posted by Mike Madison at 4:31 PM /
"There are a number of questions to be answered about the pending sale of the Covenant retirement community in Mt. Lebanon, but the most pressing one for residents is: Who will be the new owner?"
Link: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07088/773167-55.stm
"More than half of a nearly two-hour public hearing on a proposal for tax increment financing in Mt. Lebanon comprised a presentation from the developer, a county official and a financial consultant. But in the 45 minutes that the public had to speak, five of seven people were against giving the developer a tax break."
Link: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07088/773233-55.stm
(Related: Tribune Review "lance" to Zamagias Properties attorney Sara Davis Buss, which strikes me as completely unwarranted, whatever the paper's view of the merits of the Washington Park TIF proposal. Anyone who opposes the TIF should be critical of Zamagias Properties itself -- not the developer's attorney.)
Link: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07088/773167-55.stm
"More than half of a nearly two-hour public hearing on a proposal for tax increment financing in Mt. Lebanon comprised a presentation from the developer, a county official and a financial consultant. But in the 45 minutes that the public had to speak, five of seven people were against giving the developer a tax break."
Link: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07088/773233-55.stm
(Related: Tribune Review "lance" to Zamagias Properties attorney Sara Davis Buss, which strikes me as completely unwarranted, whatever the paper's view of the merits of the Washington Park TIF proposal. Anyone who opposes the TIF should be critical of Zamagias Properties itself -- not the developer's attorney.)
Labels: economic development, Mt. Lebanon People, TIF, washington park
12 Comments:
Mike, I can understand your stance about not being critical of the developer's attorney, however you were not at the meeting to hear her "arguments" which lately have been nothing more than personal attacks against those opposed to the TIF.
Mike, the TIF opponents have been using the developers own project and financial data submissions to the various government entities against which the developer's attorney has repeatedly criticized and exclaimed "that information is incorrect, where did that come from ?" When told and shown the source,she becomes quiet. Is there an ethics issue here ?
If Zamagias is mudslinging, then the worst thing that TIF opponents can do is mudsling in response. Is there any evidence that the attorney's rhetorical style has influenced the course of events to date?
Mike, it appears the Zamagias Properties' representative's details “light” style has been quite effective. The TIF is moving full speed ahead. More later...
At the 03/26 Public Hearing before the MTL Commission, I took the position the developer had sandbagged its original RFP response by proposing only 60 units, effectively NOT optimizing the cost per unit; and then later added 12 units (and 5,000 sq ft of retail) to improve the economics in light of escalating construction costs.
Had Zamagias Properties gone with 72 units from the get-go and no TIF, they would not have lost time chasing OPM (Other People’s Money) and consequently experienced considerably less cost escalation.
The Developer’s representative took particular exception to my “sandbagging” comment and told the Commission -- Zamagias Properties had in fact proposed 72 units in their very first RFP response. The problem is they did not!
The only thing that indicated about 70 units was a Howard Hanna market study, but that was not provided to the Municipality until very recently.
I have attempted to clarify the record with an e-mail to the Commission, including the attached documents (all from Zamagias Properties, except the MTL Commission minutes) which demonstrate a formal proposal of 60 units from May 2005 until September 2006, when they added the additional 12 units (and 5,000 sq ft of retail).
To assert, in a Public Hearing, there were 72 units from the beginning is clearly an affront to the process and the Community.
The document that Bill refers to in his last comment can be downloaded here:
http://tinyurl.com/yw5slt
Also, the fact the TIF is moving forward doesn't necessarily mean that Zamagias's mudslinging (if that's what it is) is effective. In fact, *if* the judgment that the TIF should be approved is pre-ordained by the disposition of some Commissioners and School Board members, then it doesn't matter what Z.'s attorney says. (This may be Bill's point, but it tends to minimize the role of alleged mudslinging.)
