Objection seems to be sour grapes

To the editor:

I am writing to comment on the recent bidding for the former Sheller-Globe/Bailey building at 510 S. Bridge St. in Portland.

The “Recycling reinstated” article, of Tuesday, April 16, and previous articles pertaining to the bidding process will be cited for facts concerning the bids.

According to the April 16 article, Mr. Tim Miller felt that “the process was not fair.”

What I understand, it was quite fair, and went according to the facts given concerning the qualifications for bids.

First, the prices in the bids. The bids were Mr. Goodhew, of Goodhew Roofing & Metals, made a bid for $52,500 for the property, which is over the minimum required. Mr. Miller, of TJ's Bicycle and Moped Sales bid $156,050.50 for the property, which is three times the value of the property. That seems to be a price that only a large investment for improvements would make the property sellable, in the future.

Second, the required check for 10 percent of the bid. The article after the Portland Board of Works meeting stated that Mr. Goodhew had complied with that requirement, but that Mr. Miller had not included the required check.

Third, intended improvements for the property. The Goodhew bid had expressed, in both of his bids, that he plans on investing $750,000 into fixing the building, and for machinery for the business. There was nothing commented, in any of the articles, about Mr. Miller's intentions of doing any improvements to the property. This was a requirement of the bid application.

Fourth, the business plan. Mr. Goodhew has expressed that he intends on improving the property and adding machinery for his roofing and metal business, and that he plans on putting several people to work in order to operate a business at the property. Mr. Miller has not expressed a business plan.

There was talk, in an article from the initial bids, which were voided, and the rebidding, that at least one of the three businesses, other than Goodhew wanted the building for storage.

If this is Mr. Miller's intention, who will be responsible for the eventual loss caused by the crumbling of the building in the future.

Who would be willing to insure the building if no work to improve the building is done? 

It seems to me that Mr. Miller may not intend to make needed improvements to the building and is seeking the building for storage of his bicycles, mopeds, scooters, motorcycles and assorted other items. He would surely want to insure the contents of the building, if he were to use it for storage, but would anyone take that risk, with a dilapidated building?

I hope, if the city were to give in to Mr. Miller's demands, that his $156,050.50 bid be the winning bid, that the city will make him sign paperwork preventing him from trying to sue the city for damages to his property when the roof, or more, collapse onto his belongings in storage, and he has no insurance covering said property.

I think that the bidding process has been extremely fair, and that Mr. Miller is displaying a sour grapes attitude because he did not fulfill the requirements of the bid application, by not remitting the check for 10 percent, intended improvements to the property and a business plan, all of which are required by the bid application.

It doesn't seem as though there could be no legitimate legal recourse from Mr. Miller, for not fulfilling the requirements of the bidding process. Therefore, it seems as though the only thing unfair about the process is Mr. Miller not fulfilling those requirements and complaining that he didn't win the bid.

Daniel E. Chase

Portland