Cropp said she would expect the council to hold a public hearing before it votes on a plan.
Also yesterday, a stadium site property owner filed a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court alleging that Gandhi deflated land assessments in a recent report to help ensure that a ballpark can be constructed.
Robert Siegel, who owns land at the proposed stadium site, including this property on O Street SE, has filed a lawsuit to block the city from acquiring it.
(Marvin Joseph -- The Washington Post)
|
|
Robert Siegel, who owns property at 24 O St. SE and 1352 South Capitol St. SE, is asking the court to block the District from pursuing the ballpark site.
In the complaint, Siegel and his attorney, Dale A. Cooter, contend that Gandhi undertook a study of costs associated with the ballpark site with the intent to keep the final estimate below a $165 million spending cap established by the D.C. Council.
If the total had exceeded the cap, the council's legislation would have required the city to seek an alternative site. But Gandhi's study, released two weeks ago, concluded that the cost to acquire 14 acres, do environmental cleanup and build stadium infrastructure would total $161.4 million.
The study "was designed to lead to a known result -- to the result that costs . . . will not exceed $165 million," the lawsuit states. "The conclusions . . . are erroneous, speculative, false and unreasonable."
Siegel is among several property owners challenging the city over issues related to the proposed stadium site near the Navy Yard and South Capitol Street. Last fall, owners of a trash transfer station sued the city, arguing that officials denied the company permits for improvements and expansion to deflate the value of the plot in anticipation of an attempt to buy or condemn it.
Late last week, John H.C. Barron Jr., who represents owners of an asphalt plant at the site, sent a letter to Gandhi stating that a developer had tried to buy the land for $25 million -- far higher than the $9 million that Gandhi estimated the plot to be worth. He declined to provide a copy of the offer.
The District's corporation counsel's office would not comment on Siegel's lawsuit. Although Gandhi was not named as a defendant in the suit, he also declined to comment through a spokeswoman.
The complaints about Gandhi's study from property owners come as several council members have asked Gandhi to reexamine his conclusions. Gandhi has said he will review his findings, but he stressed that he stands behind the report, which was done by paid consultants at Deloitte & Touche.
