21
Feb
2006
When it comes to revitalizing Davenport's downtown, the public has been led to believe that without their hard-earned tax dollars subsidizing private enterprise, we will never grow our community. First it was the two downtown parking ramps, then it was Vision Iowa, then the TIF for Ryan/Lee Enterprises, then John O'Donnell Stadium, then the Isle of Capri boatel - these projects represent the progressive trail of do-or-die projects that taxpayers had to subsidize or we would fail to attract new investment to our community.
Now comes the next must-do project that will require more public subsidy to ensure that our downtown's revitalization is a success - the Market District.
Enough! Taxpayers have reached their threshold for public subsidy and have done more than their part. It's time for community leaders to recognize the public investment made to date has created a phenomenal opportunity for private industry to make a profit.
The economic and social benefits of a downtown market district could be considerable. Rather than the city obligating taxpayers to be responsible for this concept, what's wrong with the private sector seeking out full-arm's-length public-market-friendly operators for the Freight House, such as Whole Foods, New Pioneer Food CoOp, or, heaven forbid, our own locally owned health-food grocer, Greatest Grains? Who could lead such an effort? DavenportOne is sitting on $500,000 of taxpayer funds. Maybe even a realtor or two could do their job and market the downtown.
So far, there is no foundation for the city to participate financially, beyond the normal and customary programs that are established within the budgeting process. Any effort otherwise, be it in the form of a lease option or taxpayer-paid studies, only serves to limit the risks of private developers. It is time that the private sector start taking its own risks, especially when you consider the investment made by the taxpayers to date.
Sure, bricks-and-mortar projects can stand to benefit from public assistance. But the city has numerous vehicles at its disposal in the form of Community Development Block Grant funds, façade improvements, Historic Preservation Revolving Loans, etc. Now it's time for the private sector to step up. The city should not be asked to subsidize the Public Market or the Market District concepts.
These subsidies continue to be DavenportOne-heavy. And the amount of behind-closed-door conspiring suggests something else is likely going on. Perhaps DavenportOne should shore up the projects that we taxpayers have already subsidized before venturing into new territory spending our tax dollars, such as the River Music Experience and NewVentures Center. Now comes the public-market project that would cost taxpayers an estimated $1.4 million should it come to fruition.
But first, taxpayers are being asked to foot the $15,000 bill for a 120-day lease option on space in the Freight House while city staff and hired consultants determine the feasibility of creating a market district that would re-renovate the Freight House and the neighboring Builders Sand & Cement property to accommodate not just the farmers' wares, but also arts and crafts.
Recall that the Freight House was repurposed as a strip of restaurants and nightclubs from a vacant and dilapidated railroad depot almost a decade ago, which included a land lease to Larry Whitty for a current annual rent of $68,000 paid to the Levee Commission through 2034.
From its inception, several restaurants and nightclubs have come and gone, but nothing sustainable has taken hold. Whitty had it listed with Ruhl & Ruhl for years to no avail. Hardly surprising when one considers the enormous challenge Ruhl has in leasing its own substantial number of commercial properties.
Curiously, Cedar Rapids developer Regency Homes (the outfit doing Prairie Heights) recently bought the rights to Whitty's long-term lease, and the number being dangled in front of the council for future annual rents is $70,000 plus. The problem is that taxpayers will be paying that rent, not receiving it. Currently, the city is getting $68,000 in rents, but the proposal has the city giving $70,000 to Regency to subsidize the Farmers Market space within the Freight House. Naturally, the whole thing is convoluted, per usual, and will cause several on the council to tilt. (I challenge Aldermen Howard and Barnhill to adequately explain this proposal.)
It would appear that this Public Market/Market District proposal, framed as another public-private partnership, accounts for the unprecedented number of closed sessions held by the council in recent weeks. What is of further concern is that closed sessions can only be held to consider litigation, personnel matters, or the purchase of real estate. Since the closed sessions have been for the purpose of discussing real estate, exactly what is the city planning to buy relative to the public-market project?
How Regency got involved with this fiasco is also curious, but it's been given some kind of green light that justified its purchasing the rights to Whitty's long-term lease. Furthermore, why is the city agreeing to reimburse Regency for the drafting of a development agreement between the parties up to another $15,000? The city is also intending to obligate taxpayers for the cost of improvements and renovations to the Freight House and Builders property.
The unsupported claims of blue-sky incentives, such as Alderman Howard's claim of attracting $54 million in investment with the city's participation in the Public Market project, are getting tiresome. Where does this figure come from if the market study has not been done? Alderman Howard should be held accountable for this claim and explain to the public how she arrived at such a lofty number.
