Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Michael George Maida
Michael George Maida
Visitors: 78
0
Bar #435945(FL)     License for 41 years; Member in Good Standing
Tallahassee FL

Are you Michael George Maida? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

Florida Laws: 1002.311002.331003.03120.569120.57120.68287.001420.504420.507420.5087420.5099420.907420.9072

Florida Administrative Code: 28-106.21767 -60.00867-60.00867-60.009

18-002966BID  MADISON OAKS, LLC AND AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 08, 2018
Whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”), decision to award funding, pursuant to Request for Applications 2017-111 (“the RFA”), to HTG Sunset, LLC (“Sunset Lake”); HTG Creekside, LLC (“Oaks at Creekside”); and Harper’s Pointe, LP (“Harper’s Pointe”), is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the RFA specifications; and, if so, whether the decision is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioners proved that Respondent's intended award of proximity points to Intervenor was contrary to the specifications of the RFA, and was clearly erroneous.
18-002967BID  STERLING TERRACE, LTD AND STERLING TERRACE DEVELOPER, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 08, 2018
Whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”), decision to award funding, pursuant to Request for Applications 2017-111 (“the RFA”), to HTG Sunset, LLC (“Sunset Lake”); HTG Creekside, LLC (“Oaks at Creekside”); and Harper’s Pointe, LP (“Harper’s Pointe”), is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the RFA specifications; and, if so, whether the decision is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioners proved that Respondent's intended award of proximity points to Intervenor was contrary to the specifications of the RFA, and was clearly erroneous.
17-003996BID  WARLEY PARK, LTD, WARLEY PARK DEVELOPER, LLC, AND STEP UP DEVELOPER, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 17, 2017
The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making the decision to award funding pursuant to Request for Applications 2017-103, Housing Credit and State Apartment Incentive Loan ("SAIL") Financing to Develop Housing in Medium and Large Counties for Homeless Households and Persons with a Disabling Condition (the "RFA"), Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("Florida Housing" or "Respondent"), acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, or solicitation specification; and, if so, whether such action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The question of whether the application of Northside Commons Residential, LLC ("Northside"), met the requirements of the RFA with respect to demonstrating the availability of water and sewer services as of the Application Deadline is the only question at issue in this case. No other parts of its Application are being challenged, and the parties all agree that its Application was otherwise properly scored. No parties have raised objections to any parts of Warley Park's application, and all parties agree that its Application was properly scored.Petitioner demonstrated that FHFC's intended grant was contrary to solicitation specifications because Intervenor's water and sewer letter was not development-specific and failed to show availability as of the application deadline.
17-003270BID  MADISON POINT, LLC AND AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 07, 2017
The issue for determination in this bid protest proceeding is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”) intended award of tax credits for the preservation of existing affordable housing developments was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Intervenor's exclusion of existing, occupied units on the proposed development site constituted a material non-waivable error; tax credits should be awarded to Petitioners.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer