Kimber Files Notice To Sue City

Melissa Bailey & Thomas MacMillan PhotosAfter buying a vacant lot from the city, Rev. Boise Kimber and his church spent over $100,000 on environmental cleanup to make way for a new sanctuary. Now the church wants the city to pay a tab it claims the city owes.

Those details come in a notice of claim filed against the city by Kimber’s church, First Calvary Baptist, on Sept. 25.

The suit concerns an abandoned Sealtest Dairy site at 193-201 Hazel St. adjacent to Kimber’s church at 605 Dixwell Ave.

Kimber, a powerbroker in the African-American community and a longtime supporter of Mayor John DeStefano, declined comment on the dispute, which pits him against the mayor in the month leading up to the Nov. 8 election. Kimber is backing DeStefano in the election.

Kimber’s church bought the 0.59-acre lot from the city for $35,000 in 2002. The purchase aimed to make way for a new sanctuary, to be built in time for the church’s 25th anniversary this year.

The church congregation paid over $100,000 for the cleanup, according to John R. Williams, the attorney representing the church.

The new sanctuary (in foreground of picture above) has been rising—slowly.

Williams indicated that the delay is the city’s fault: He said the city made a false claim when it sold the property.

“They represented that there weren’t any” environmental hazards on the site, Williams said.

“I think it’s pretty unfortunate situation,” Williams said, “because there’s very little doubt from the documents that I’ve seen that the city did know that there was a significant problem.”

The site used to hold a milk distribution site for Sealtest Dairy, according to Livable City Initiative’s Frank D’Amore. After the company abandoned the property, the city inherited it through foreclosure in 1993, then tore down the plant in 1994.

The lot lay vacant for years before the city found a buyer. On Jan. 16, 2002, it struck a deal with the church to turn over the land.

Reached Friday, Mayor DeStefano was asked about the notice of complaint from his political ally.

“I have no reason to believe it has any particular merit,” DeStefano said. “My understanding of the land transaction is that it was transferred as is.” 

DeStefano said his staff would review the agreement “to make sure both sides are compliant.”

Victor Bolden, City Hall’s top lawyer, said Friday that the land was sold as a “quit claim deed,” which means it is sold “as is.”

The land disposition agreement from 2002 reads as follows: “The Developer agrees to accept, without qualification, the Property in the condition existing at the time of the execution of this Agreement.”

“We’ll evaluate their claim,” Bolden said, “but we see no basis for liability at this point.”

Meanwhile, the church is preparing to celebrate its 25th anniversary without the new space to accommodate the crowd.

The congregation, which started meeting in June 1986 at the former Holiday Inn on Whalley Avenue, currently overflows its pews. The church at 605 Dixwell spans 3,700 square feet—too small for the 250 people who show up to worship there.

The church has added on a 5,000-square-foot expansion, which would double the size of the sanctuary.

Construction, which began in late 2008, is still under way.

Today, the walls are up, and covered in exterior sheathing. The sanctuary remains a cavernous space over a cement floor.

At the peak of the church’s triangular facade, an open space awaits a stained glass window. Amid the delays, pigeons have found a place to roost.

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry


posted by: first observer on October 24, 2011  11:50am

What is going on here?  Kimber waits almost 10 years and suddenly thinks he has grounds for a lawsuit?  Is there some shakedown attempt going on here—that is, it’s election season; the mayor is in a difficult race; I, Kimber have endorsed you; now I want a literal payback, to help finish my building that I don’t have enough money for?

The unholy alliance between the mayor and this man continues to bear its unsavory fruit, win or lose this lawsuit (if it ever really goes to trial—maybe this is an attempt at a quiet out-of-court settlement beforehand?).  Time to get rid of this mayor and his ugly history of dealmaking.

posted by: Imago Dei on October 24, 2011  11:57am

There’s a lot I could say about Kimber, but it wouldn’t be so nice, so I’ll just say this.  Kimber and his church have gotten more than a break from the city.  My understanding of the city’s standard land disposition agreements is that the developer has a set period of time (usually a year) to develop the land.  If the land isn’t developed, the city has the right to take the land back.  It’s been 9 years since the church bought the property.  Gee, I wonder why the city hasn’t taken it back?

