Wednesday, May 01, 2013

Sold? Or Not Sold?


Hoover Drive Property Remains "Active" On Realtor's Website

Contingencies for Environmental Condition and/or Clear Title Could Stymie Sale

 
 
SCATS ~~ Wouldn't it be interesting if we learn the building & grounds are too "toxic" for a Charter School?
  
 

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

This reminds me, what happened to Greece's treasure, Odyssey in that recent highschool rankings? Don't they still have the secret formula to educational success?

SCATS said...

To 7:36AM ~~ First of all, they never remained in the Top 100 every year. Secondly, what was published this year was from testing, etc. that took place in 2010 (as I recall). So to me, it looks like the principal & her minions gave up knowing her ship was about to sink anyway.

Anonymous said...

That entire KodaVista area including Hoover would be declared a "Brown Field"
under DEC guide lines if they drill enough bore holes in those neighborhoods. Let's not forget awhile back, that area was designated as a "cancer cluster"
due to several deaths all with a common thread. Brain Cancer!! It was attributed to the adjacent Kodak Chemical plant practically in their back yards. Teachers
who taught there complained of the toxic fumes that filled the building when environmental conditions were right. In either case mentioned, I believe if the
reason is environmental, the deal is dead because the cost of the clean up would far exceed the value of the property. Kodak should cover that cost but
that will never happen. The best option for the District is to abandon the property as they are and never were owners of that parcel. Let the town or the
state deal with it if the rightful owners do not come forward which they would
be stupid to do under the circumstances.

SCATS said...

To 3:38PM ~~ Then GCSD could be liable for anyone who gets cancer after attending school in or working in that building.

Anonymous said...

Much of Greece is one big toxcycle. Why do local folks tolerate this. Where is the outcry over the toxic waste at latona/ weiland rd

Anonymous said...

How do you figure that. The fact that the District is NOT the owner of record and
they do not adhere to the deed restriction to operate a learning facility there,
they would have no legal responsibility as to any future operation on that site.
The legal owners, descendants of the Britton family, would bear that
responsibility entirely if their names appear on an amended deed transferring
the property to them. Even though they are known, the question will revolve
around an AMENDED DEED, naming them as owners of the property. If no such
documents exist, the property must be considered a part of the estate of the
original owners who have long since passed away, further clouding the situation.
This, combined with obvious environmental problems, leaves the District with only
one option. WALK AWAY. Any improvements made to the building would also become
a part of the estate and legally could not be removed or sold separately without
the approval of the estate or legal owners of the property. Time to cut their
losses and move on and away. Of course included in those losses would be the legal
cost to the district and taxpayers to unravel this entire mess. That cost, I'm
sure, will be enormous as usual when it comes to how the district doles out our money to these "bottom feeders".

SCATS said...

To 4:24PM ~~ It's not clear who you are responding to ...

My comment posted yesterday was in reference to when GCSD used the building for classes, not for future use by others.

Anonymous said...


Sorry for the confusion but I was referring to any further use of the building by the district in any capacity that places employees at risk. In fact,if
underground contamination has been detected, it would be wise to stop any and all property maintenance such as the current practice of lawn maintenance by
district employees. Such continued activities by district employees by the district in light of recent developments that constitute a significant health
hazard, could result in legal action by any of those employees becoming sick. By placing them in danger by directing them to work there, knowing the potential
health risks involved would make the district culpable.

SCATS said...

To 9:45AM ~~ As far as I'm aware, GCSD is still responsible for upkeep and promised the neighbors they would maintain things.

What if GCSD suspected there was toxic soil or something for all the years they used the building, but never had it checked? Would they be liable then?

Anonymous said...

In my opinion the key word in your comment was "suspected". It now becomes subjective. If the district had reason to believe or suspected that there
was a pollution problem years back, the case could be made that their failure to take appropriate action to ensure the safety of staff and students by requiring the type of environmental testing now taking place to determine if any health hazard actually existed, could make them culpable. In this case, the
burden of proof would be on the plaintiff to prove that the district had reason to believe a problem existed and failed to take measures to confirm or disprove the possibility that a hazardous situation existed and continued to allow access
to the property by students and staff. On the other hand, if proven the district
actually knew a potential hazardous condition did in fact exist at that site, potential law suits would be worth millions now and anytime in the foreseeable
future by those exposed while on that property in any capacity who become ill as a result. The question is, is this likely to happen? Probably not, but anything is possible. I think you will agree.

SCATS said...

To 3:24PM ~~ I don't think it would be difficult to prove at all! As I recall, we had a day when Kodak put the kabosh on people going OUTDOORS due to a mishap not far from Hoover Drive! In fact, I specifically recall that students in the Holmes Rd. Buckman Hts. areas weren't permitted to go out for gym, recess, etc. I also recall Koda-Vista neighbors having issues with stained paint on homes and cars from chemical residue. Did GCSD do the prudent thing & conduct testing at the time those events happened?? I think not!! They are liable ;)

Anonymous said...

Sorry to use the comment form but I could not find any means of contacting the list owner. I'm doing a research project on the area and recall reading about air quality issues inside the Hoover Drive school at one point in time. Do you have any resources or could you point me to any that talked about the testing and it's results. I recall reading about it being done and subsequently air conditioning being installed so the windows wouldn't have to be opened. But I'd like to track down the actual document about the testing and I can't recall if I had read it in EPA documents or somewhere else. Please contact me at u8myhomework@gmail.com if you might know where I can track that down. Thank you.

SCATS said...

To 3:12PM ~~ This is the first I heard of any official such testing ever done! The argument I hears in favor of AC had to do with the fact the third floor was stifling in the warmer months. If you find anything out, please inform us of what documents/where so we can take a look for ourselves. You might want to try to FOIL GCSD's district office for that info.