Regardless of the opinions on either side of the issue, the Linden Meadows dispute will be resolved on the Appellate or Supreme Court level. The issue cannot be resolved at the local level.
The issue here is a simple one: The issue here is whether the deed of 1935/1962 is valid. It is a question whether the donation of land reserved for a specific purpose and the reversionary clause is valid despite the Indiana statue of the early 1990's.
The facts are clear: In 1935, Catherine Fawcett donated this land in question to the city to be used for recreational purposes. A reversionary clause was attached not only in 1935, but also in 1962 stating that if the land was to be used for any other purpose, it was to be reverted back to the donor or the heirs. As recalled by surviving heirs of Catherine Fawcett, this land was to be her legacy; a gift to the citizens of New Albany to enjoy forever.
The public interest protected by this reversionary clause-a recreational area to be enjoyed by the citizens of New Albany-remained intact from 1935 until 2004 when the city of New Albany decided to violate the conditions of the deed. Infact, in 1999, the School Corporation of New Albany-Floyd County contracted with the parks department to upgrade the ball field for use by New Albany High School. The School Corporation spent $105,000 of taxpayer's money between 1999 and 2004 to upgrade the field.
The Linden Meadows subdivision symbolizes the local government under color of law depriving it's citizens of their rights and their property. Linden Meadows subdivision is an affront to all citizens of New Albany, rich or poor, Democrat or Republican.
It illustrates the arrogance of local officials who do not respect a legally, morally binding contract. The opponents of Linden Meadows subdivision base their opposition on the validity of the 1962 deed. A deed is a morally and legal binding contract, which protects land from unlawful manipulation.
CHDO and the City of New Albany and the supporters of Linden Meadows have created a smoke screen to cloud the issue involved here. In the November 22nd hearing, CHDO and the City of New Albany created a smoke screen based on two absurd arguments:
That Howard McLean Park was not a park and that the Fawcett heirs were paid for the land. Both arguments were not credible. The land was donated as a park in 1935, christened as a park, dedicated as a park, and used as a park.
As a matter of fact, the parks department maintained the park for 70 years.
Regarding the second argument, the Fawcett heirs deny ever having been paid for that land. In fact, the amount that was allegedly paid ($1600) in 1962 was grossly out of proportion to the total amount paid for the land. The city received $284,000 for 80 acres. The Fawcetts should have recieved approximately $36,000 for their ten acres instead of a measly $1600. But in any event the Fawcett heirs have no record or recollection of ever having been paid.
They also believed this land was preserved under the priginal 1935 deed. As for the 1962 deed, there are reversionary clauses in the deed regarding two pieces of land. One piece of land did not have a reversionary clause.
However, the supporters of Linden Meadows obviously don't care to look for the facts in this case.
The real issue (the validity of the 1962 deed) was never addressed in the ruling after the November 22nd hearing. The Judge ruling only addressed the smoke screen presented by CHDO and the city. The Judge even ruled that the Fawcett heirs should have had first right of refusal of the land if it "had been for sale" after 1962; however, she stated that it wasn't.
Interestingly, a memo in 1998 from John Rosenbarger to the mayor stated that the Howard McLean ball field, lots on Cottom and Linden as well as the golf course were for sale by the state of Indiana. It appears that the Fawcett heirs should have been approached at that time, but were denied their rights.
The supporters of Linden Meadows subdivision have obfuscated the issue with slanderous attacks. They accuse the opponents of racism and anti-family bias, which has been proved to be total without merit. They have falsely stated that residents of the area support Linden Meadows when in fact approximately 75 residents of that area signed a petition against it. It is a false statement that a "low income specialist" was approached by the opponent's attorney to testify.
The heirs of the Fawcett family cannot afford to protect their property rights therefore other interested residents in the area have joined the battle. It is as simple as that. There are no other dogs in the fight. The supporters of Linden Meadows have their pitiful conspiracy theories that there are other political supporters. We hate to disappoint them in their quest for drama, but their conspiracy theories are false.
As for someone buying the houses that now sit on Linden Avenue....good for them. We hope that both of them sell to qualified homeowners. If CHDO and the city are trying to sell the houses in Linden Meadows to unsuspecting homeowners but withholding information about the pending lawsuit, then that, my dear friends, is very deceptive.
And do you know what would be the best thing to do of all? Go talk to the six families that have been slandered during this fight. They would be happy to sit down and discuss all of this with you so you may get the facts straight. Instead of listening to the city and CHDO spin on the matter.
Are any of you brave enough to to do such a thing?
So John Miller, when you are driving past some land and hear people laughing, hear the thump or crack of a softball bat, see dugouts, fences and lights on for the infield, I guess you wouldn't describe that as a "park" would you? If that's your thought, then maybe the City and CHDO should have put the houses at Anderson Park?
