Shady Military Land Deal

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
Shady Military Land Deal
8
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 4:51pm

Hmmmm...McCain's shady land deal - influencing the sale of military land to a friend:


Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 5:29pm

It disturbs me when politicians use their position for anyone, even when nothing is unethical.

NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 5:35pm

Interesting that after having held onto the land for only 2 years it sold for a significant amount more than the $250K he paid for it (from the article):


"He held on to the parcel for a little more than two years before selling it and the buildings on it for an estimated profit of more than $18 million. "


Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2007
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 5:39pm
Umm hmm.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 6:40pm

Did the lease deal created the descrepancy between appraised value and actual value apply to him, or only the military?

NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 6:54pm
I think it came from the fact that he held the lease. So he could sell the property outright but the gov't could not. There was still 40 years left to go on the lease. That was not factored into his purchase price - since once he owned the land the lease was not an issue. I think that is the crux of the matter. Since he had the lease, and he was buying the land, the full value should have been what he, as the lease holder, could realize.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 6:56pm

So now I'm even more confused, if he already had a stake in the property, seems like who ever set up the deal with the lease in the first place is the one that screwed up that a piece of property is worth 18mil, but due to a lease can only sell for $300,000.

NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 7:22pm
It is my understanding that he had held the lease for 10 years when the army started closing facilities to consolidate. My ex worked at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in MD at the time and APG/Edgewood Arsenal was on the list at one time to close so we followed it closely. The problem seems to be, and I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, that he had held the lease for 10 years and under the terms of the lease would be able to hold it for the next 40 years. The gov't could have simply allowed that lease to continue, but would have had ongoing overhead costs. Since he held the lease he was the only one to whom it could really be sold, who wants to buy a property that can't be developed for 40 years? Knowing the benefit to him the price should have been adjusted accordingly. The property was more valuable to a person who held the lease than to a person who would have a tenant. It was sold as if there was a tenant. He could have immediately sold the property, if there were any buyers, for far more than he paid.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 8:18pm

Seems like a shrewd businessman.

NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting