I got the same email-----BEACON REDEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION
BEACON PENNSYLVANIA HOLDINGS, INC.
(OTC Stock Symbol: BCND)
14390 ROUTE 30
IRWIN, PA 15642
1-724-871-7458
1-302-450-7233 facsimile
info@beaconredevelopment.com
www.beaconredevelopment.com
May 12, 2009
Dear Shareholder:
Today we received several inquiries relating to the public meeting on May 11, 2009, at Hempfield Township relating to our glass factory. Most of the emails pertained to the newspaper article in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review that implied our company defaulted with respect to the proceedings. Rest assured that is not the case.
Understand the background of the situation. For over fifteen years, Hempfield Township officials have understandably been attempting to have the Westmoreland Glass Factory demolished and the land developed. The prior owner, Westmoreland Warehouse & Industrial Building, Inc., bought the property in 1986 before it burnt down. They never dreamed that a fire could or would destroy a building made of brick and steel, so they had inadequate insurance. However, in the early 1990s, that is precisely what happened. WW&IB did not have the funds to demolish the building, and apparently they did not realize the salvage value of the antique brick or steel on the property.
Hempfield Township repeatedly attempted to have WW&IB demolish the property; however, WW&IB’s management took an adversarial position about the situation and litigated the matter. The Township filed a legal proceeding, and the management of WW&IB fired back with proceedings of their own. In all, there were two federal court cases and one state case relating to the matter during the 1990s. All stalled in court and resulted in a waste of resources for all involved.
In 2006, WW&IB merged with Diversified Land Management Group, Inc. In December 2006, Hempfield Township sent a notice of violation to WW&IB, not realizing the merger occurred. DLMG responded to the notice. The Township never scheduled a hearing. Apparently because DLMG decided to remain focused on their core business, buying and selling properties, they did not wish to or could not deal with the glass factory.
The Board of Directors of Intelective Communications, Inc., looking for a business to replace its slow moving internet projects decided to focus on redeveloping distressed properties. Management learned of the glass factory and investigated the potential for salvage of the antique bricks. The company changed its name to Beacon Redevelopment Industrial Corporation (“BRIC”) to identify its first business project.
Upon deciding to purchase the land, we immediately notified officials from Hempfield Township. We provided them with our contact information. Our agents spoke to their supervisors telephonically and communicated by email.
Due to a few legal and accounting quirks, we did not receive actual title to the property until October 28, 2008. In the mean time, adverse weather conditions impeded our ability to obtain environmental surveys.
In February, our contractor met with environmental consultants. In early April 2009, our contractor reached a decision and negotiated a contract for an asbestos survey.
At no point did we hear from Hempfield Township officials. Nobody called us. Nobody sent an email. We received no fax. We knew of no problems or concerns.
On April 15, 2009, we received an exact replica of the notice that Hempfield Township sent DLMG in December 2006. Not one word was changed. We replied on the same date we received it. We updated Hempfield Township as to the progress. However, to preserve our rights, we requested a public meeting in front of the Hempfield Township Supervisors on the issue.
Thereafter we received a letter from the Hempfield Township Solicitor that agreed to keep our submission confidential until any public meeting. The Solicitor outlined certain concerns, but took an adversarial position referring to our explanations as “excuses” and stating we did not advise of the identity of our contractors.
To try to lay the matter to rest, and to reach an understanding with the Township, our agents contacted the Hempfield Township Solicitor telephonically. During that conversation, our agent advised that the company was willing to provide progress reports to the Township and keep them informed. We advised that their demand that the facility be demolished within thirty (30) days would create an adversarial position with our contractor. Simply put, the goal of the demolition is to make money for the companies involved, not to waste money by rapidly excavating the property instead of using labor intensive methods to save the bricks. However, it became clear to us that we were speaking to an attorney who did not want to be objective about the situation. Therefore, we requested that the public meeting be scheduled.
The next day, despite his promise to keep the matter private until the hearing, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review published an article with various quotes of the Hempfield Township Solicitor which claimed our management stated that they were no longer interested in recycling the property. The statements were categorically false as the entire purchase was premised on the plan to remediate the property.
We responded to the article with a letter to the editor which was not published by the paper. We also asked for a small correction of an incorrect quote attributed to our officer, but the request was ignored by the paper.
In the meantime, we prepared to show the Hempfield Township Supervisors what our plans were and the progress being made. We wanted to keep our presentation quick and to the point. We brought in a project manager from our contractor who had been prepared to explain not only what the plans were for salvaging the property, but information about the future business that we were negotiating for the community.