The city and its private partners consistently withhold the real values of these deals from the public, leaving us to spend considerable time, effort, and money trying to extract the financial reality for the council's consideration. Unfortunately, past councils have been unwilling to consider the truth. The good news is that the pendulum may have swung in the public's favor with this new council, evidenced by its boycott of last Saturday's special council meeting.
Mayor Ed Winborn and Sixth Ward Alderman Charlie Brooke conspired to manipulate the council into approving the $15,000, 120-day lease option because they had the five votes they needed to pass it. Brooke, Howard, Barnhill, Dumas, and Frink were prepared to vote yes, allowing Mayor Winborn to break the ties with his yes vote. This was possible because Alderman Brooke voted against the option in the previous Wednesday's regular council meeting, which gave him the right to bring it back for reconsideration during Saturday's special meeting.
The five aldermen against the project as currently configured thwarted their efforts by walking out before the issue could be brought up by Brooke, leaving the council without a quorum for voting. Aldermen Meyer, Ambrose, Hammerlinck, Lynn, and Van Fossen sent a strong message to the mayor that they will not be bullied into any legislation. Contrary to disgruntled aldermen's and DavenportOne's media spin, this collective action gave the community a resounding sense of renewal and hope that perhaps we finally have a chance at being truly represented.
Unfortunately, our new mayor appears to be clearly marching to DavenportOne's drum, as does City Administrator Craig Malin. Many times when Malin is asked for more detailed information, he defers those inquiries to DavenportOne, rather than having the information available for the council and public. He should be the most informed of all parties involved and lead the charge for due diligence on behalf of the taxpayers. From the Isle of Capri proceedings to the Market District, Malin has absolutely dropped that ball. And, disappointingly, it appears that newly elected Mayor Winborn is following in former Mayor Brooke's shadow.
Another avenue for thought concerns the failure to establish a TIF District for the casino property last term, but perhaps by revisiting a TIF for the Market District, the city can extend it to include the casino as well. Perhaps this is part of the hidden agenda that almost always accompanies these projects and causes them to occur behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny, until the 11th hour when they are deliberately fast-tracked through the civic process.
Far be it from city staff and council to examine both DavenportOne's and its own track record when it comes to the financial success of respective public-private-sector projects. The city council should demand nothing less than full disclosure and analysis of the financials for the River Music Experience, the two new municipal parking ramps, Prairie Heights to-date, the NewVentures Center, the Greater Davenport Redevelopment Corporation's industrial park, the RiverCenter, and John O'Donnell Stadium, for starters. Until that's completed, they should not allow any discussion of any more DavenportOne projects, let alone votes.
Now comes the next must-do project that will require more public subsidy to ensure that our downtown's revitalization is a success - the Market District.
Enough! Taxpayers have reached their threshold for public subsidy and have done more than their part. It's time for community leaders to recognize the public investment made to date has created a phenomenal opportunity for private industry to make a profit.
The economic and social benefits of a downtown market district could be considerable. Rather than the city obligating taxpayers to be responsible for this concept, what's wrong with the private sector seeking out full-arm's-length public-market-friendly operators for the Freight House, such as Whole Foods, New Pioneer Food CoOp, or, heaven forbid, our own locally owned health-food grocer, Greatest Grains? Who could lead such an effort? DavenportOne is sitting on $500,000 of taxpayer funds. Maybe even a realtor or two could do their job and market the downtown.
So far, there is no foundation for the city to participate financially, beyond the normal and customary programs that are established within the budgeting process. Any effort otherwise, be it in the form of a lease option or taxpayer-paid studies, only serves to limit the risks of private developers. It is time that the private sector start taking its own risks, especially when you consider the investment made by the taxpayers to date.
Sure, bricks-and-mortar projects can stand to benefit from public assistance. But the city has numerous vehicles at its disposal in the form of Community Development Block Grant funds, façade improvements, Historic Preservation Revolving Loans, etc. Now it's time for the private sector to step up. The city should not be asked to subsidize the Public Market or the Market District concepts.
These subsidies continue to be DavenportOne-heavy. And the amount of behind-closed-door conspiring suggests something else is likely going on. Perhaps DavenportOne should shore up the projects that we taxpayers have already subsidized before venturing into new territory spending our tax dollars, such as the River Music Experience and NewVentures Center. Now comes the public-market project that would cost taxpayers an estimated $1.4 million should it come to fruition.
But first, taxpayers are being asked to foot the $15,000 bill for a 120-day lease option on space in the Freight House while city staff and hired consultants determine the feasibility of creating a market district that would re-renovate the Freight House and the neighboring Builders Sand & Cement property to accommodate not just the farmers' wares, but also arts and crafts.