Mike -- I'm the anonymous on 4/2 who raised the question of ethics regarding the developer's attorney repeatedly making what amount to false statements about the project and representations by TIF opponents(which were/are based on her client's own info)over the almost two years this farce has evolved .This has not been what you refer to as "mudslinging", but to me is conduct involving misrepresentation --- isn't a lawyer required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf ? This lawyer has been associated with Zamagias and this project since early 2005. I find it highly unlikely that she is not familiar with each and every document and oral representation her client has made to the several government agencies. After all, she created some of the documents and attended most of the public meetings that have taken place.
An attorney can't lie or knowingly deceive an adversary or a court or public agency. But there's a broad fuzzy zone that separates deceit based on false statements of fact, and advocacy. Personal attacks against those opposed to the TIF may not be good advocacy, but they don't (unless false allegations of fact are involved) amount to deceit. Exclaiming "that information is incorrect, where did that come from?" strikes me -- without more context; I wasn't there in person -- as advocacy. Again, poor advocacy, in my opinion, but advocacy nonetheless.
Perhaps there are more facts suggesting that Z. withheld information from the Commission or the School Board, or affirmatively misrepresented the true state of affairs to one or the other. I haven't been close enough to the whole affair to pass judgment on that question. In the absence of more compelling evidence, I'm also extremely reluctant to have the blog turn into an inquisition on Z.'s tactics. PA politics are bizarre and petty enough as it is.
OK - OK - What are the facts? Does "Z" need the assistance to make the project doable or not? If it is necessary - define necessary. If the project can't be done in Mount Lebanon without a handout then it can't be done anywhere and maybe should not be done here.
Mike, you are right. The developer's representative could have said "the TIF is made of green cheese" and the Municipality still would have served up a big helping. This TIF is the garsh darndest thing I have ever seen.
The only thing Zamagias Properties has said consistently is they will not do the project without a TIF, I don’t think they ever said they can’t, only that they won’t. It is a nothing more than a municipal facilitated stick ‘em up. (Maybe it will make the MTL Police Blotter.)
When the Municipality selected Zamagias Properties it was fully cognizant of the developer’s “mandatory” position on TIF and since that time there is not a shred of evidence the Municipality has ever said “boo” to the developer.
Largely because of the $4.6MM TIF contribution, Zamagias will be $6.6MM to the good, AFTER getting back their $4.1MM equity contribution in the project.
The question of TIF “necessity” asked above is a good one and I need to get another document from the 03/26 Public Hearing where our independent financial advisor did NOT answer that question, despite being asked. You don’t get much for $20,000 anymore.
More later ...
The Municipality in concert with the developer and School District hired Janney Montgomery Scott LLC (JMS) to perform an independent Financial Feasibility report on the Washington Park TIF. The primary questions to be answered were:
1) Is the TIF necessary in order to allow the Washington Park development to be completed in a timely and cost-effective manner?
2) Is the amount of the TIF reasonable to achieve these goals without causing undue stress upon the Taxing Bodies’ current and/or projected fiscal status?
Pretty good questions, particularly #1 -- it gets to the heart of the economic questions. However, JMS restated the first question in its presentation for the Municipality’s Public Hearing on 03/26.
Question #1 was CHANGED to: "Will the TIF allow the Washington Park development to be completed in a timely and cost-effective manner?"
See the relevant slides from the JMS presentation What happened to the part about “Is the TIF necessary …?”?
Unlike JMS, I see these as totally different questions and if they are not (as JMS told the School Board two weeks earlier), why change them in the presentation?
The indications are JMS was not comfortable answering #1 as asked. JMS would have had to dive into the cost structure of the project AND the projected revenues AND the value of the retail space AND the availability of private equity AND the construction financing AND, AND, AND ...
It is a whole lot easier to just change the question!
And the answers are a whole different discussion ... Like I said, you don’t get much for $20,000 anymore.
You don't get much for $20,000 TAX dollars anymore. In the real world, $20,000 is still alot of money.
Post a Comment
<< Home