We communicated with legal counsel as to how to proceed. A decision was made to keep it concise. Rather than bring our environmental specialist, we had a letter explaining when the report would be complete. We made a decision not to bring in agents of our company because they had nothing to add. On the contrary, our contractor maintained the right to make the decisions as to how to proceed and had the information as to the progress. We wanted to stick to the facts. We appointed a competent local attorney to make sure that our rights were preserved.
Prior to the meeting, our local attorney met with an attorney that Hempfield Township hired to deal with the matter. After the meeting, our management consulted with legal advisors as to what the issues were. Specifically, we learned of the community’s concerns as to the facility including their desire that it be more secure and subject to additional monitoring to prevent harm to trespassers. Our contractor planned to address those concerns and agree to many of the perceived problems – issues that Hempfield Township officials never notified us of prior to the day of the meeting.
At the meeting, not a single resident was in attendance. Hempfield Township presented testimony of a bridge inspector who stated that he believed that the facility was dangerous. Our attorney had the courtesy to allow him to speak and present his information and positions, even though a lot of it constituted unsupported opinions.
When it came time for our contractor to state his position, the attorneys for Hempfield Township began what appeared to be protocol for a court proceeding rather than a meeting before Township Supervisors. The Township attorneys objected to nearly everything as “hearsay.” The Supervisors even refused to look at a letter from the environmental company as to the timeline for the asbestos survey results. The Supervisors were not interested. They did not want to know of plans for the future. The contractor’s agent was unable to speak and was even told that if it was a court, he’d be held in contempt.
At the end of a meeting that lasted nearly three hours, the issue of representatives of our company came up. The only reason our legal counsel even entertained the idea of calling someone from our company as a witness would be to explain what would happen if our contractor pulled out because of arbitrary and capricious demands from the Township. (We would need to take new bids). The attorneys for the Township advised that they would like to ask some questions as well. The entire dialogue about agents from our company lasted about ten minutes of the three hour meeting.
One would think that the members of the community would be interested in learning about the positions taken by the Township, what their experts stated, or what our contractor explained. Presumably, the news would be what will happen to the factory. Nevertheless, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review wrote an entire article implying that we “failed to appear.” Three hours of the meeting were ignored as, to the reporter, apparently the underlying issues were not newsworthy. Only showing our company in a negative light seems important, almost as if no two hour meeting took place.
After reviewing the article, we pondered whether something prompted the hostile activities by Hempfield Township officials and the negative slant from the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. We began looking at our communications with shareholders, contractors, and other interested persons. We also discussed the matter with our contractor.
We learned that a third-party, who apparently has some form of vendetta against an officer of the company that sold us the property, has began a campaign to tortiously interfere with our business relations. They are apparently upset because of his lawsuits against certain companies and his anti-fraud messages on public stock boards where he is known by “rca,” It appears that the third-party went so far as to claim to the newspaper that he does not exist. The third-party called every company that we announced we were doing business with and stated we were a “scam,” that he was “suing” us, and that our company was actually managed by “rca,” consultants to “rca,” or to friends of rca. We contacted “rca” and learned that he was himself in touch with the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, provided them his passport, but was still accused of not being a real person. We learned from shareholders that the Pittsburgh Tribune Review reporter, apparently egged on by the third-party, absurdly said that our contractor was managed by an actress. We determined that public stock message boards have incorrect and sometimes defamatory information being posted with no rational reason behind it.
After discussing this matter with the contractor and our attorneys, we are reevaluating our legal position. We intend to determine whether the Hempfield Township Supervisors received inappropriate ex parte communications prior to the hearing that were not disclosed to us. We will outline a course of action not to explain our future plans to the community, but to preserve our legal rights so that our project is not interfered with by persons having no financial interest in our company. If we must litigate, we will. We are optimistic that this will not delay our project, but we cannot affirmatively state that politicians will not make bad decisions based on receiving incorrect information.
The Westmoreland Glass Factory belongs to our company’s subsidiary. Our shareholders, regardless of whether they purchased the stock directly from us pursuant to Regulation D, or bought it from third parties on the over the counter market, have a right to see this project come to fruition.
We hope to provide additional information and updates to our shareholders. We will also release certain documents that we are legally able to do so.
In the interim, we ask for patience and understanding. We thought we were working on a positive project that benefits everyone, but are now being forced into a battle for reasons that are still unclear.
Please monitor our website, www.beaconredevelopment.com, for updated.
Investor Relations
Beacon Redevelopment Industrial Corp.
