Monday, March 29, 2010

Andrew Osman's Statements on Development Create More Questions.

Mr. Osman said in (what I now would argue is a carefully worded statement) an article for the KCJC that he "did not have any projects within the city" and would "avoid future projects if elected". He didn't mention he has/had an interest in vacant land at 103rd and State line. Is he wanting to plant a garden? What do developers do with vacant land? He also doesn't pledge to not have any projects with the city if elected only that he will "avoid" them. Seems a little sketchy now. This is exactly why I don't like developers on City Council.

Perhaps he no longer has any commercial development planned in Leawood or no longer has any development projects in the works but as of less than a year ago he stood before the City Council regarding his "vested interest" in property at 103rd and State line for a Planned Business Park. I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" quote a much more famous American politco as to whether it seems reasonable that this developer is interested in being apart of the development of Leawood. So let's just imagine how this might have gone if Mr. Osman had been sitting in a Council person's chair on April 20, 2009?

April 20, 2009 Leawood Council Minutes

Andrew Osman, 3312 W. 86th Street, stated he had a vested interest in property located at 103rd and State Line Road in the Planned Business Park District [BP]. The property has been vacant for a significant amount of time and the layout and description allows very limited use. Mr. Osman wanted to express his intention of presenting a possible amendment to the BP zoning that would allow different types of applicant’s occupancy. Mayor Dunn stated this issue has been referred to staff and will return before City Council on a future Agenda.

Indeed, the council met on September 8 in a work session to discuss the issue. Apparently, it is in a flood plain. I couldn't find Mr. Osman's proposal to amend the zoning.

I wonder if Mr. Osman still has an interest in the property and if he still plans to present an amendment to his benefit and that might improve the value of his investment and if that would be at tax payers expense? Hard to know but wouldn't you like to know before you vote on April 6th? Think the following are fair questions and I wonder why the KCJC didn't ask them?

Mr. Osman:

  • Do you still have a vested interest in this property?

  • What are your plans for this property?

  • What is your proposal for changing the zoning and will it cost taxpayers ie the city raising it out of the flood plain?

  • When making a statement to the KCJC regarding this issue why didn't you acknowledge your vested interest?

I'm confused.

Mr. Osman has an absolute right to do business in Leawood including commercial development. I just don't like the appearance of conflict it creates to have developers running around city hall.


Anonymous said...

Interesting find Mr. Everyman. I wonder if he will answer your questions. I wouldn't hold your breath.

Anonymous said...

I think you are right on with this. I'm supporting Greg Peppes and I DO live in Ward 1. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I'm hopeful everyone else can see what this guy is all about. Good posting!

Anonymous said...

Why isn't anybody else but an anonymous blogger talking about this? You've been right about several other candidates so you have some credibility. Maybe the race is just too small for anyone in the press to really care?

JOCOeveryman said...

That's a good question why nobody else is talking about it. Makes me nervous though. Thanks for reading all.