Land deal curiouser and curiouser

Nowhere in the proposed arena project files in Youngstown City Hall is there a document that details how the $1.5 million purchase price for the site was determined.
There aren't any appraisals, and there aren't any notes to show who said what, or even who was at the negotiating table.
Ask Jeffrey Chagnot, the city's economic development director, for details of the land deal and here's what he replies: "The owners demanded $1.5 million and wouldn't take anything less." Or, "Joe Houser [a private lawyer hired by the city] handled the negotiations."
Was there any city official involved in the negotiations? Chagnot says he might have attended a meeting at Houser's offices in the law firm of Manchester Bennett Powers and Ullman, but he didn't participate in the day-to-day talks.
The files in city hall do contain numerous documents that refer to the $1.5 million figure, but there isn't a historical record.
Double standard?
However, there is one letter that is revealing in not only shedding light on city government's attitude, but the apparent double standard that has been adopted in relation to the compilation of various parcels along the Mahoning River, between the Market Street and South Avenue bridges.
The letter, signed by Mayor George M. McKelvey, is dated Dec. 14, 2001, and is addressed to Eli Alexander, one of the owners of the land the city bought.
"This is to inform you that the City of Youngstown would like to purchase the property described in attached Exhibit A, if a satisfactory agreement can be reached. We are prepared to pay One Million Five Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($1,500,000.00) for clear title to the property under the conditions described in the attached proposed contract of sale.
"Because federal funds may be used in the purchase, however, we are required to disclose to you the following information:
"1. The sale is voluntary. If you do not wish to sell, the City of Youngstown will not acquire your property. The City of Youngstown will not use the power of eminent domain to acquire the property.
"2. We estimate the fair market value of the property to be One Million Five Hundred Thousand and 00/100 ($1,500,000.00).
& quot;Since the purchase would be a voluntary, arm's length transaction, you would not be eligible for relocation payments or other relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA), as amended, or any other law or legislation.
"Again, please understand that if you do not wish to sell your property, we will take no further action to acquire it. If you are willing to sell the property under the conditions described in the attached contract of sale, please sign the contract and return it."
Surprise. The owners of the land signed, the agreement was sealed and delivered and $1.5 million from the $26.8 million federal grant that former Congressman James A. Traficant Jr. secured for a convocation/community center in Youngstown were paid.
In 2000, city council authorized the board of control, made up of the mayor and finance and law directors, to seek an option on the land that once was the site of a steel mill. In 2001, council authorized the board of control to enter into a purchase agreement with RSA Corporation, a company owned by the Alexander family.
The mayor has insisted all along that his administration had nothing to do with the purchase price, that the deal came from council.
Legal authority
But Councilman James E. Fortune Sr., chairman of the finance committee, counters that the board of control, not council, has the legal authority to negotiate such deals.
McKelvey's insistence in his letter to Alexander that the city would not use the power of eminent domain to take over the property sharply contracts with his recent comments about the city's willingness to use eminent domain to acquire various parcels along Front Street, on the northern boundary of the Alexander property, and all the way west to Marshall Street bridge.
What gives? That's a question for the General Accounting Office of the federal government to answer.
The GAO is charged with ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent in accordance with the law.
And in this case, the spending of $26.8 million demands close scrutiny.