If the city settles the suit for even $1, I’ll lose whatever little respect I have left for the DeStefano administration.

posted by: Curious on October 24, 2011  12:01pm

If it was sold “as-is”, that is fine, but it seems like the congregation is claiming that it bought the land “as-is” but the city and DeStefano lied about the state of the property. 

That’s legally actionable if they can prove the city hid the extent of the clean-up which would be needed, bought “as-is” or not.

posted by: cedarhillresident on October 24, 2011  12:05pm

Not seeing the property listing on the data base? Is that because it is a church and does not pay taxes? Should it still not be listed to show the value of the land?

With that said not really sure how to comment on this, does this mean Kimber does not support destefano because he feels he was lied to? Can’t really comment because not really sure what this is about. Quit claim is an “AS IS” any laywer knows that. So why sue? Will we lose and settle after elections?

posted by: Noteworthy on October 24, 2011  12:35pm

Reverse Shakedown. Or, what goes around…comes around, Rev.

posted by: tina on October 24, 2011  12:54pm

Wow, nine years and the church is still not built?? and why has it taken 9 years to sue the city…...

posted by: Roosevelt Davis on October 24, 2011  2:15pm

As a member of the Church the city is responsible for the cleanup.When we purchase the property it was suppose to be free of hazardous material.Unfortunately it was not.The property should not have change hand until this was done.

posted by: shaka mcadams on October 24, 2011  2:38pm

I’m a big supporter of Boise kimber, and i know that he is a god fearing man who is honest and straight forward and a man of integrity, a man who cares for his community and god. you can not sell someone land that is contaminated and then lie about it. the city has to stop trying to get over on black folks the city has to award him his suit not for him but for god. Boise kimber is a man that loves the lord.

posted by: church member on October 24, 2011  2:49pm

the city has to take ownershiip for selling land to churches or anybody of that matter knowing that the land is is contaminated. i’m behind kimber 100% in his lawsuit against the city of new haven.

posted by: cedarhillresident on October 24, 2011  3:10pm

HMMM???? So my question is does Kimber support DestefanNO even after this 10 year turn of events?

posted by: Imago Dei on October 24, 2011  3:27pm

To Roosevelt Davis:  If the property was supposed to be free of hazardous materials before the property changed hands, why did the church, i. e. Kimber, sign the land disposition agreement without making sure it was clean land?

To Shaka McAdams:  ...  Yes, nobeody is perfect, but when you mess up, you can admit it and ask for forgiveness instead of trying to say you did nothing wrong.  The race card doesn’t apply here either.  Everyone knew the Sealtest site had environmental issues.  Part of due diligence when purchasing property is to deal with all of these kinds of issues before signing a contract.  The church, i. e. Kimber, did not, so the city isn’t responsible for this.


posted by: Marcia on October 24, 2011  3:32pm

All of you people with the negative comments are missing the big picture here. This lawsuit is NOT about Rev. Kimber. This lawsuit is about the city of New Haven selling the church contaminated land. As a member of the First Calvary Baptist Church I can attest to the hard work that was put in by every member to raise the funds to purchase this land. And then, after years of sacrificial giving and numerous fundraisers, to find out that we cannot build our new sanctuary until the contamination has been cleaned up?! This is outrageous!! The city and the Mayor should be held responsible for selling this contaminated property regardless as to who it is that bought it. Had this land been bought by an average citizen in New Haven to build a daycare would you still be so quick to release the city from any responsibility? Stop focusing on this man of God and focus on the issue here. We need to hold the Mayor and the city of New Haven responsible!

posted by: SouthWest on October 24, 2011  4:30pm

It’s been 10 years and they just discovered that the land is contaminated. So why did they start building the church. Shouldn’t the land been check when they bought it. I see a shake down coming. This is the year for “scorn voters” who want some cash or favors to shake down the mayor because they know he will “pay” at any cost to become Mayor again.  The “blind” can see thur this all one got to do is “LISTEN” and read between the lines.

posted by: robn on October 24, 2011  4:35pm

A quitclaim deed is more like the city’s renunciation of ownership. The church has no legal right of redress if anything is wrong with the property. Boise Kimber knows that. This is a shakedown.

posted by: Elma B. Turner on October 24, 2011  4:41pm

To the editor:
“Yes”, the city is responsible for the cleaning up of this land, POINT BLANK!

