, from the roof down. The biggest thing would be the heating system is crazy, to use a non-engineering term.
RS: In terms of habitability, security is the first issue, which is working locks on doors. And then the cleanliness, to get it to be attractive, the exterior appearance—to get landscaping done, to get hallways clean, to get the broken windows fixed—would be the next step. And this is just common areas.
BM: Both of those relate to management.
RS: They do. The city now, I think, has agreed to inspect the 192 units owned by Longhill Omega, so that Valley [Real Estate] will not have to do those inspections. The court, in its draft document for receivership conditions, had said they wanted an inventory of all the needs, both common area and 192 units, within 21 days.
BM: Which was burdensome for Paul Oldenburg [of Valley Real Estate].
RS: Which is, in terms of timing, impossible to do. To do that, you’d have to inspect 14 units a day for 21 days, and then you’d have to write it up.
BM: Another aspect of this is that it’s not the way they do things. In other words, the city goes in, and they have this intricate, incomprehensible methodology that’s bureaucratic triumph but not readable; whereas Paul Oldenburg—their group would go in and say, okay, this is bad; we gotta do a lot of things, or: this is halfway okay. Or: okay. You know, they have three criteria.
RS: I think the city has improved over your knowledge of their inspection operation. I think they’re using handheld computers now, for example, to detail all of—that got started back when I was in code enforcement.
BM: Super. Fabulous. I’m glad you said that, because I’m out of touch with that kind of recent stuff, so I’m still thinking about the earlier years.
RS: I think, actually, it took a couple years to get these things out into the field, but they got started very early in Charlie [Ryan]‘s administration.
BM: The other thing about starting with Charlie Ryan’s administration is they were down to impossibly few people [in code enforcement]. Things have changed.
RS: Charlie put a big priority on code enforcement and building inspectors as well. He effectively doubled the staff for both of those departments in a relatively short time. But the city would do all the interior inspections, and that’s really good news. It keeps the city much involved in this lawsuit as well, because their inspectors have seen the conditions, and they are effectively unbiased.
HB: You’re saying this is part of the receivership taking over, the city doing those inspections? Or is it because the city is joining the lawsuit?
BM: After the city has been in the lawsuit, they then made comments, and are involved in the receivership draft order.
RS: I think Valley [Real Estate] reached an agreement with the city, just in the last week, that the city would do these inspections. I’m not sure what the background arrangement is, but it’s good for Valley Real Estate; it’s also good for the complex that the city is doing this.
BM: That’s really good news. I’m glad to hear that. Here’s the process working. You could take a look at this and say, this is desperately slow. But it is getting together. It’s tremendously complex, when the judge takes ten days to write the decision.
HB: Valley Real Estate had been one of CCS’s recommended receivers?
RS: We didn’t recommend a receiver.
HB: I thought you were able to give input.
RS: We did give input. We were looking for a receiver, so we talked to potential receivers, and VRE was one of the potential receivers. Plotkin Associates was the other potential receiver. We talked to a few other people as well, but those were the two folks who agreed to become receivers, and they both made presentations to the Housing Court about their plans, if they were appointed receiver. Our position was: we wanted a receiver, but we were not recommending one over the other. We were neutral, in terms of trying to influence the Court to pick one or the other; we were very neutral. Either one would have done a good job, I think. Maybe from a little different viewpoint, but I think either one would have done a good job.
BM: It was a pretty detailed process. They had discussions in court, they submitted written documents, and the judge reviewed all of this.
RS: And questioned them in Court.
BM: Right. The other reality is that this is 211 units, and there would only be so few people that would step up, ready to do this at all—
RS: —who would have the capability, the capacity, to do that.
HB: What else has Valley Real Estate done that gives you confidence in them?
RS: Well, they own and/or manage somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 housing units in the [Pioneer] Valley. They have handled some difficult sites, in terms of residential rentals, and their properties are well-maintained. I’ve had a lot of dealings with Valley [Real Estate] over the years. They actually managed one of my properties for about five or six years, so I got to know the operation very well. Their clientele, in some cases, is similar to the present clientele at Longhill [Gardens]—it’s a lower economic group of folks. They have done very well in terms of managing properties with lower economic tendency, with seniors, with whatever.
BM: They did quite a bit of activity when there was that era of foreclosures. They would go into the units, either two families, three families or six families, or 21-unit buildings, and have to manage a foreclosure setting, which is often somewhat similar to this, with everything going to pieces, and the tenants going in different directions, so to speak. Paul Oldenburg had been the manager of this very unit sometime around ’78 to ’83, so he’s extraordinarily familiar with the buildings; he actually was involved in demolishing a part of it, and shoring up a part of it. The fundamental issue with this place is that its foundations are shaky; they’re not on good, solid ground.
RS: It’s built on landfill.
BM: One part was built on landfill, and the other part started sliding down the west side of the hill when the toe of the hill was removed for construction of a Howard Johnson’s. So they removed the toe, and the building started sliding down the hill. You can still see the cracks. So there’s some real fundamental things about these buildings. But right now, it’s all about management: who’s in there, and who’s cleaning up.
HB: It sounds like you have some confidence that Valley Real Estate has strategies.
BM: They don’t have strategies yet. They have experience with—they have to evaluate the—they don’t have a plan yet. You were saying they have strategies. They have the expertise.
HB: They must have some strategies, in general, that inform how they manage properties, as opposed to a complete lack of experience with this type of housing complex.
RS: Right, they don’t have a specific plan in place, but they have a general approach to what they need to do.
HB: And you can’t fault them for not having a specific plan in place yet, considering the information they need. I would assume that they need to gather a lot of facts.
BM: When they’re looking at this, they know what they’re looking at, I guess is the key thing.
