The woods that broke the bank: development or preservation as park?
What's to become of the "Hundred Acre Wood," where Whatcom County's largest bank, an 88-year-old institution, went off the financial cliff one year ago?
(Page 2 of 2)
Washington Federal has said clearly that it doesn’t want to be part of any community dispute, and has no interest in developing the property through its joint venture with Edelstein. “We’ve said all along that we don’t think of ourselves as developers,” Kenney told Crosscut. That does not seem to mean the bank wouldn’t sell it to another owner who could try to develop it.
The bank is required to get a fair return for its shareholders and to seek the highest return on the assets it acquired from Horizon. State and federal regulators will need to sign off on any deal the bank might reach with the joint venture or with the city of Bellingham. “There are a lot of players involved,” Kenney said. “That’s why this has taken a while.”
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Fri, Jan 14, 11:04 a.m. Inappropriate
No doubt one of the problems I bet is that Horizon Bank packaged the debt as bonds, "transferred the title to MERS", and shredded the paperwork. Then the bonds were sold. But I'm betting the title was never transferred to the bond holders. Thus when Washington Federal got the assets of Horizon, they are missing this key paperwork. When they go to gin up the papers to sell this to anyone they may find that neither bond holders have it, nor do they and as such aren't holding anything and that the property would instead revert to the original holder who sold it to the developers.
Washington Federal is no doubt wondering if the bond holders are going to try and sue them for the title. The original seller may try to sue for a clean title alleging that since Washington Federal doesn't have the title, that they do. Meaning Washington Federal will be asking them for a quit claim. And has to negotiate with those bond holders to take a haircut.
No wonder this is taking a long time to sort out.
If I were in the city, I'd do everything I could to destroy Washington Federal's ability to build here. That would threaten their ability to sell the property to anyone else. I'd also go looking for the title transfers and if they are missing, file for ownership of the land. I'd also be looking hard at who if anyone is paying the taxes on the land. If none has been paid, condemn it for lack of payment and take possession. In other words play some serious hard ball. With the carrot being, that they'd still leave that 5Million dollar offer on the table and take on the rest of this mess.
Posted Fri, Jan 14, 7:06 p.m. Inappropriate
Thank you, Mr. Simmons, for providing an update of the Chuckanut Ridge / Fairhaven Highlands issue.
One aspect I find especially interesting is the difference of opinion between the partners of the joint venture that owns the property.
On one hand, Washington Federal Sr. VP Kenney assures local residents that it “doesn’t want to be part of any community dispute and has no interest in developing the property through its joint venture with Edelstein.” On the other hand, Edelstein “considers the Fairhaven Highlands project to be alive and viable.” I’ve seen broken marriages less dysfunctional than this partnership. Seems like a divorce is in order.
Can you explain this obvious disconnect?
Does Washington Federal and Edelstein even confer with each other?
Who speaks on behalf of the joint venture?
Has Edelstein explained where the money is coming from to keep the project “alive and viable?”
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.