If an indivivual in this country purchases a product and the product or service is found to be defective, that indiduvual is able to take it back to the seller for it to be fixed, replaced, or a refund of their money.

In this case the “land” cannot be returned but the situation can be remedied by the City.
That remedy is for the City to pay for the clean-up of this land.

Yes, I am a member of the First Calvary Baptist Church, and I am in total support of the Rev. Dr. Boiise Kimber in these dealings with the City of New Haven.

posted by: cedarhillresident on October 24, 2011  4:50pm

Marcia Your comment hit me.
No easy answer, but I will give it a shot. Kimber is a public figure in the political world. He willfully has put himself there and because of this he benefits from it. But with that benefit he also has to take on the heat that comes along with it. He like any other political figure knows this going in. And yes you may see if as a man of God. But most in the city only know him as a mouth piece in your community for destefano. So sadly your church and its people get tied up in this because Kimber’s choose to not separate church and state.
With that said. The timing of this case is what is in question right now. 2 weeks before the election. To many who see Kimber as a political leader, it appears he is leveraging the election and his ability to bring in votes to the fixing of this property. Now true or not, that is what it appears to be. With out being able to see the sales papers most can not really comment on it. When buying a property most have it inspected. And for it to be 9 year later at election time well that to does not look good. I am in no way saying that an injustice has not taken place with this deal. A lie may have very likely been told about the property. But timing is everything. And the timing of this announcement was bad.

Still wondering with this whole thing is Kimber still supporting Destefano?

posted by: Curious on October 24, 2011  5:09pm

Can the church show proof that the city claimed the land was free of contamination at the time of sale?

If yes, then they have a lawsuit.  If not, then they’re in a bind.

posted by: Ora on October 24, 2011  5:39pm

The land agreement expired, why wasn’t the church held in default and the property taken back? Why? Because Kimber supports the mayor and that is that. If it was you or I we would have lost this land after 1 year or so.
Now the price is a lawsuit and I suppose Bolden will retract his statement at some point, or hope no one remembers it as the city settles with Kimber and all will be happy. Oh, ofcourse not the taxpayers. The price we pay is becoming way too much to allow this mayor to stay in office. Hey,D’Amore why wasn’t this land agreement pulled? Can you or one of the other deputies answer that question? Incompetence or favors? What a sham this whole situation is and thats what you get mayor for buying votes and support. The problem is we are paying your ticket.

posted by: Leon on October 24, 2011  5:41pm

I am not a big fan of churches or of preachers.  But let’s look at this logically.  It’s only 100K which in the grand scheme of things is not a lot (no pun intended).  What is better for a neighborhood - a church or a vacant lot?

posted by: Observer on October 24, 2011  6:50pm

Don’t be fooled, this is a pretext for the payoff to Kimber that will be coming from the Mayor.  The City will “conclude” that Kimber’s church should have been told about the possibility the land would need remediation, therefore the City will take care of this.  Just watch—you heard it here first!

posted by: Steve on October 24, 2011  7:06pm

This is a very bad situation, that needs some serious attention!! After all Rev. Kimber, is a Great leader in the community as well as the country, and for an incident like this to happen, it seems like a bad deal. But yet Rev, still has his focus on making the community, as well as the city and it’s residents better. Something needs to be done about this!!

posted by: scammin sid skidliac on October 24, 2011  8:38pm

it’s a very transparent move by kimber. obviously he needs the $100k to finish off the building.
the flock can carp on this blog all they want about being wronged, but the buyer beware! kimber knew what he was getting when he got it, now he wants $omething else…

posted by: Lydia Hemingway on October 24, 2011  9:41pm

When an individual buys a home- they have an expectation of safety associated with their purchase.  When a school is erected- there is an expectation of safety for our children.  Is a church meant to expect less?  It may be easy for some to cloud the issue.  But this is not an issue of the mayor.  Or Rev. Kimber.  Or an election.  Or race.  It is just about right and wrong.  The city sold a property knowing (or they should have known) that the land was contaminated.  This is negligence.  This is not about individuals- it is about a church wanting to serve the community.  Individuals can hide behind anonymity…  though cowardly to spout ignorance without even the courtesy of identity.  A person with conviction stands proud in the face of their peers or God.  Don’t be fooled by the hype- this is not about anything but making the city do the right thing as any party selling land would be required to do.  The continued discussion of time limits of property and the city have to do with land being given- this land was purchased.  For the person that asked about representation- good question- refreshing to inquire about facts.  My understanding is that it was represented IN WRITING that the land was free of contamination.  Maybe I am missing something….  Is someone requesting money or just remediation for damages?