HB: Without having to get completely up to speed…?
BM: They’ve been through similar settings, with these foreclosure kind of settings. This is probably the best possible receiver to have in place. That’s the way we’re looking at it.
RS: Well, I think either one—when you say the best, I think Plotkin would have done a commendable job as well.
BM: Right, Plotkin has tremendous capabilities.
RS: Plotkin has managed similar properties. They’ve done a lot of work for the city in managing some of the city-owned properties. They’ve also been involved in some of the difficult condominium complexes downtown, bringing those out of chaos back to an organized, competent situation. So I think either one. But we’re pleased that a good receiver’s in place.
BM: Beyond the question of the receiver, this is going to be very challenging, because of all the questions that are open, and what the cash flow might be.
HB: You were talking about cash a few minutes ago. The possibility of foreclosure—what happens with foreclosure?
BM: That won’t generate any cash; that’s kind of a different issue.
RS: If Citibank becomes the owner of 192 units, I think, the Court could order them—
BM: They’d be under the court orders.
RS: —they’d be under the court orders to correct all the violations that exist there, to pay up. Citibank could take the position, if they’re not going to foreclose—$6 million may not mean a lot to Citibank.
HB: If they foreclose, then they take on the ownership, and then the court orders are their problem, including all the cash—
RS: —needed for repairs.
HB: So then the opposite is also true, if they don’t foreclose, Longhill Omega still has to deal with that; they’re still under court order?
RS: Longhill Omega can just walk away.
HB: Because of the receivership?
RS: They can just walk away; even though they’re under court order. They may not be able to make an appearance again in Massachusetts.
BM: Because they’re walking away, the receivership has been put in place.
HB: So Longhill Omega is effectively out of the picture at this point, with the receivership?
BM: Well, I guess the expression “out of the picture” doesn’t quite fit this picture. This is a court order; it’s taking them off the picture. The receivership is taking over the role of these two entities; the condominium association and these owners of 192 units.
RS: Longhill Omega continues to be the owner of 192 units, even in receivership. But Longhill Omega is being barred from the site. Segelman’s being barred from the site. That’s one of the conditions of this receivership.
BM: Well, he can come to the site, but he has to be in the company of the receiver.
HB: So it’s like a restraining order.
RS: It’s like a temporary restraining order, yes, that’s right. The receiver wants no interference from Segelman, and that would be part of the receivership conditions. Eventually, when things get cleaned up, Longhill Omega is still the owner of 192 units, and with leave of the Court, would again assume management responsibility for their units. That might be two, or three, or four years from now. So they’re not out of the picture on a long-term basis, but Longhill Omega’s out of the picture on a short-term basis.
HB: You were saying that one of the challenges being cash flow, there’s still no source for more cash, but it effectively, for now, becomes the receiver’s puzzle to resolve.
BM: Yeah. What you can see in the way of cash is only the rents and the condo fees, and the fact that the mortgage payment is suspended.
HB: Which saves cash, right, the $30,000?
BM: Right. $37,000, I believe, monthly. There’s insurance payments; there’s the water/sewer payments, tax payments. You know, we’re just gettin’ going here. There’s many things to pay for: the dumpsters; the oil, during the winter. The oil is just a tremendous cost at this place.
HB: Some of those are operational.
BM: There’s a tremendous number of operational costs—the people, the employees. The cost of the receiver. The big picture is that the receiver doesn’t have the capacity to borrow any money. In other words, if the receiver could borrow $1 million, then they could spend $1 million, but they have no capacity for borrowing. And so that’s why Russ was mentioning the Citibank angle. Would Citibank put the $2 million into it to try and correct the situation?
RS: One possible scenario is that, when Valley [Real Estate] gets its plans drawn up, they could present capital needs to Citibank, and Citibank could voluntarily agree that they will put up $2 million to protect their $6 million.
BM: Right, they could add it as security.
RS: It might be good business for Citibank to do that, because if they put the $2 million in, then the value of the whole place goes up. And selling these units, individually, as condos for $50,000 each—and they probably would be worth that—would get Citibank back all of its $6 million of the present note, and an additional $2 million that they would put in to get the upgrade there. So, it could make good business sense for Citibank to do that. It depends on how much Citibank values its $6 million. Citibank is absolutely huge; they have lots billions overseas, in terms of countries canceling their debt. I don’t know what they would do in this kind of situation.
HB: You’ve also been awarded damages.
RS: Yes. The damages are spelled out in one of those documents, and the rationale for them—the judge provided a rationale, as well, for awarding those damages, so that’s in those documents.
HB: Who’s meant to pay those damages to CCS and your lawyer?
RS: Who was the contempt against, Bill?
BM: Well, it’s against the three of them, actually. There’s three people in contempt, individually. And then the entities are in contempt also.
RS: The trustees of Longhill Gardens Condominium Trust, which include [Mayer] Orgel and [Moishe] Schwartz and Segelman, and Israel Ross and Beverley McClure—Longhill Omega, LLC is on here; Building Exchange Company, that has held title to the 192 units I guess for a couple of months—and then Schwartz and Orgel individually as defendants. So, who gets to pay that money? I would say that Orgel and Schwartz are not going to want to pay anything, and neither are the other folks. But I think, eventually, the trust will have enough money to pay what’s been awarded there.
HB: Which is a total of under $100,000 right?
RS: Right, it’s roughly $60—
BM: $16,000 and $45,000.
RS: Yeah, plus a little more. $60,000. So I think Concerned Citizens will eventually receive those damage amounts. Longhill Omega is there as a defendant, and, at some point, when Valley [Real Estate] gets this place straightened out, the rents that come in to Longhill Omega could pay our damages. The condo fees that Longhill Omega will pay in to the trust will eventually surpass the needs of running the operation, and we could get our $60,000 from the trust. That’s how I see it. Bill may have a little different slant on this.
