On June 16 , the town council voted on a motion to transfer and approve the sale for $ 50 , 000 of Daley Court , to be redeveloped into elderly housing . The property , located on 590 Burnside Ave ., was purchased by the town for $ 200 , 000 in 2002 .

When opposition to the motion was expressed at a public hearing held before the council meeting , which accused the town of not following proper procedures , it was met with heated reactions from the town council .

Daley Court was built in 1961 , and was a 30-unit dwelling complex used for elderly and handicapped housing . It was run by the East Hartford Housing Authority . In 2000 , the EHHA asked the East Hartford Redevelopment Agency if they would be interested in the property , citing that the structure was “ functionally obsolete” and becoming difficult to maintain fiscally .

The state of Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development did not support EHHA’s intentions of disposing of the property , saying that there was still need for low cost elderly housing in the area . Timothy Coppage of DECD encouraged EHHA to apply to them for funds to rehabilitate the property in a letter dated Sept . 5 , 2000 . They suggested that if EHHA was still unwilling to operate the facility , they would discuss the transfer of the facility to another entity that would continue to operate it .

Robert Counihan , the current executive director of EHHA , said that through the ’ 90 s , the cost of utilities were increasing , especially after a problem with the boiler was discovered , and the state’s budget was too dry to assist them . “ There was no way we were going to survive with the project the way it was , ” said Counihan .

EHHA continued to dispose of Daley Court . In a letter dated Dec . 5 , 2000 , the executive director of EHHA at the time said , “ Under the Authority’s disposition plan , all residents of Daley Court have been transferred , at EHHA cost , to other EHHA owned developments in town . ” In July 2002 , the town of East Hartford took the property , through eminent domain , for $ 200 , 000 . After a proposal , submitted December of 2002 , to redevelop the property into an artist studio was deemed unsuitable , the property was left unused and allowed to blight by the new owners , the town of East Hartford .

“ It has been vacant for over seven years, notwithstanding efforts to find a beneficial use keeping with the goals of the redevelopment plan , ” said Robin Pearson , chair of the Redevelopment Agency at the public hearing . After considering a number of proposals during two Request for Proposal ( RFP ) , processes , held in 2006 and 2008 , Pearson said the Redevelopment Agency decided to sell to a team composed of New Samaritan Corporation and Sheldon Oak Central . Their proposal is to remove the existing structure and build a 24-unit apartment for elderly housing . They will apply to the Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) to assist with the cost of construction .

The motion from the Real Estate Acquisition and Disposition Committee first asked to transfer the title of 590 Burnside Ave . from the town to the Redevelopment Agency .

Secondly , it asked approval for the sale of the property to New Samaritan Corporation ( or a new not-for-profit corporation to be created by New Samaritan Corporation with respect to this project ) , for $ 50 , 000 .

The motion carried along party lines , Democrats 6 , Republicans 3 .

During the public hearing , East Hartford citizen Jon Searles voiced what Mayor Currey described as “ serious allegations” regarding the process leading to the vote .

Among his points , Searles referred to Section 10-19 of the town’s code of ordinances and said that the Real Estate Acquisition and Disposition Committee must have an appraisal done on the property , which was not done .

Another discrepancy was that , “ the Real Estate Committee must publicly open all bids . To my knowledge , the Real Estate Acquisition and Disposition Committee did not see the bids [ from the Redevelopment Agency ] , much less unseal them publicly themselves , ” said Searles .

Afterwards , Rich Gentile , Assistant Corporation Counsel for East Hartford , responded . He said the committee did not commission an appraisal , “ but the ordinance allows for the Real Estate Acquisition [ and Disposition Committee ] to basically review the issue , not get an appraisal if the town council waives that requirement . ”

In response to the issue of the Real Estate Acquisition and Disposition Committee’s review of the bids , Gentile said that it was not the committee’s job to “ go out to bid with respect to who might do the job in the end . ” They had two issues to resolve : to transfer the property to the Redevelopment Agency , and to approve of the sales price . The Redevelopment Agency , a separate group from the town , and therefore under statutes different from 10-19 , was not obligated to submit to the town council the other bids they reviewed by RFP .

“ This is a homerun for this community , to have this happening on Burnside Avenue , ” said Mayor Currey . “ It flabbergasts me that anyone should think that we should not be providing housing for needy senior citizens . ”

“ We think it will be a great addition to the neighborhood and East Hartford , and will eliminate an outdated and vacant building , ” said Pearson .