posted by: richgetricher on October 24, 2011  9:43pm

So it appears this lawsuit is the vehicle for paying off Kimber for his role in pulling out the minority vote in the upcoming election. The Mayor denies there is any merit right now, but after the election, taxpayers will settle with Kimber for a tidy little sum. Just as in the Firefighter case, DeStefano picks up political support on taxpayer dollars. How sweet it is. What can be better than buying votes with taxpayer money!?

posted by: Church Member on October 24, 2011  9:51pm

What is in the best interest of the community. This was a vacant Lott. First Calvary Baptist Church purchase the property from the city with good intention. The property was a environmental hazard site.The city should be responsible for the cost of the environmental clean up. This is not about Reverend Doctor Boise Kimber VS Mayor DeStefano. This is doing what is right and what is in the best interest of the community.

posted by: Lydia Hemingway on October 24, 2011  10:17pm


Do you understand the premise of this suit?  Or the fire fighter suit?

It is easy to be angry anonymously but hard to understand in the face of reality.

posted by: Bill Saunders on October 24, 2011  10:34pm

If you don’t think this is a shakedown, why did the Doctor Reverend Kimber actually pay the 100k for this environmental remediation in the first place, if he felt so strongly that it was the City’s responsibility?

posted by: Lydia Hemingway on October 24, 2011  10:37pm

Bill Saunders

Do you understand that once you take a construction loan, you must construct?  The church, not the individual had to remediate.

posted by: Bill Saunders on October 24, 2011  11:06pm

Ms. Hemingway,

I understand that Mr. Kimber is acting on behalf of the Church, and not as an individual. 

The rhetorically device used in my post is called Synecdoche.

Caveat Emptor.

posted by: Robn on October 25, 2011  6:26am

Kimber’s suit has no legal merit.


posted by: solsbury on October 25, 2011  7:17am

Where’s the press conference from Kerkes supporting this lawsuit like he did with the big corporation for State street?

posted by: Cedarhillresident on October 25, 2011  7:49am

Still wondering with this whole thing is Kimber still supporting Destefano?

Someone reading this must know.

[Editor’s Note: Yes he is. He is part of the clergy association that just announced it is backing him.]


posted by: Curious on October 25, 2011  8:23am

Can’t someone at New Haven Independent dig up whether or not the environmental contamination was disclosed at the time of sale or not? 

It should be on public record whether or not the city claimed the site was safe to build on, or whether it needed to be cleaned up.  Come on, let’s get some investigative journalism going on here :)

posted by: streever on October 25, 2011  8:52am

This is absolute horse—you know what.

A tidy pay day for Kimber, and a big voting bloc secured for the Mayor.

I am depressed to live in New Haven today.

posted by: STPAULIEGURL on October 25, 2011  9:12am

Rev. Kimber is a personal friend of mine,I am a member of FCBC and I support my pastor; with that being said everybody is entitled to their own opinion and the beauty about that is it means nothing because it’s your own opinion.  The court of Law will decide if the city is at wrong not YOU! PEACE & BLESSINGS to all!

posted by: streever on October 25, 2011  9:34am

St Paulie Gurl,

The problem we have with this is NOT what a Court will determine—the problem we have with this is that if past performance is any indication, this will be decided in an out-of-court settlement at great expense to the citizens of New Haven.

Meanwhile, your Reverend is selling your vote to the Mayor.