BM: It’s what they call down the pike.
RS: It could be two or three years out before that happens.
BM: This is going to be a lengthy matter. It’s not going to be a six-month thing.
RS: Right. And there will be continuing, added-on damages as well. This is up to a certain point in time, and there will be further damages added on to that.
HB: So this goes back to the beginning of the case?
BM: Not exactly.
RS: I think the rents began in something like December, up through April.
BM: The rent damages, yeah.
RS: And the legal fees… it’s spelled out in that document.
HB: The dates.
BM: It’s a very thoroughly-written decision. The bottom line is that CCS has spent more than that on legal fees, actually, and has spent more time with the empty condos.
HB: As expressed by the amount of damages that you requested, right? That pretty much captured everything, and then you were awarded slightly less.
RS: We were awarded portions of what we asked for.
HB: The Building Exchange Company, what is that? I haven’t talked about that with you.
RS: Okay. There’s an IRS section called 1031, tax-free exchange. Shalom Segelman was selling a property in Connecticut for which he had a big capital gain. He didn’t want to pay the capital gains tax on that. So he bought into Longhill Omega, and if he was buying something similar to what he was selling in Connecticut, he would defer the tax liability until sometime in the future. Building Exchange Company is a vehicle that allows this exchange to take place. The property he was selling in Connecticut is effectively put into the hands of Building Exchange. This property, Longhill Omega’s 192 units, also goes into Building Exchange. Building Exchange does the swap. So Building Exchange was the owner of the 192 units for a couple of months last summer, like August, September, of last summer. And therefore, they also, as owner, are responsible for some of the—to listen to the court orders, as well.
BM: Well it was six months, and it ended on March 14 or so. That’s part of the drama of all this: the lying that goes on, on the part of Shalom, it’s phenomenal. Because he uses—see, the big picture is that they were ordered to pay in $700,000, which they simply have never done. Then it shifted to this excuse of the exchange process going on, and Shalom whining like a little three-year-old about how, you know, he’d be hurt by the IRS thing, and that would be his excuse for not making any payments. So then the judge seemed to, well he said, this is now it, you know, in playground language? This is it, put the $150,000 up. And now we see, the long and short of it, he hasn’t done that either.
RS: The $150,000 was an estimate of the tax deferral on the capital gains tax of the sale of the Connecticut property. Shalom was saying that if the exchange can’t go through, he would have to pay that $150,000 in taxes on a current basis, as opposed to deferring. And the judge grabbed onto that $150,000, and said, put the $150,000 into escrow for repairs to—
BM: But see, from our perspective, what he’s really doing is suddenly dropping the $700,000, given up on it. I mean, the judge has been pretty kindly to this young person.
RS: We have seen much more police presence there. I drove by just yesterday, and there was a cruiser sitting in one of the parking lots, obviously looking out towards Longhill Street, looking uphill.
BM: But there had been quite a presence. We learned way back that—we met this policeman—
RS: A community policeman.
BM: Drug enforcement unit police. [There were] two apartments donated to the police drug unit; they’re there from, what was it? Eight to 12? Twelve-oh-one, everyone cuts loose. So you know, the December 7 murder on the site was just terrific… terrifically…
HB: Bad.
BM: You know, I mean, the person who set fire to the woman up at 11 Warner [Street] was their employee.
RS: And a tenant, as well.
HB: Whose employee?
BM: Longhill Gardens entities. A tenant-employee. One of those deals.
HB: This is the recent fire-setting that was…
BM: It was January 7, on 11 Warner, and the building burned to the ground.
HB: The woman who went to a hospital in Boston, and then died later.
RS: Yes.
BM: It’s just chilling. And that’s the big thing, because that’s what’s driving concerns for the neighborhood, where it’s only a block, two blocks away. We’ve got four-year-olds walking around within two blocks of this. A lot of children.
HB: Yeah, and children that live there. There are four-year-olds closer than that.
BM: Yeah, I was just trying to—the impact on the neighborhood, though. The sustainability of the livability of this neighborhood.
HB: Right. It’s not on an upward trend. I noticed in the articles in the newspaper about the difficulties at the complex, or what they refer to as “lower Longhill”—the contrast is noted, every time, between upper Longhill and lower. But also, there’s no mention of the responsibility of property owners who are, for instance, absentee landlords who don’t manage well, there’s no recognition of the kind of challenge that I sense you’re up against in the lawsuit and as owners there, as well, that we’re not going to solve this problem by just increasing the police presence. Increased police presence can make a difference, right?
RS: Yes.
BM: I believe it’s all about management.
HB: In order to make it a sustainable place to live, you don’t have surges of police every three months to get rid of criminals.
RS: Police are scary; police presence is scary. If we saw police out on our streets all the time, we’d say, what’s going on here? They’re here for a reason, and that’s—to the general populace, a police presence is scary. To that populace, it’s calming down the area.
HB: The criminals, you’re saying—it snuffs out criminal activity for the time being.
RS: For the time being, that’s right. But as Bill says, it’s management that does that on a sustained basis, that keeps out, that refuses to rent to, people with bad social problems, whatever they may be, drugs, prostitution.
BM: They’re renting to the persons of last resort, and the people with the cash. The people with the cash are basically, usually drug culture involved. Valley Real Estate’s first formidable task is to figure out what’s going on there. There’s two things going on: a lot of vacancies, that’s a cash flow problem. Those that are there could possibly be candidates for eviction. That would be a cash flow problem. That’s the challenge.
HB: What makes you speculate that there’s so much money upfront?
