Comments on: Fraser Acted Against Advice on Proposal

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:37:32 +0000

“The public justification for public financing, including construction financing with tax exempt bonds, is that this is an investment that brings jobs and consumers to a city’s downtown. Academic research on the value to economic development, however, has universally concluded that sports stadiums, convention centers and hotels do not increase economic activity in downtown areas.”

Domestic Policy Subcomittee,
Committee of Oversight and Government Reform
United States House of Representatives
[link]

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:03:34 +0000

My opinion is that not a lot new came out of the public Q&A though there were some good questions. A big one was a question directed at Valiant about whether they had received prior assurances. If so, they would have been in violation of the terms of the RFP. Seyferth responded stiffly that they had talked with a lot of people but had received absolutely no assurances of any kind and had just offered their proposal to the city as a sort of model that could spur other proposals and valuable discussion.

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:37:14 +0000

Thanks, Dave. I was mostly taking a poke at annarbor.com. They posted stories about the interviews rather quickly, but with all of the concerns raised about public participation in this process, you’d think they’d have covered at least a few of the public questions and responses. The only “public” comment they highlight was by Ed Surovell who praised the Valiant conference center/hotel/condo proposal. It took readers to reveal in the comments below the article that Mr. Surovell will profit from this development as the real estate broker for the condominiums.

By: suswhit

suswhit — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:27:33 +0000

“The committee will now forge ahead with the consultant on the Valiant and Acquest proposals.”

Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle! Who’d have thunk that plans for a hotel/conference center JUST like the one they have been secretly planning all along would be the only ones still being considered. What a surprising turn of events.

This process is a complete farce. Who do they think they are fooling? There are a few egomaniacs around these parts who think we are too stupid to pay attention let alone figure out the corrupt financing plan they’ve got worked out. I sure hope we can prove them wrong.

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:06:34 +0000

Re: [24] It’s been a long week at The Chronicle. My current intention is to wrap relevant aspects from the interview process into the account of the joint meeting of the technical and RFP review committees — I just returned from there. Outcome was that all but the Valiant and Acquest proposals have been set aside for further consideration by the review committee. The committee will now forge ahead with the consultant on the Valiant and Acquest proposals.

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:29:29 +0000

I haven’t seen any reporting on the public Q & A portions of the interviews. Anything interesting come out of that?

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:58:45 +0000

Leah, thanks for the clarification (#20) on the Y RFP process. I shouldn't have shot from the hip without looking it up. I believe that you are mistaken about the reason the project died. I've been researching that recently in the wake of the lawsuit and just did a post on it [link] that also links to a copy of the lawsuit brief. It has a detailed timeline.

By: Teaman

Teaman — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:37:03 +0000

@18: Dave, it would be a real service to the community if the Chronicle could put all of these various pieces of information into a detailed timeline (Council and DDA emails, Council actions, FOIA requests and responses, RFP activity, Sabra’s account, etc.).

It seems quite odd that the City would have the Valiant drawings on January 10, 2009, but then not have them two days later on January 12; Then have them again in June 2009, but not in August 2009. All the while, Mayor and Council were denying that there was any predisposition to build a conference center. Mr. Bernstein, according to Sabra, apparently had a very different understanding.

At the very least, it would seem there’s been a lot of skillful “tip-toeing through the FOIA’s” going on here.

By: Karen Sidney

Karen Sidney — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:05:09 +0000

When I emailed a FOIA request on Jan 12, 2009 for the proposals presented at the January 10, 2009 retreat, it was denied based on the the following exemption:

Communications and notes within a public body or between public bodies of an advisory nature to the extent that they cover other than purely factual materials and are preliminary to a final agency determination or policy or action

When I filed a FOIA request in August 2009 for unsolicited proposals including the one from Valiant, it was denied because “City staff has not saved any unsolicited proposals for the library lot location that have been presented to the city.” I followed up with an inquiry regarding whether council members were included in the definition of city staff but never received a response.

The September 2009 letter from the city responding to the August request also went on to say “Although the response to a prior request for the proposal had stated that it was exempt from disclosure as an internal communication, that response was based on an internal miscommunication. The City already did not have the proposal at the time of that request and the response should have said that instead of saying that the proposal was exempt under the internal communications exemption.”

Jayne Miller signs the FOIA letters.

By: Leah Gunn

Leah Gunn — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:36:25 +0000

Regarding the interviews for the “Y” lot – not only were they public, but they were videotaped and broadcast on CTN. The interviews were held in the County Board of Commissioners room, using their equipment for taping. I know, because I was a member of the selection committee, and offered the facilities (intergovrnmental cooperation). The project ultimately failed because of lack of bank financing.