You should be outraged.

posted by: 2Unique on October 25, 2011  9:45am

When the City sells property, one of the executed closing documents is a Land Disposition Agreement or LDA. The LDA contains a section called, “Condition of the Land to be Conveyed.” That section has language that says the following:

(a) The Redeveloper [i.e. the Purchaser] represents that, after having conducted an inspection of the Property, it hereby understands and agrees that, except as specifically stated in this Section (xxx), the City makes no representation or warranty, either express or implied, as to the condition of the Property.

(b) The City makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation whatsoever regarding the size and condition of the Property, which shall be sold and conveyes in “as is” condition; the City specifically disclaims, and the Redeveloper specifically assumes, all liability and responsibility for any consequence arising out of the existence, repair, rehabilitation, relocation, and use of the Property subsequent to the sale and conveyance of the Property to the Redeveloper.

This document is filed in the Land Records along with the Quit Claim Deed. It would be a simple matter for any member of the Public to do a property search and find this document. If the above language is, indeed, in the LDA executed by First Cavalry, and there are no exceptions noted, the church probably does not have a case.

[Editor’s note: We mentioned in the story that the LDA does include that language, as you suspected.]

posted by: Mrs. Shevalle T. Kimber on October 25, 2011  11:17am

A reminder of what the word of God says,Psalms 105:15 “touch not my anointed one, and do my prophets no harm” be careful speaking about the man of God!  and Romans 8:31 ” What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us”. People can say what ever they want! Reverend Dr. Boise Kimber, belongs to God! O’ yes! and those who try to tear him down, you are only adding steps to his Victory In Jesus!

posted by: Bill Saunders on October 25, 2011  11:46am

Mrs. Kimber,

Ask God for Help then, and keep the taxpayers of New Haven out of it.

posted by: streever on October 25, 2011  11:49am

Mrs. Kimber
are all religious figures beyond reproach? I suspect that the same thinking you apply is why almost 5,000 Catholic priests have been accused of molestation.

I would hope that a christian leader would encourage others to question, learn, and test—and practice the same humility espoused by Jesus. I find it alarming that you would insinuate that we are going to be punished for questioning a human. No one is causing him physical harm: but we are questioning his behavior.

posted by: FedUp on October 25, 2011  11:51am

I agree with Streever, this article really riled me up.  How can anyone, after reading ‘Was He The Culprit?’ (NHI, 6/9/09) think anything but how suspicious and infuriating the timing of this suit is?  Ugh.  ...  It’s amazing he’s convinced an entire congregation, 9 years out, that the real issue in play here is the the city’s “deception” in selling the land “as is.”  Here’s what Kimber is: an excellent strategist, though I don’t mean that as a compliment to his character.  Come on, New Haven, it’s time to stand up to this kind of behavior once and for all and not give Kimber a cent for such a meritless claim.

posted by: Fairhavener on October 25, 2011  12:05pm

Well said FedUp!

Key points here = as is!

posted by: FacChec on October 25, 2011  3:43pm

Mrs. Shevalle T. Kimber, Rev Kimber, and all church members commenting here:

Victor Bolden, City Hall’s top lawyer, said Friday that the land was sold as a “quit claim deed,” which means it is sold “as is.”

The land disposition agreement from 2002 reads as follows: “The Developer agrees to accept, without qualification, the Property in the condition existing at the time of the execution of this Agreement.”

With these conditions in place at the signing of this agreement in 2002, followed by the church buying the 0.59-acre lot from the city for $35,000, and the fact that the church congregation agreed to pay over $100,000 for the cleanup, all according to attorney Williams.

It is difficult at best to understand your claim that the city is now responsible for your decision to purchase and continue to pay for environmental clean-up without additional amendments to the original agreement.

Further, if the city had agreed to the environmental clean-up, the proposal would have had to come before the Board of Aldermen, it did not!

posted by: S. Karonn Santos on October 25, 2011  4:01pm

for those who think that Dr. Kimber is in it for the money, you’re wrong and surely do not know him at all or the circumstance! Rev. Kimber does everything he can for everyone whether you are a friend or an enemy it does not matter. for those who are commenting up here with you negative and ignorant outlook on the situation, its coming from what you think you know or what you have been told. if you really knew him you would know where most of us (people who support Dr. Kimber) are coming from and why we are backing him up. “talk about what you know about.” and many of you know NOTHING! want a reason to talk, blog or even comment upon the issue, come to church! be there and witness it all for YOURself. we touch every topic you can possibly think of. : )

posted by: robn on October 25, 2011  5:11pm

Not in it for the money? Why then did he flip a property back and forth between himself and the church entity and also illegally claim a parsonage tax deduction for the property when he wasn’t living there? Wake up people.