BM: Well, there appears to be drug dealers there. The December 7 event was around a drug deal gone bad. The person that went from 37 after the murder, to 96 was, again that was a busted drug deal. The drug enforcement unit was in there—we’re talking there—for the purpose of pursuing drugs. The police department has talked about it being a center for drugs: drug sales, drug activity.
To be specific, the policeman that we talked to discussed the other reality—[they] tried to hire private guard people. One had stayed on the site for 45 minutes, but ran away kind of scared. Another one just looked around, and ran, walked away in other words. Didn’t wish to undertake the job. But the policeman’s analysis was that within whatever time that person, if that person was hired, they would be paid money to simply look the other—to not disturb the drug dealers. They would use money as their—they have a resource, money. They use it. That’s a specific thing; that’s what would occur. That’s the experience of the drug enforcement police.
RS: I think there are visible signs, when there’s drug dealing going on; there’s a lot of traffic.
BM: How about the visible signs of the paraphernalia? You ran across a person with the needle in the arm.
RS: Well-run units don’t have broken locks on all the front doors. We saw, as we toured, a bunch of broken locks, and that’s been typical. The folks who are dealing drugs don’t like entry locks, so they break them. Graffiti—and we saw a lot of it around the site—is another indication of gang activity, which, typically, is also involved in drugs. So when you see that kind of activity, you know that the clientele that is living there is engaging in these nefarious activities. A good manager does screening: credit checks, criminal backgrounds, Housing Court records through screening agencies. They don’t rent to folks who don’t have good records.
BM: That’s what Valley is challenged with; their first step is to find out the situation with the tenants. It’s housing of last resort. If you’re looking for a place to live, this is not on the top of your list; it’s at the very bottom; it’s after you’ve given up on everything else. Who would want to live in a place where the doors are broken at the common door?
NoPolitician
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:34 pmExcellent series! I wish there was an award I could nominate you for on this.
Heather B http://urbancompass.net
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:07 pmThanks. The story tells itself, though. I just transcribe. The real achievers are the interview subjects themselves.
But since you mention it, there are online journalism awards out there, and more every day, such as:
Online News Association affiliated with USC’s Annenberg School for Communication;
The EPpy Awards presented by Editor & Publisher and MediaWeek;
the Pulitzer Prize (one can dream);
and the maybe more-attainable Bloggies.
Some of those are nominated prizes, and some are not: from what I gather, journalists or bloggers can submit their own work for a fee, to be considered, in some cases.
One challenge with this particular series is teasing apart the legalese and helping readers understand what has been transpiring. The story is not open-and-shut, but is still unfolding, and will be for some time. (At what point do I then put all the interviews together, make some sense of the story, getting everyone’s points of view, and submit an article to The New Yorker? …Maybe in a decade.)
The easiest way to translate it, in my mind, is to try hard to understand it myself, and simply take readers along with me through that conversation. Were I to attempt to mediate between the interviewees and the readers in this early stage of beginning to “get it,” I would probably miss something important. I’m collecting raw source material and sharing it as I collect it, more or less. I think of it as rather lazy of me, actually, because a “real journalist” would take weeks and months to pore over this information and confidently inform readers what it all means. I can’t hope to do that anytime soon. We’ll figure it out together, hopefully.
NoPolitician
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:30 pmApparently Mr. Segelman is not a stranger to the jailhouse, according to this 2006 article.
http://www.rep-am.com/story.php?id=4017
“A city landlord was ordered to surrender to police Friday under an arrest warrant signed by a housing court judge alleging he failed to provide heat and hot water for tenants in one of his buildings. “They’re trying to throw the book at me,” said Shalom Segelman of Sy Management LLC.”
The part I like best is:
“As proof of a willingness to improve their holdings, Segelman noted that they installed a new boiler in the Waterbury Hotel property at 380 West Main St. when it failed this winter and that they are working with the Waterbury Development Corp. on a $250,000 grant to do major utility and roof upgrades to their buildings.”
Yeah, replacing a failed boiler in the dead of winter is very altruistic of Mr. Segelman. And he is really putting his money on the line in trying to get a grant to do utility upgrades, isn’t he? Maybe we should be nominating HIM for a benevolence award here.
Sy Management LLC, by the way, shows up with a Springfield address.
Heather B http://urbancompass.net
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:41 pmYes, that’s a good one right there. Here’s a bit that I find compelling:
The inherent contradictions are rampant, and take me back also to the questions Malloy and Seelig said they would like to pose to Segelman, mainly in the area of his ethical (or religious) position and how it has translated into actions that now affect hundreds, if not thousands, of people.
Heather B http://urbancompass.net
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:42 pmOh, look, an article about this in today’s paper.
http://www.masslive.com/springfield/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-9/117990522314310.xml&coll=1
Heather B http://urbancompass.net
May 24th, 2007 at 10:13 amMore court drama accounted for in today’s Republican:
http://www.masslive.com/springfield/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-9/117999378916970.xml&coll=1
Segelman’s new lawyer Tani Sapirstein argued in Housing Court yesterday that “there was not a ‘clear and undoubted disobedience’ of a clear and unequivocal court order, needed for a finding of contempt,” which Concerned Citizens for Springfield lawyer Archer Battista called ridiculous. Shalom Segelman himself did not attend the hearing because of his strict observance of a Jewish holiday.
