Superior Court Judge Dale Radcliffe Monday afternoon, after court testimony, announced he has sided with Bridgeport and Stratford to appoint a receiver to oversee the tragedy impacting roughly 2,000 residents at the Success Village co-op without heat and hot water and monthly common charges spent dubiously for the past two years.
The judge will announce the receiver Tuesday morning. This means the Success board, led by Ty Bird who has been under fire for inaction on health and safety violations, as well as millions paid out to lawyers and consultants the past two years, is rendered inactive until the judge otherwise rules.
Radcliffe found “clear and convincing” evidence of substantial fire, health and safety code violations with little to no money in the coffers to pay for any immediate solutions with a board unable to bring results to the pressing issues.
The news was received with jubilation from Success Village residents in the courtroom and on the Village community group site.
Ordering a receiver is an extreme measure rarely utilized by the court but city and town officials after repeated entreaties from residents of the private entity disillusioned with board leadership envisioned a public safety and health threat with no heat and hot water. In addition, the board failed to pay property taxes and utilities from monthly generated common charges.
Court testimony revealed the co-op had $1.9 million on hand two years ago that was drained by payments to lawyers and consultants. In addition, many cash withdrawals were made from the various banks where the co-op does business.
Bird took the stand on Monday morning with direct testimony from Success board lawyer Dennis Bradley. Either on direct or cross examination by municipal attorney Richard Buturla the judge was suspicious of the testimony of the defense given the extreme set of living arrangement factors and inaction by the board’s leadership.
Success Village, now roughly 75 years old, is split between Bridgeport and Stratford. Leadership of the municipalities approved about $700,000 in combined loans to address the short term boiler issues with the cold weather season approaching.
It’s the burden of the named receiver to restore financial sanity and logical resolution to long-term heat and hot water to approximately 900 units.
Meanwhile local, state and federal law enforcement officials are probing the mess for criminal conduct.
The BOD failed to protect the good people of Success Village and they should be held liable!
How many residents have ownership rights? How many are residing there as leaseholders or renters? Are such arrangements legal within the Success Village governing system (ByLaws) or must they be handled differently?
If municipalities become legally responsible for re-settling and financing current residents because of declared health issues by Stratford, Bridgeport, or State officials, are all residents covered?
The entire event points to a weakness, not understood well when State Law around such real estate ownership organizations came into being. The CT Statute assumed that owners would act in their own interests rather than let “them” as Board members or appointed , self-interested management, run roughshod over them, denying them basic “ownership” rights, it would seem. That is why I keep asking the question of Bridgeport administration: “Why have you been so disinterested in making full, qualified, appointments of people with experience to serve on a Fair Housing Commission?”
Is this a failure of “concept”, duty to nominate, or planning, or is it merely a failure to care about residents of a municipality who have health, safety, and equity at risk? 20 years without such a Commission? I do not know how rapidly the short-term or longer-term heat, water, and energy solutions will take. But I recognize the intense interest in laying out the failure at the hands of all who fed on this financial disaster and turned their backs on the requirements of running a self-governing ‘neighborhood’. How were dollars consumed by providers? What hat were folks who took cash from accounts were wearing as they drew out cash that belonged to others? Who thought to have meetings as governance of ByLaws spelled out, as well as notices, financial reports, and other communications during the last two years? Time will tell.