What do we have here?


While doing a little research on properties that Chaney already owns that might be more suitable than Hughesville for his gravel washing site, I stumbled across some very interesting information.  On 12/27/1999, Southstar Limited Partnership (Chaney) sold 5.2740 acres (Lot 2 District 08 Account Number 064849) to Waldorf Restaurant, Inc. (also Chaney) for $50,000.00.  Just three months later, a 2,550 sq. ft. brick home had been built on it.  On 3/30/2000, Waldorf Restaurant sold this home and property to Marland Deen for $238,000.00 (No deed of trust was registered).  Also, ocurring on 3/30/2000, Marland Deen's existing home, built in 1962 and only 1,596 sq. ft. on .7309 acres (District 06 Account Number 032745), was sold to Waldorf Restaurant, Inc. for $238,000.00.  

Hmmmm.....it seems there was a trade with the then-sitting commissioner - A 1962 home with .7309 acres for a new 1999 brick home, almost twice the size, and 5.2740 acres to boot!  Today's appraised base value of the 1962 home is $212,460.00, while the 1999 home is appraised at $512,640.00.  Wow, Marland Deen really made out, didn't he?  So, the next question that begs an answer is - what did Chaney get out of the deal? 

Sources:

SDAT District 06 Account Number 032745

SDAT District 08 Account Number 064849

And, let's not forget this quote from the Indy Article, Donations Rile Rezoning Foes, "I would say if he never gave me [a contribution] in the past, then, yes, it would have been inappropriate," Cooper said Wednesday. "He is a big supporter. He has been since I've been a commissioner." 

Do even more questions come to mind?




 
Trackbacks
  • Trackbacks are closed for this post.
Comments

  • 4/16/2009 12:00 AM Jennifer Abell wrote:
    Just spurred a thought here with Chaney propety...My stepfather, Ralph Martin, (God rest his soul and previous publisher of the Indy) bought some property from Chaney years ago (at least 10+ years) in Dentsville....and unfortunatley my elder mother continues to have recurring problems with trepassers, who say they have Chaneys permission to be there including CCSO officers who insist they have permission to practice their ATV practice. Which might I add, if they weren't so indignant would be guven permission.
    Reply to this
  • 4/16/2009 8:01 AM Cheryl Thomas wrote:
    Great research!!!

    The answer to your question is: YES!!!

    There's much more yet to come out of the woodwork, just wait and see!!
    Reply to this
  • 4/16/2009 8:39 AM Pauleen Brewer wrote:
    Someone sent me the results of their research on this:

    During Deen’s tenure there were literally hundreds of projects and proposals Deen supported that Chaney introduced. Their Waldorf Plant II expansion was approved in the late 90s – which surely took the support and approval of the BOA and/or Commissioners; Deen supported their “leased” soccer fields proposal. There were dozens of land acquisitions and sales between the county and chaney/southstar l.p. A big one, I think around 2000 was the Douglas Point strip mine in Nanjemoy… I don’t know if it was approved, by chaney has other strip mines in Nanjemoy. Going back through the old Meeting Minutes (mid-late 90s) Chaney had a land use approval or a “hearing” at least once a month for another property or proposal.

    The connections are there.

    Buddy Garner, the former sheriff, worked (and works) for Chaney in their land acquisition/real estate section. He’s now VP of that section.

    Deen is “tagged” as someone associated with “Chaney Enterprises” on PIPL http://pipl.com/directory/tags/Chaney%2520Enterprises
    Reply to this
  • 4/16/2009 11:12 AM Linda Rollins wrote:
    What hole did you folks just climb out of - it's a known fact that Deen was in Chaney's back pocket all those years! Chaney built that house for Deen. This is not "new" news to most people - at least those who have been around for awhile.
    Reply to this
  • 4/16/2009 6:04 PM Pauleen Brewer wrote:
    Whether it's old news or new, it still stinks...Just trying to make sure everyone smells it.
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.