someone who knows
May 24th, 2007 at 11:11 pmit seems that everyone is just interested in one side of the story did you know that our dear freind russle went around dis ableing fire alarms after the new system was put in. if russle wanted the homless and the windows under the control of longhill gardens to be fix then why didnt russle fix the windows on his units why did he deliberatly leave his units vacant. that is if he really does care about saftey some of his units were terrace apartments (means you can access them from the ground) and the windows on his units were broken any homless guy could get in (dont forget about the glass that ends up on the floor ) he is responcible to fix that but he didnt i am sure if you go there now its still broken because russle is cheap and he doesnt give a dam unless he can make money off it . there are witnesses that saw russle walking around breaking the door closers and such items so he could have more of a claim. there are others that were told not to pay there rent and that if they go to court just complain about the code violations. the truth to shalom is that he came in to the picture during the law suit he had nothing to do with long hill gardens untill he bought the property went he came in he changed the face of longhill street and set up plans to change all the windows but it does take time to do such a job its a lot of windows but russle wanted it done overnight. he also under took and made the parking lot in the back of longhill. he had thousands of contract set up to straighten this property out and russle didnt care about that he just wants MONEY. his system to taking in tenants was very strict and not like russle is portraying it . russle doesnt have a clue to management he does however know how to sue.
well have a good evening
NoPolitician
May 25th, 2007 at 12:34 amWhat a joke. Anyone living in Springfield knows that Concerned Citizens is out to improve the city, and that Longhill Gardens continues to be occupied by drug dealers and other criminals. If your hired security guards won’t even stay on the job, there’s a problem with the people you’re renting to.
crystalight
May 25th, 2007 at 2:17 amI’m really sorry but after following this story carefully something smells very fishy I would even go so far as to say that I smell a RAT, and I would name that rat “Russell L. Seelig” who would like to try and hide behind the name of his “non-profit” corporation “Concerned Citizens for Springfield Inc.,” . Which is really a for profit corporation Seelig created to try and gain ownership of all the units without paying out any money. It’s a real nice scam you buy five units in what you know is the biggest slum and then you sit back and say you can’t find decent tenants because the major shareholders have not gutted out the building replaced all the windows doors and locks and you hide behind the facade of a “non-profit” corporation Concerned Citizens for Springfield Inc.. And because you are such a concerned citizern you file a lawsuit against them within their first few weeks of management and by some strange ‘coincidence’ get a verdict in your favor why does Russell Seelig have zero responsibility and Longhill Omega have all responsibility?! talk about slum landlords I think Russell Seelig wins the prize
NoPolitician
May 25th, 2007 at 9:52 amWould you feel comfortable raising a family in Longhill Gardens? If not, it’s not because of the 5 vacant units that Concerned Citizens owns. It’s because of the 192 units that Longhill Omega owns, plus the disgusting common areas that Longhill Omega controls.
It seems to me that when I look up “Concerned Citizens of Springfield” on the internet, I read stories about them rehabbing run-down buildings and selling or renting them to homeowners. When I look up “Shalom Segelman” on the internet I find stories about him being jailed in Waterbury, and him making excuses about how he’s so persecuted, and such a hero because he replaced a boiler in the middle of winter for his tenants, or that he’s really putting it on the line by looking for free government money to fix up his private property.
It seems pretty clear to me who’s helping this city and whose harming this city.
crystalight
May 25th, 2007 at 12:12 pmNO I would not feel comfortable raising a family in Longhill Gardens not today and not five years ago, four years beforeLonghill Omega took control of Loghill Gardens . I love how you try to put all the blame on one person and make all the tenanats in Loghill Omega who pre-existed the current management (and who are themselves destroying the property physically as well as making it unsafe for others) and empower them all to feel as if they have all been personally victimized by Shalom Segelman and Longhill Omega. Longhill Omega and Shalom Segelman did not come into Longhill Gardens as an upscale apartment complex in top condition being rented out to upscale or even working class people, it seems that Longhill Omega came into the property just a few months ago and they did not go out of their way to fill up the apartments with criminals and drug lords for tenants, nor did they go around breaking locks doors and windows or fill the common areas with all sorts of trash no landlord does that, they inherited Longhill Gardens with all it’s current problems rundown property, and dangerous tenants. Maybe if people had given them a chance without running out and suing and playing the victim card as if Longhill Omega would not want to have their property rented out to a decent clientele perhaps instead of spending their days in court defending themselves against the so called “Concerned Citizens for Springfield Inc” who owned a total of FIVE units in the building (and what exacrtly did these concerned citizens do other then sue?) maybe they weould have more time to focus on improving the proerty. Why don’t you go into any run down drug infested neighborhood and try bringing in nice working class families and then turn around and blame all those lanlords and sue the whole building complex or the whole neighborhood and try to take away their properties because they have dangerous tenants half of whom don’t pay their rent and to top it all off you expect, no you demand that they make drastic improvements to the property replace all windows doors locks fix up all common areas, and say that it’s the fault of the lanlords that it’s not safe for families. Would you like a doorman and and a concierge with valet parking as well? why not aren’t these people entitled to it? Come on who are you kidding .
Segelman never claimed to be a hero for replacing the boiler or for anything else ( but the article did say he put hem all in a hotel for the weekend) although Russell Seelig seems to be busy promoting himself in every newspaper article and claiming to be a hreo to the poor, when in fact he seems to be doing nothing less then attempting to get 192 apartments for himself without any money, other then his legal fees for his bogus lawsuit the costs of which he also hopes to recoup. You might be no politician as your name suggests but a little common sense and not being so one sided would do you good.
Sheila McElwaine
May 25th, 2007 at 12:53 pmChrystalight, the misspellings, the peculiar syntax, the run-on sentences, the overwrought tone and the obvious unfamiliarity with our legal system, particularly the legal principle of “implied habitability†of rental units, in your posts suggest that you are a newcomer to the U.S., perhaps even a close relative of the Israeli-born Mr. Segelman. If it is true that you are his relative, it only adds to the dubious nature of your assertions which have no merit whatsoever.