posted by: VD on October 25, 2011  6:15pm

Likely the only time I’ll ever agree with Justice Alito (horrors!) is when he wrote the Ricci opinion: “a jury could rationally infer that city officials worked behind the scenes to sabotage the promotional examinations because they knew that, were the exams certified, the Mayor would incur the wrath of [Rev. Boise] Kimber and other influential leaders of New Haven’s African-American community.”

Yep, and there sums up the power structure of DeStefano and how he stays in office.  THIS is New Haven. 


As the DeStefano appointed fire commissioner(with zero qualifications, of course), Kimber told firefighters that certain new recruits would not be hired because “they just have too many vowels in their name.” 

Leading up the Ricci case-

“I look at this [Board] tonight. I look at three whites and one Hispanic and no blacks… . I would hope that you would not put yourself in this type of position, a political ramification that may come back upon you as you sit and decide the future of a department and the future of those who are being promoted.“  And thus, the city walked into the Ricci case, which cost dearly.

As a tax payer, I’m sickened at the thought of my dollars being used to build this man a grander and larger platform.

Anyone (or organization) that operates “above board” or is at all savvy about the political climate, stays far away from the man.

Oh, and no, he has no case on this church land thing as described in several posts above.

posted by: Nonbeliever on October 25, 2011  6:24pm

I cannot believe that anyone would consider a convicted felon to be a man of god.  Comments by his followers just go to show how religion can blind people. This is part of a political game Kimber plays with the Mayor.  This is quite sickening.  I can for see my tax dollars going to this.

posted by: Lydia Hemingway on October 25, 2011  8:16pm

Bill Saunders
It is Mrs.  Touché as I appreciate the opportunity for the intellectual debate.  Your reference to a metaphor is escaping me.  Please clarify.  As far as Caveat Emptor- I can appreciate the reference- but there is written documentation that the city knew or should have know- so not Latin but negligence…  I know to do my homework before publicly accusing anyone one of anything- especially as I use my real name.

posted by: Lydia Hemingway on October 25, 2011  8:27pm


Is that your real name?  There are other documents.

posted by: Lydia Hemingway on October 25, 2011  8:33pm

For the many that had time to spew during work hours:

This is a legal issue.  Not a religious issue.  Opinions are great- research/knowledge is better.

posted by: streever on October 25, 2011  9:41pm

Let’s see them. What other papers? Are they filed with the city? No? Then I imagine they aren’t legal, and Mr. Kimber should have known that—he has been getting tax breaks and illegal deals for years now.

The reality is that the papers which Kimber signed say the property is “as-is”. I’m sorry the man has pulled the wool over your eyes.

posted by: Bill Saunders on October 25, 2011  10:00pm

Ms. Touche,

Synecdoche is a rhetorical device where a part of something is used to represent the whole thing.  In this case BOISE KIMBER = CHURCH.

posted by: Curious on October 26, 2011  4:54am


Why don’t you go see if the documents certify the land was free of contamination or not?  That will clear everything up, no?

Really disappointed that someone from the New Haven Independent hasn’t already done this, by the way.  It makes NHI look more about stirring people up than actually prpresentingnformation.

posted by: cedarhillresident on October 26, 2011  6:33am

You can’t walk with God, holding the hand of the devil

posted by: Darnell on October 26, 2011  10:32am

I don’t think anyone here has the legal background to form a reliable legal opinion, at least not one that I would depend on. So, for me it more about the moral issue; is it fair and honest to sell a property to anyone, much less a non profit like a church, with hidden environmental costs?

Perhaps it is the way that we do business in this society, but it is certainly not the way that I want people to think they will be treated by MY (OUR) government.

posted by: robn on October 26, 2011  10:39am

But the environmental problem was known by both parties.

posted by: Darnell on October 26, 2011  10:56am


How do you know that?

posted by: Fairhavener on October 26, 2011  11:00am

Did Mr. Kimber enter the agreement willingly? Then he is responsible for the property and its bounty, or in this case, its grievance.

