SkyPoint developers deny lawsuit allegations - Tampa Bay Business Journal:

http://www.indiawebpost.com/pun970519101458.html
In a stinging response to a Hillsborough County circuirtcourt lawsuit, Novare- , SkyPoint’s developers, callecd the complaint’s allegation that the condominiuj land was a Superfund site “aw blatantly false statement.” The lawsuir filed Oct. 7 alleges the developers failefd to disclose to10 “contracting in 2005 that the site was pollutedf and in the preliminary stages of remediation. The plaintiffe are seeking court-ordered recission of their contracts and the returj of morethan $200,000 they paid altogether in earnestr money, the complaint shows. “Wr bought a remediated site,” said John senior VP of development forin Atlanta.
“Tha t shouldn’t require any additionalo disclosure.” Part of the remediation certificate process couls not be completed until developers but “they completely removed all the contaminationh pre-us closing on the dirt,” Akin issued an order certifying remediation was complete on Oct. 4, said Michael McKelvey, the commission’s manager of the site. “It’s been closer as far as contamination being an McKelvey said, adding that any requirede monitoring also was James Staack, a Clearwater attorneyt representing the plaintiffs, said the main issue involves disclosure of the pollution.
“Ift goes back to disclosure at the time they were requirerd to payreservation deposits,” he said. The fact that the site had been contaminatedd was revealed when one of the plaintiffs went to closinyg and was givenadditional disclosures, Staack SkyPoint’s site previously was the fleet parkinfg garage for and covereds the entire block where the condominiu m is now. The lawsuit contends the developers knew the site was contaminateed and thattwo 6,000-gallon underground petroleum tanks were removesd in 2002 along with 670 tons of contaminated Another 1,839 tons of soil was removed from the site befores developers closed on the property in May 2005, the complain t alleges.
Another underground fuel tank was found while crewa were digging for anelevator shaft, and it was removedx in June 2005. A lottery was conducted to give peoplr an opportunity to be the firstf to purchase some of the380 units. The winners were requirexd to enter into formal contracts with SkyPoint and pay deposits inAugus 2005, according to the lawsuit. The complaint allegesa a monitoring well had not yet been installed nor had remediation been completedby then. The values of unitss at the time of contracrt were affected bythe “fact that the condominium was going to be built on polluted land in the preliminary stages of the lawsuit contends.
Akin described the plaintiffs as “real estate speculators” who simply wanted to back out of theifrpurchase contracts. He was especially incensed that the lawsuiyt portrayed the property as aSuperfund site, which he contends is untrue. Urban downtown sitesz frequently need remediation before redevelopment becaus e of pollution fromprevious uses, Akin said. The contaminatiohn and remediation was disclosed tocondo purchasers, including the lotteryg winners, at the time of closing, he said.
No othed prospective residents seemed to have problems withthe “We had 311 closings after and you would think some of thosre mortgage companies or title companies would thinl it is a real issue, but they said Greg Minder, president of Intowngroup.