Mr. Segelman had many chances to do the right thing, but, instead, he and his business partners, Mssrs. Orgel and Schwartz, took one manipulative and sleazy step after another until Judge Abrashkin lost patience and put Mr. Segelman in jail. Let us hope for your sake as well as his that Shalom Segelman makes use of his time in jail to reflect on the wisdom and morality of his actions, particularly with respect to the well-being of his tenants and the property values of his neighbors.
To Sheila
May 25th, 2007 at 1:36 pmDear Sheila
I’m sorry to disappoint you but it seems you are getting information from your pet rat.First of all don’t go correcting grammar as part of your fight it sounds like your six and besides what is Mssrs. Orgel. Second, Which hate group do you belong to made you think all Jews were born in Israel? I assure you Shalom Segelman, his Father and his grandfather were all born in the great U.S.A. so next time before you go donning your swastika arm band and march in front of a mirror try and think if you want to advertise that kind of information. you suck and are the reason that young men dying in Iraq (really)
Sheila McElwaine
May 25th, 2007 at 1:39 pmO-o-o-o-o-o I feel busted.
Heather B http://urbancompass.net
May 25th, 2007 at 1:53 pmI welcome disagreement in discussion here, and there are many sides to this story and much to explore. There is no need for name-calling. Sheila gets her information from sources other than her pet rat, whom I have never had the pleasure to meet.
The situation of Longhill Omega LLC is certainly a difficult one, and I would be terribly pressed myself to be in a position to have to upgrade the entire complex in the ways that appear to be required. The fact that the complex sits on landfill, and that the buildings are slouching and coming apart, would indicate that there are very fundamental structural problems there, in addition to the difficulties of having a criminal element, lead paint chipping off the windows, and so on. The problems are immense, complex, pervasive, and very costly to fix.
That said, as I mentioned, I would be terribly pressed to have to take that on, especially with no experience. It would cost money I don’t have; it would require management experience I lack; it would take up any available time I could afford to invest. It would require my physical presence and utmost attention.
Therefore, I would not be the person for the job. Someone with experience is needed to do all that. Someone who can be resourceful, come up with the money, and address all the things that require it. To me, that is the real issue. Who will do what’s needed for the complex, to help the city and the neighborhood? There’s no reason to be ashamed if we’re not up to that task, but we also need to have the wisdom and humility to step aside when we know we’re not up to it, so that someone else can come in and maybe do some good there.
To Heather Brandon
May 25th, 2007 at 2:31 pmheres an idea INTERVIEW SHALOM! valley real estates just went crying to daddy judge that Shalom did this and Shalom did that, fact is Shalom had the money and the experience and he told the judge over and over he just needs time the guy has been there 8 months and has evicted 60 people and rented 70 apartment and was on the fast track to replacing all the windows. Russell cant rent his apartment because the insides look like crap. Don rents his no problem you people are bored as am i all im saying listen to both sides, everything i read is all one sided interviews this is the worst reporting i have ever read, i know more facts then you and all i did was sit at my computer, you are a no name reporter in a bankrupt city and i see why ps Sheila you also cause starvation in Africa
Heather B http://urbancompass.net
May 25th, 2007 at 2:44 pmAm I the only person in the world who could interview Shalom Segelman? If I am such a bad reporter, would that really be advisable? Maybe someone with more experience and cojones could step up and do the job, given that I have no name, and live in this bankrupt city that only breeds more bad reporting.
crystalight
May 25th, 2007 at 2:45 pmDo I sense some racial overtones in your post? You’re not saying that you have something against the immigrants in this country, particularly those who might have come from Israel. I myself was not aware that Mr. Segelman is Israeli born nor do I now assume it to be true just based on your say so, but why that should have anything to do with this case is beyond me. Unless of course you are suggesting that this is a fact that should be held against him. Oh and just for the record I was born and raised in this wonderful FREE country and no I am not a relative of “the Israeli-born Mr. Segelman”. Of course it’s a great tactic, anyone who can find anything remotely positive with Mr. Segelman must be a relative, particularly if there were some misspellings and run-on sentences, for no true blooded Yankee would dare write anything so poorly (sounds like a good old fashioned witch hunt to me). I hate to break it you Sheila but I graduated one of the finer institutions in this country, and no I did not major in English (much to my mom’s dismay). But I digress, firstly I must apologize for subjecting you to “the misspellings, the peculiar syntax, the run-on sentences, the overwrought tone and the obvious unfamiliarity with our legal system, particularly the legal principle of “implied habitability†of rental units,”. Try and remember that this is a free country and no one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to read this. I am however open to your suggestions both in grammar and in law, as I am always happy to learn something new (assuming you have some valuable lessons to give over, other then the empty finger pointing in an attempt shift attention to misspellings and away from the actual content). Secondly you make yourself sound particularly knowledgeable and yet the best you could come up with is that my assertions are dubious and have no merit, it would be nice to see you back that up with some facts. But it is your parting words that really shed light on the truth, it seems that you could really care less about the tenants at Longhill Gardens (particularly those from other countries) your concern is one and only one, your pocket book, you put it so well when you said “Let us hope for your sake as well as his that Shalom Segelman makes use of his time in jail to reflect on the wisdom and morality of his actions, particularly with respect to the well-being of his tenants and the property values of his neighbors”.