What would have happened if Mr. Kimber had done his due diligence, and after doing so, decided not to buy the property? Those who are crying injustice here do not see that Mr. Kimber could have chosen not to make this piece of business.

posted by: robn on October 26, 2011  1:06pm


A member of the church, Mr Roosevelt Davis, wrote in this comment thread that the church was aware of environmental problems prior to the agreement (an agreement which they signed taking the land “as-is”).
Thats how I know.

posted by: Enough Already on October 26, 2011  1:14pm

How would you feel if it were you?  Would you just cut your loss and walk away?

Your “feelings” toward Reverend Kimber has nothing to do with whether or not “First Calvary” is entitled to being reimbursed for the expenses they incurred to clean up the contaminated land in which they were sold.  Regardless of the time lapse the facts still remain the same - First Calvary was sold contaminated land. They paid to have it cleaned it up. Now do they have any legal recourse for reimbursement? 

I know that you are so focused on one thing at a time and recognize all “red flags” immediately therefore something of this nature would never happen to you!  And because your so on the ball that entitles you to say what the church should have done and when they should have done it. It’s so easy to be on the outside looking in! Luckily the law will decide whether or not First Calvary has a valid claim and not you! 

To address the character of Reverend Boise Kimber - I am also fairly certain that you have something in which you strongly believe and whether that belief is right or wrong – it’s your belief nonetheless.  Who are we to decide whether your belief is valid? Everyone is demeaning Reverend Kimber’s character as if they have a personal relationship with him. YOU ONLY KNOW WHAT THE MEDIA WANTS YOU TO KNOW.  FYI - Reverend Kimber is notorious for fighting for the growth and prosperity of the black community and race.  Martin Luther King did it and initially was criticized, ridiculed and jailed. Malcolm X was another man who was criticized for the exact same reason.  These men spent their lives fighting for equality for African American people and made the ultimate sacrifice of their lives - for what they believed. Unfortunately, it took their deaths before America would recognize what these men were trying to accomplish.  Perhaps one day you too will recognize who Boise Kimber truly is and the things that he is trying to accomplish.  It truly pains me that people’s decisions on whether justice should be served, in this day and age, are based on their “assumption” of a person’s character not the merit of the claim ~ then we wonder why/how hatred continues to circulate and become infectious like a disease

posted by: Darnell on October 26, 2011  1:59pm


quote from Mr. Davis
“As a member of the Church the city is responsible for the cleanup.When we purchase the property it was suppose to be free of hazardous material.Unfortunately it was not.The property should not have change hand until this was done.”

I’m not quite sure how you interpret this quote as saying “the church was aware of environmental problems prior to the agreement”.

Perhaps you were quoting someone else?

posted by: robn on October 26, 2011  2:06pm


Unlike Rev Kimber, Dr Martin Luther King paid his taxes. The comparison is an affront to all good people of any color especially given the context of this conversation. In the early 60s the racist gov of Alabama put the authorities on MLK with a bogus charge of tax evasion. And then something interesting happened. On May 28, 1960 after a few hours of debate, an all white jury in Montgomery, Alabama acquitted Dr. King.

posted by: robn on October 26, 2011  2:39pm


I took it to mean that environmental cleanup was on the church’s radar and therefore they knew about a problem, but I can see where you’re coming from…he might be framing it after the fact and could mean that as a generic assumption.

Nevertheless…you sign a quit claim agreement and the onus is upon you to inspect the property. I find it hard to believe that the church didn’t have a qualified inspector review the property. If they did, sue the inspector; if not, their bad.

posted by: two bullies on October 26, 2011  10:02pm

i feel sorry for the congregation if they pitched in to foot the bill for the cleanup. But mostly I feel sorry for our community that we allow these two bullies to manipulate us and keep us in a state of dependence and subordination. We need new leaders

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on October 27, 2011  12:48pm

How come god will not come and clean it up.

posted by: HhE on October 30, 2011  8:32pm

The one time I met Rev. Dr. Kimber, I found his conduct to be most un-Christain.

I think Streever has nailed it on the head.