Page Co. EDA "Action Spectacular" - Part 5 - final, for now

We are still waiting for our PN&C this week, but I see that there is some news about the Rainwater letter already on line, where Benjamin Weathers reports on Lowell Baughan’s response via interview and written statement. For the final post in this series, let’s take a look at what Baughan had to say about Project Clover and the arguments presented in the attorney letter.


First, while defending the EDA’s authority to defend the land, Baughan disputes the appraisal of Project Clover’s value, which was pegged at $2.5 million versus the negotiated price. The article reports that (emphasis added) Baughan said there was no appraisal conducted before the authority made its decision to purchase the 210 acres. It goes on to say that the price paid was derived from other appraisals.

Baughan’s own comments show how subjective the appraisal business can be: “We based our purchase price, in part, on appraisals of properties in the same general area that were considerably higher,” he said. So on the one hand, Baughan confirms that his actions in this case are irresponsible - no appraisal was conducted before committing to a $7.5 million purchase – and on the other, he wants to debunk a legitimate appraisal based on his own reckoning of the valuation used in this deal.

Honestly, it’s not hard to see anymore why so many Page County citizens and residents have lined up against this transaction!

The paper also reports that Baughan has conceded that the county has “no legal obligation to move forward with the land purchase, but argued as he has in the past that defaulting on the payment would significantly impact the county's credit rating.” Also:

“There is no legal obligation for the county to keep its word, but if they don't, there are serious ramifications,” Baughan said. “If you renege on a pledge of moral obligation, the next time you try to borrow money, you either won't be able to, or the interest rates will be much higher.”

Baughan defends the decision to disenfranchise the County’s citizens, saying that “because no bond was ever issued for the property, no public hearing was ever required.”

These comments won’t do anything to quiet the questions that continue to be raised about Project Clover.  With these responses Baughan seems to suggest that he sought no counsel during the episode leading up to the purchase agreement – that he felt he was smart enough to wrangle an agreement that would be good enough despite all the signs pointing to a bad deal. Although it is unlikely that the Commonwealth Attorney would look into this matter with so many other pressing issues at hand in the State, a civil lawsuit from several parties – not just Rebecca Hudson – just might be justified, as Rainwater's attorneys say in the letter.

The paper closes with another quote, “The allegations made in the attorney's letter regarding actions taken by the EDA are non-specific and without merit,” Baughan said. Actually, it is clear that the attorneys who wrote this letter have a lot of material in their hands, and that material is very specific. In my mind, Baughan’s comments confirm the validity of the questions and opposition to Project Clover.

It will be interesting to see what’s next in this case.  Lowell Baughan should start taking these questions seriously - it's irresponsible to respond these comments so lightly.