I think you should have put those last five words in bold italicized letters “PROPERTY VALUES OF HIS NEIGHBORS” , in other words you believe that Mr. Segelman should be put in jail because the value of YOUR home (are you still on Meredith St.?)is declining due to the fact that there are shall we say some “undesirables” habituating his property? I think I am beginning to sense a pattern here, it’s each man to himself and everyone has their own greedy and selfishly motivated agenda and whoever dares interfere with that agenda, will be hunted down and crucified. For Russell Seelig it’s about owning the whole complex while only paying for five units, for you it’s about your property value’s and not having to worry about people from other countries living to close to you, but it all boils down to one thing money not people. I wish you would practice even half of what you preach and show some morals, be fair to all and be concerned for all fellow humans regardless of their ethnicity or country of origin.
rvr
May 25th, 2007 at 3:08 pmcrystalight,
can i ask why you’re so intent on attacking seelig? it’s very hard to tell if you have valid points because your tone is very abrasive and you’re saying a lot of offensive things that border on personal attacks. how do your comments serve to shed light on the situation? i can hardly see your point through the fog of anger, defensiveness, and frustration. please try to keep the tone constructive and respectful.
as for the content of the posts on this blog, it presents one side of the story, as you say. but i think nopol has a good point if you look at the background of the two individuals involved here. seelig does not have a record of the sort that segelman does, and the ccs organization–which is made up of more than just seelig and is an actual non-profit with a board and a record of what it has done–has a strong record of working to improve the city. i think the interviews with seelig present a lot of factual information that has been *presented in court*. whereas all i can get from your comments is innuendo and wild-sounding accusations. it’s hard to give you much credibility given the circumstances.
just thought you might like to know that people will want to hear what you have to say if you can come across in a more balanced and respectful fashion.
crystalight
May 25th, 2007 at 4:30 pmSorry if I came across too strong, and yet you are the first one to say that the information coming through here is all one sided.
As far as Segelman’s record, the only information that has been given is the one sided information regarding this case, and some obscure article which says that Segelman was arrested for not repairing a boiler on one of his properties within 24 hours. Anyone willing to look a little deeper and do their research will be pleasantly surprised to discover that the boiler was in the process of being repaired, and that all charges were summarily dropped. As to the person who put in the call to the housing authority? it was none other then one very unhappy FORMER tenant, the likes of whom everyone on this blog would like to see out of Longhill Gardens. If you would look further you would find that Segelman owns and manages numerous properties without any complaints from anyone (not so common in his line of work) and yet here in Springfield all he got was grief. Yes he took over a property with no shortage of problems, but if you look at his track record you will find that this is not the first time he has done so, but it is the first time that he has not been given a fair chance.
Here’s the way I see it, and this is the part that makes me angry but I will try to be constructive and respectful. Russell Seeling, slyly bought those five apartments and then under the guise of the Concerned Citizens for Springfield, within a few weeks of Segelman taking over the property filed his lawsuit claiming mismanagement and violations etc.
It is rather difficult for me to Seeling doing this all altruistically as a concerned citizen especially when he himself is invested in the deal and stands to gain ownership of another 192 apartments.
Anyone with just a little sense of the business world as well as a sense of justice can see what is happening here. It’s quite simply one of the oldest tricks in the book also known as a hostile takeover. Seelig manipulated our judicial system and pulled it off legally, it’s actually quite a brilliant scheme if you think about it. No, he did not do this objectively as a concerned citizen, he did it as a citizen concerned with how to take money from others and keep it for himself. It seems so black and white, and yet everyone seems to be missing the point here, citing Seelig as a hero and Segelman as a villain. Not to patronize you, but you come across like the most sensible (and respectful) person on this blog, I ask you look into it, talk to people in the business world and then get back to me on Seeling’s objectivity and altruism.
As for Seelig’s interviews yes they give allot of information, all the information that he wants you to hear. This is a man with an agenda; he wants the destruction of Longhill Omega Management, and can’t wait to get his hands on the other 192 units. Think about it if these so called citizens are really so concerned why didn’t they raise the funds and purchase the property themselves? It was on the market for all, Segelman didn’t have exclusive buyer’s rights. But no they want someone else to put up all the money, and then they come along to make all the noise by filing lawsuits, and then claim ownership to a property that is not theirs. All in a few short months of the new owner stepping in, making sure to not let him have a fair chance to do what he needs to. As for what Seelig has presented in court, although this might come as a surprise there are people out there who would stoop to any level to make some money, even if it means lying under oath or at the very least whitewashing the truth.
rvr
May 25th, 2007 at 4:53 pmwhat i fail to understand, crystalight, is how seelig profits from this situation? is he somehow getting rich doing this? would he end up personally owning 192 units? my understanding is that the units are owned by concerned citicizens for springfield, which is a non-profit org. and seelig has donated a lot of his own personal money to fight this battle in the interest of the tenants and the neighborhood.
i know a little bit about ccs, and from what i know they fix up derelict or run down properties and try to get them into the hands of owner-occupants. they make some profit off these sales and use the money to fund future projects. i frankly fail to see the motivation for seelig or anyone else involved with ccs to behave in the manner you describe. he’s not getting rich off this, and the fact that you continue to defend segelman as such a good landlord and attack seelig makes me suspicious of your motives, to be perfectly honest.
if there is so much strong evidence readily available, as you suggest, then please provide links to it. i have a hard time accepting that the court was so completely fleeced in this case if there really is compelling evidence that segelman is the good character you say he is. the court can make mistakes, for sure, and judges can be dishonest even, but it’s very unwise, i think, to throw around accusations like that without strong evidence. and if you have that evidence you need to get yourself to the proper authorities and right this wrong. commenting on this blog is not the way to fix the injustice you claim has taken place.
finally, if what you say is true, then segelman has a terrible lawyer, and doesn’t sound so smart himself. but can you see that it’s just a little hard to swallow?
crystalight
May 25th, 2007 at 5:38 pmTo answer your questions; as with any other non-profit corp. the only one not making an actual profit is the actual corporation, the employees still get paid, and their salary is determined by …… the people in charge of the corporation, in this case Russell Seelig and friends. Not to mention the management fee that they are entitled to (in addition to their salary) for managing the property, don’t worry nobody here is an unpaid volunteer. As with any Corporation it’s very easy for things to get lost in the shuffle, even more so with a non-profit. When was the last time they were audited? And even then they are entitled to “compensation” (determined by them) for their “work”. So yes Seelig does stand to profit and do not let the “non-profit” part fool you. As far as Seelig “donating” allot of his own money for this lawsuit, it was in all the papers Seelig also sued Segelman for all of his legal fees which were awarded to Seelig by the court. And again instead of putting up his money to fight why didn’t he just purchase the property in the first place? As far as Segelman, besides for this lawsuit what else is there? did you ever walk into Longhill Gardens (before this whole mess blew things out of control) people there were quite content with the work Segelman had begun to do, look into his other properties (Windsor Locks CT amongst others) you will find no issues.
