Who Was Contacted? How? and When?

Donna Moll Burford has contacted all 41 properties along Lorimer about the “sidewalk project”. I am calling it that because it all started with wanting the free sidewalks the city offers. Now we are looking at a new road so I guess I should call it the “new road project”. So far there has been a really good response but there are still a few of you that we don’t know where you stand. Feel free to send a FB message.

– Sharon Moll Mixon, April 6, 2015 (Facebook post)

.  .  .  .  .  .

BUT DID THE PETITIONER, DONNA BURFORD, NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS? and

WHY WAS CITY STAFF MEMBER DONETTA POWELL ACTIVELY PURSUING AN ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE ON A PETITION THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED WITH 65% APPROVAL?

We believe Donna Burford, the Petitioner, failed to notify “ALL PROPERTY OWNERS,” as she was charged with doing by the City.

The owner of 1300 Lorimer Road, from the beginning of the active Petition period, November 18, 2014, until April 24, 2015, was Adrianne W. Joergensen.  It is our belief that Ms Joergensen was NEVER NOTIFIED by this Petitioner about the Petition / Street and Sidewalk Project. (see Email from Donna Buford to Ryan Barnum, 4/10/15)

Why is Donetta Powell (through Donna Burford) pursuing the new property owner, Ryan Barnum, so late and so vigorously? (see Affidavit of Ryan Barnum). It surely can’t have been for the small percentage-gains Donna mentions in her email to Ryan (below).

Ryan Barnum purchased the house and property from Ms Joergensen, and became the new property owner, on April 24, 2015. If Ms. Joergensen was not notified and so could not disclose the impending potential assessment of $10,624, Ryan Barnum couldn’t (and so didn’t) use this knowledge during purchase-price negation.

This could also leave Ms Joergensen open to possible legal action for non-disclosure.
___________________________________________________

Email from Donna Buford to Ryan Barnum on May 27, 2015

Ryan,

Donetta Powell with the City of Raleigh contacted me to get Mrs. Chandler’s signature that was missed.  She also suggested that since she has had communication with you regarding the approved access point in your yard that you may have an interest in signing the petition as well. She dropped the petition off to me and is requesting that I return it back to her as soon as  possible.  Please let me know if I can come by or if you could swing by here.

Unless you are against the petition, I would encourage you to sign.  The petition was accepted with 65% approval when I turned it in on May 4th and if you signed, it will be resubmitted at 71%.  I am assuming that the higher the approval rating on a project shows positively when presented to the City Council on July 7th.

.  .  .  .  .  .

— The Petitioner, Donna Burford, was charged with contacting “ALL PROPERTY OWNERS that will be affected by this petition so they may have the opportunity to read and/or sign the petition and be aware that this petition is requesting a possible future project that may result in an assessment against their property.”

1. Did Mrs. Burford, in fact, contact ALL property owners during the six-month period the Petition was active? If she claims to have done so, can that claim be confirmed? Has it been?

2. Did Mrs. Burford contact all property owners in a timely fashion? And if not, why not?