Recall that the Freight House was repurposed as a strip of restaurants and nightclubs from a vacant and dilapidated railroad depot almost a decade ago, which included a land lease to Larry Whitty for a current annual rent of $68,000 paid to the Levee Commission through 2034.
From its inception, several restaurants and nightclubs have come and gone, but nothing sustainable has taken hold. Whitty had it listed with Ruhl & Ruhl for years to no avail. Hardly surprising when one considers the enormous challenge Ruhl has in leasing its own substantial number of commercial properties.
Curiously, Cedar Rapids developer Regency Homes (the outfit doing Prairie Heights) recently bought the rights to Whitty's long-term lease, and the number being dangled in front of the council for future annual rents is $70,000 plus. The problem is that taxpayers will be paying that rent, not receiving it. Currently, the city is getting $68,000 in rents, but the proposal has the city giving $70,000 to Regency to subsidize the Farmers Market space within the Freight House. Naturally, the whole thing is convoluted, per usual, and will cause several on the council to tilt. (I challenge Aldermen Howard and Barnhill to adequately explain this proposal.)
It would appear that this Public Market/Market District proposal, framed as another public-private partnership, accounts for the unprecedented number of closed sessions held by the council in recent weeks. What is of further concern is that closed sessions can only be held to consider litigation, personnel matters, or the purchase of real estate. Since the closed sessions have been for the purpose of discussing real estate, exactly what is the city planning to buy relative to the public-market project?
How Regency got involved with this fiasco is also curious, but it's been given some kind of green light that justified its purchasing the rights to Whitty's long-term lease. Furthermore, why is the city agreeing to reimburse Regency for the drafting of a development agreement between the parties up to another $15,000? The city is also intending to obligate taxpayers for the cost of improvements and renovations to the Freight House and Builders property.
The unsupported claims of blue-sky incentives, such as Alderman Howard's claim of attracting $54 million in investment with the city's participation in the Public Market project, are getting tiresome. Where does this figure come from if the market study has not been done? Alderman Howard should be held accountable for this claim and explain to the public how she arrived at such a lofty number.
The city and its private partners consistently withhold the real values of these deals from the public, leaving us to spend considerable time, effort, and money trying to extract the financial reality for the council's consideration. Unfortunately, past councils have been unwilling to consider the truth. The good news is that the pendulum may have swung in the public's favor with this new council, evidenced by its boycott of last Saturday's special council meeting.
Mayor Ed Winborn and Sixth Ward Alderman Charlie Brooke conspired to manipulate the council into approving the $15,000, 120-day lease option because they had the five votes they needed to pass it. Brooke, Howard, Barnhill, Dumas, and Frink were prepared to vote yes, allowing Mayor Winborn to break the ties with his yes vote. This was possible because Alderman Brooke voted against the option in the previous Wednesday's regular council meeting, which gave him the right to bring it back for reconsideration during Saturday's special meeting.
The five aldermen against the project as currently configured thwarted their efforts by walking out before the issue could be brought up by Brooke, leaving the council without a quorum for voting. Aldermen Meyer, Ambrose, Hammerlinck, Lynn, and Van Fossen sent a strong message to the mayor that they will not be bullied into any legislation. Contrary to disgruntled aldermen's and DavenportOne's media spin, this collective action gave the community a resounding sense of renewal and hope that perhaps we finally have a chance at being truly represented.
Unfortunately, our new mayor appears to be clearly marching to DavenportOne's drum, as does City Administrator Craig Malin. Many times when Malin is asked for more detailed information, he defers those inquiries to DavenportOne, rather than having the information available for the council and public. He should be the most informed of all parties involved and lead the charge for due diligence on behalf of the taxpayers. From the Isle of Capri proceedings to the Market District, Malin has absolutely dropped that ball. And, disappointingly, it appears that newly elected Mayor Winborn is following in former Mayor Brooke's shadow.
Another avenue for thought concerns the failure to establish a TIF District for the casino property last term, but perhaps by revisiting a TIF for the Market District, the city can extend it to include the casino as well. Perhaps this is part of the hidden agenda that almost always accompanies these projects and causes them to occur behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny, until the 11th hour when they are deliberately fast-tracked through the civic process.
Far be it from city staff and council to examine both DavenportOne's and its own track record when it comes to the financial success of respective public-private-sector projects. The city council should demand nothing less than full disclosure and analysis of the financials for the River Music Experience, the two new municipal parking ramps, Prairie Heights to-date, the NewVentures Center, the Greater Davenport Redevelopment Corporation's industrial park, the RiverCenter, and John O'Donnell Stadium, for starters. Until that's completed, they should not allow any discussion of any more DavenportOne projects, let alone votes.