As far as the proper authorities to right this wrong, PLEASE tell me where to begin, I will be happy to provide them with too many troubling facts, I honestly do not know who to turn to.
As far as Segelman’s lawyer I do not know her, but she really does not seem to be all that savvy. She waited for two days while her client was sitting in jail with no real charges brought against him, before she even filed a motion. As for Segelman, He seems like a young man in a strange city with lots of older more powerful people bent on his destruction. What would you recommend that he do differently?
BREAKING NEWS!!!
May 25th, 2007 at 6:01 pmBREAKING NEWS! SEELIG IS NOT SO FOND OF KOSHER PICKLES!!!! (he told me) – warning the previous “news” may very well be under the same category all this other “news” is in….LIES!
VERITAS
May 26th, 2007 at 1:34 pmAs an observer of neighborhood activities over the course of many years it appears to this writer that CRYSTALIGHT, who sounds like an anarchist, with his vituperative comments about a neighborhood organization working to improve the housing conditions of about 150 families living at Longhill Gardens has his head screwed on backwards.
It is common knowledge in Forest Park that Concerned Citizens for Springfield, Inc., has been a positive force for housing renovation and blight remediation for about a dozen years. It has partnered with:
– Community Development
– Office of Housing and Neighborhood Services
– Roger L. Putnam Vocation High School
– Forest Park Civic Association
– X Main Street Corporation
– Hampden County Corrections Department
– Springfield Housing Authority
– HAP
– Code Enforcement Department
– Park Department
in a variety of projects, including rehabilitation of Johnny Appleseed Park, abandoned building demolition, Community Fairs, landlord training and renovation and/or building of over 20 housing units.
It is also widely known that members of CCS are all volunteers, unpaid for their participation, except for the knowledge that Forest Park is a better place to live and raise families because of its activities and its partnering with other very positive organizations
According to public records at the Western Division of the Housing Court, CCS attempted to work directly with the owners/managers of the Longhill Condos and it was only after those efforts were rebuffed and tenants at Longhill continued to live in very substandard conditions did CCS bring legal action against Longhill Omega LLC and the Association which it controlled. Court records, which are voluminous, showed that Longhill Omega LLC refused in writing to correct lead paint hazards even though it continued to rent its units to families with children under six.
Segelman continues to own 192 units at Longhill but because of his abject failure to correct Sanitary Code violations under Court orders the Court put the complex into receivership, wresting control from Segelman and putting it into the hands of a well-qualified management firm.
The City of Springfield, Housing Code Enforcement Department, and Citibank, the mortgage holder, have joined CCS as Plaintiffs. Hundreds of State Sanitary Code violations are evident in what are called the common areas, hundreds more have been documented in the interior of the units.
View Reports by a Housing Court Specialist confirm extensive management-type problems at Longhill, including shoddy lead paint renovation work being done during one of his many visits, where children under six were walking through a dusty lead-paint contaminated area where the work was being done by an unqualified contractor. The Court had to issue an immediate stop-work order and further ordered any further lead paint remediation work to be done under the direct supervision of a licensed lead paint inspector.
The receiver, in its initial report to the Court, also states that Segelman removed all records of leases, security deposits, vendor contracts and the like and has failed to turn over condominium fees and rents as ordered by the Court – opening himself up to another possible contempt of court finding.
This story appears to be far from over.
rvr
May 26th, 2007 at 6:00 pmveritas, thank you for providing facts on ccs and this case in particular in such a concise manner. crystalight offers nothing but innuendo and unsubstantiated claims, making it apparent that he/she is either directly associated with segelman, or simply terribly misguided. i haven’t read anything to make me think different.
re: rvr
May 26th, 2007 at 10:55 pmwho are we kidding, you reading anything else wont dim your love for Russell, admit it and we can all go on……im waiting
someone who knows
May 28th, 2007 at 2:29 amno politition ,
im sorry for the late responce . if you really cared about the city of springfield and /or long hill street you might have given the new owners a chance . he came in with a lot of money and contracts to fix and contrarcts to reface the street, heck the first week on the property he cut and trimed all the trees even ones that the parks department was supposed to trim he did it at no cost to them (with a permit that they pulled of course) so i guess he supports springfield too ….let give him an award (as long as it doest come from the same organization as russel) . its never good to judge a book by its cover and it seems that every reporter has already made up its mind without talking to the main man (shalom ) its always good to be fair and balanced ( unless your a dem) then its ok . the sad thing is now the property is going to be in real bad shape since the reciver isnt going to have the funds needed to bring the property up into standards. the point i guess i am making is that with out investment money this property is going to be over run (invest in bullet proof windows ).
well until next time hagn
Sheila McElwaine
May 28th, 2007 at 5:53 pmOK, Springfield posters, let’s stop feeding this beast. This exchange isn’t going anywhere.
someone who knows
May 29th, 2007 at 12:10 amthe problem is that this beast was always one sided now you are starting to get the other side of the story (god forbid) we wouldnt want to advance that . so lets stop the truth …..
i wouldnt want get too close to that .
till next lol