From:     Rene Greff
Date:     Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:16 PM
Subject:  Mutually Beneficial Workgroup


Dear DDA,

I was disappointed but not surprised to learn today that you will vote on May
5th to write a blank check to the city for $2 million dollars with no strings
attached.  This money will be pilfered from the parking system and even though
you will deny the connection, we all know it will be paid for by struggling
small businesses owners, our employees and our customers through higher parking
rates, increased fines, and evening enforcement.

There is so much that stinks about this resolution and the process that led to
it that I hardly know where to begin.

I will start by giving kudos to the mayor, who has systematically replaced
board members who took seriously their duty to work for the interests of the
DDA and the downtown.  Over the years he has filled this supposed citizen board
with elected officials and political players who put the political
considerations of council members above the interests of the DDA.  And by doing
so has erased the institutional memory that might have prevented the mistake
you are about to make.

Just so the record is clear this journey began in 2004 when the City threatened
the DDA with beat officer layoffs if we did not provide financial assistance. 
So 3 DDA members and 3 council members began clandestine meetings to hammer out
an acceptable agreement.  Council reps advised us that if we limited the size
of the sub-committee and didn't call it a sub-committee it wouldn't be subject
to the open meetings act.

No one thought a bailout would look good and the DDA didn't want to set the
precedent of being the funder for the city's budget gaps.  So we came up with a
plan to re-negotiate the DDA's parking contract with the City.  We would
increase our rent to the City by $1 million a year.  The City would not have to
lay off any beat cops, and the City would pass the DDA's 3 site plan which
would add to the DDA TIF capture and ensure that we could afford to make the
increased payments to the city without raising parking rates or foregoing our
other priorities. If needed, the city could take up to $2 million in rent in
any year as long as the total ten-year payout did not exceed $10M.  But the
council members on our committee cautioned that we couldn't link the increased
rent with the 3 site plan in writing because that would make it look like the
DDA was bribing council for passage of the three site plan.  And besides, we
were all working in good faith and knew that the city was going to approve the
3 site plan.

So how'd that back room deal work out for the DDA and our stakeholders?  After
the new contract was signed, the city rejected the 3 site plan, cut the beat
cops, took the $10 million in 5 years and kept $2 million in their budget for
years 6 and 7.  They broke the handshake deals, and now they are breaking the
actual contract. 

And yet the majority of the DDA members at the Operations committee meeting sat
there and proclaimed with straight faces that you have no reason to believe
that the city will not act in good faith toward a mutually beneficial agreement
with the DDA.  Recent history seems like a pretty good reason to me.

The lessons this board learned after 2004 and have sadly since forgotten are

1. That transparency is vital to protect both the public interest and the DDA's
interests

2. That the DDA should never again deliver a hamburger to the city today for
payment next Tuesday. 

And yet you recently denied the press access to your closed-door negotiations –
ignoring council's own resolution that the city's committees and sub-committees
must adhere to the Open Meetings Act.   And you are about to fork over $2
million dollars of DDA money with absolutely no requirement that it result in
any value to the district.

Sadly, it is clear that majority of the board does not think it is necessary to
have a mutually beneficial agreement.  When I served on this board, I treated
the DDA like my own business. And when there was a conflict, I felt that I had
an obligation to put the interests of the DDA ahead of my personal agenda, the
agenda of my area association, and the agenda of the city.  DDAs exist because
downtowns need an advocate who is looking out for their interests.  I can't
imagine any responsible business owner or government official for that matter
saying "hey, we're all friends here - how about if I just pay you $2 million
now and then we can begin actually looking at numbers and talking about what
specifically we'll get for that $2 million over the next few months.  And no
responsible board member would do that either. 

I realize that a this point the jury is rigged and that this atrocity is going
to pass. So many members of the DDA are running for council, working on
campaigns and raising money for council that the DDA has lost its independence
and is now quite happy to be a rubber stamp rather than a serious deliberative
body.  I just hope that those few of you who know this is wrong will stand on
principle and not allow the record to show unanimous approval.