Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

DLDC takes on one delinquent loan at a time

March 1, 2013

It was a tale of two loans, both overdue, when the Dunkirk Local Development Corporation Board of Directors held its February meeting....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(9)

hadenough

Mar-01-13 9:00 AM

seriously. What is going on in this city? People read these comments (I think). But you can be sure businesses do. And from what I am seeing no one is doing their job. Overdue mortgage payments, money not accounted for, money being given away and no action taken to collect. The taxpayer needs to start asking questions. Perhaps those we elected into office and those appointed do not have what it takes to fulfill their duties. We the people should start asking for accountability and if the person fails to hold himself accountable they should be replaced. Of course this will never happen because the people of Dunkirk it seems do not care. As long as the garbage and leaves are picked up then all is well. But perhaps when industry starts cutting people will take notice.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commentor

Mar-01-13 10:46 AM

Obviously the people in charge don't know what they are doing. Anyone that knows what they are doing don't get into deals without knowing all the possible consequences. Yes and let's put Dunkiirk in charge of a Regional Water District. Who votes for that?? You have to be an idiot!!!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DarkStar

Mar-01-13 11:16 AM

So why would a loan be given where the collateral, in this case the property, carries with it a potential liability far beyond the value of the building?

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Captain

Mar-01-13 12:00 PM

The borrower (Paradis) was essentially allowed to post a liability in return for a low-interst loan. He allegedly owes the DLDC $14K. If he refuses or is unable to meet the conditions agreed upon, auction off the bldg.

Same goes for Surma. Foreclose on the loan, seize his home (which was put up as collateral), and then auction it off. If the auction doesn't raise the $36K owed, put a lien on him.

What's the problem here?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hadenough

Mar-01-13 1:08 PM

commentor your getting better every day

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rumblefish

Mar-01-13 4:29 PM

is this another case of the blind leading the blind,or the inmates running the asylum,even more of concern is Mrs. Banach's comments and question,seeing that the DLDC lent money to the Banach's for the purchase of NOG INC. as I remember

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

pleasecheckfacts

Mar-01-13 8:49 PM

What taxpayers should be screaming about is why the DLDC paid well over twice the assessed value for the former Flickenger building. & since they have taken it over, they won't even cut the weeds as previous owners had to do. Also if Mrs. Banach was a man, the author would have rephrased his "chimed in" comment.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Retired101

Mar-01-13 9:20 PM

Maybe Surma's wages should be garnished...after all he does work for the city!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Captain

Mar-02-13 5:29 AM

Surma is a city employee, yet he's ignored/cut off communication w/the DLDC? That's funny!

After reading about Paradis' default and the possible liabilities that his property carries with it, would it really surprise anyone if Surma owes more than $36K on his house?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 9 of 9 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web