I think it's fair to say at this point your involvement in this discussion has graduated from one of merely offering opinions to becoming an advocate for those whose ties are local while simultaneously conflating the issues effectively obfuscating the heart of the matter -- Gutierrez has not acted as someone who had an interest or desire in avoiding the appearance of impropriety when it came to the leasing of BBC property.
I'm not sure whether your failure to address the fact that there is no information from anyone involved that he did anything that could even remotely be described as transparent, both before and after December 27th, is willful or not, but the result is the same. You stated in another post that if information was presented that would change your mind, you would do so.
To that end, set aside the terms of the lease. Such transactions for nominal amounts are not uncommon. Efforts by land owners, be they business entities or individuals, to minimize tax burdens through obtaining ag exemptions are not in and of themselves suspect, illegal, or otherwise unethical.
The BBC's press releases state that it was unaware that Gutierrez was a client of Rafter D or of what was going on on their property until the issue gained traction on social media. Their press releases say that neither Borrel nor Starr contacted them about retrieving the plane. As I stated in my timeline post, what is not said is often as important as what is said. So, in this instance, BBC explicitly stated that neither Borrel nor Starr contacted them; what they didn't say was that neither Gutierrez nor Dorn contacted them following the emergency landing. There's only two ways to read that: (1) no one, including Gutierrez and Dorn, ever contacted them and the first they learned of it was from social media or (2) they had been told about it by someone, just not by Borrel or Starr.
If it's the former, why didn't Dorn or Gutierrez ever loop the BBC in on the fact that there was a plane on the property that was the subject of potential damages claims by Dorn and Gutierrez against Borrel, and, more importantly, why didn't Gutierrez notify the BBC, either directly or through Dorn, when he received a letter from Borrel's attorney threatening legal action involving BBC's property and/or when an actual lawsuit naming him and involving that property was filed.
If it's the latter, why did the BBC assert that they first learned of the issue through social media and waited until it gained traction on social media before contacting Borrel's attorney demanding the plane be removed.
Do you not see that regardless of which is true, neither looks good for Gutierrez and/or the BBC?
I've posted related questions in other posts to which whatever the answer is to those respective questions does not shine a favorable light on Gutierrez and the BBC with regard to avoiding the appearance of impropriety. No one of the persuasion that there is no information indicating something untoward may have occurred has yet to offer up a possible answer to any of those questions that does not put either Gutierrez or the BBC in a negative light with regard to the lease transaction or the aftermath of the emergency landing. However, it is that aspect of this event -- the appearance of impropriety -- that is at the heart of the matter. The terms of the lease, whether there was a competitive bidding process, etc. are but symptoms.
Simply put, my overarching question is this: If there was no impropriety surrounding the agreement between Rafter D and BBC, why was there no effort on the part of any of the parties involved, either directly or indirectly, to be transparent from the outset?
I'm not sure whether your failure to address the fact that there is no information from anyone involved that he did anything that could even remotely be described as transparent, both before and after December 27th, is willful or not, but the result is the same. You stated in another post that if information was presented that would change your mind, you would do so.
To that end, set aside the terms of the lease. Such transactions for nominal amounts are not uncommon. Efforts by land owners, be they business entities or individuals, to minimize tax burdens through obtaining ag exemptions are not in and of themselves suspect, illegal, or otherwise unethical.
The BBC's press releases state that it was unaware that Gutierrez was a client of Rafter D or of what was going on on their property until the issue gained traction on social media. Their press releases say that neither Borrel nor Starr contacted them about retrieving the plane. As I stated in my timeline post, what is not said is often as important as what is said. So, in this instance, BBC explicitly stated that neither Borrel nor Starr contacted them; what they didn't say was that neither Gutierrez nor Dorn contacted them following the emergency landing. There's only two ways to read that: (1) no one, including Gutierrez and Dorn, ever contacted them and the first they learned of it was from social media or (2) they had been told about it by someone, just not by Borrel or Starr.
If it's the former, why didn't Dorn or Gutierrez ever loop the BBC in on the fact that there was a plane on the property that was the subject of potential damages claims by Dorn and Gutierrez against Borrel, and, more importantly, why didn't Gutierrez notify the BBC, either directly or through Dorn, when he received a letter from Borrel's attorney threatening legal action involving BBC's property and/or when an actual lawsuit naming him and involving that property was filed.
If it's the latter, why did the BBC assert that they first learned of the issue through social media and waited until it gained traction on social media before contacting Borrel's attorney demanding the plane be removed.
Do you not see that regardless of which is true, neither looks good for Gutierrez and/or the BBC?
I've posted related questions in other posts to which whatever the answer is to those respective questions does not shine a favorable light on Gutierrez and the BBC with regard to avoiding the appearance of impropriety. No one of the persuasion that there is no information indicating something untoward may have occurred has yet to offer up a possible answer to any of those questions that does not put either Gutierrez or the BBC in a negative light with regard to the lease transaction or the aftermath of the emergency landing. However, it is that aspect of this event -- the appearance of impropriety -- that is at the heart of the matter. The terms of the lease, whether there was a competitive bidding process, etc. are but symptoms.
Simply put, my overarching question is this: If there was no impropriety surrounding the agreement between Rafter D and BBC, why was there no effort on the part of any of the parties involved, either directly or indirectly, to be transparent from the outset?
