Council Questions TDA over $4million tax fund allocation to American Residential

[DowntownNow]

Sorry, I find it hard to believe that when an allegation such as this is made in the presence of all the parties and they fail to stand up and refute it, that there is no hint of truth to it.

If its wrong, why wouldnt you stand up and refute?  Michael, if someone alleged you were skimming money out of The M.E.T. right in front of you, would you just sit there?  Especially when it's being broadcast on television and being reported in print media?

[RecycleMichael]

Please keep me and my company out of your wild conspiracies.

Now your evidence is that two people didn't argue back on live televison about someone else's statements?

Lame proof. I think you must be so fervent to get the Mayor on anything that you will jump to any conclusion.

[DowntownNow]

Oh its called an example Michael, get over it.  No claim to conspiracy there...I actually think you and the MET do great things when it comes to recylcing.  But nice way to dodge the question in the end.

I just happen to think you are too quick to apologize for the Mayor in some cases, particularly when inquiry has been warranted by others IMO.  If it wasnt a legitimate issue, the Council could have spent time on something else Im sure, the paper on other stories.  And while you're reading this, perhaps you can ponder and answer me this.  If the City administration had nothing to do with this, why was the City Economic Development Director Mike Bunney at the table during the Council meeting and why did Carl Bracy ask him to help explain the City's position on this issue?  After all, the City is not supposed to have anything to do with TDA according to Mayor Taylor by her statement.

[RecycleMichael]

Again...where is your proof?

Just because someone who works at city hall went to a meeting and didn't respond to a question about what someone else did or didn't say is not proof.

Now you say that because a councilor discussed it, it is a legitimate issue. Just because someone talks about something in a meeting don't make it true. All you have done is spread innuendo and ask questions to the posters on this forum, none of whom were at the meeting. 

This all while staying anonymous...

Face it, you have no credibility. When you add to it using me as an example with a story about a felony, you become a fool to me.

I have never met the two developers, nor ever attended a TDA meeting. I am merely trying to reply to your caustic way of slandering everybody else while staying anonymous.

[nathanm]

No evidence whatsoever???   LOL   A no-bid, no opportunity for anyone else to apply or compete, award of money to a mayoral contributor is evidence of some sort of backroom deal.   Pretty persuasive evidence.

You are confusing insinuation and evidence.

Edited to add: And responding to baseless allegations is a great way to give a non-story legs. Ignoring it lets the fools hang themselves with their own rope.

[Oil Capital]

You are confusing insinuation and evidence.

Edited to add: And responding to baseless allegations is a great way to give a non-story legs. Ignoring it lets the fools hang themselves with their own rope.

LOL  If there is any confusion, it might be between "evidence" of a backroom deal and "definition" of a backroom deal.  When a public agency awards public money without any bidding, or opportunity to compete for the public money it is not just evidence, it is almost the very definition of a backroom deal.  When the person receiving the money happens to be a connected individual... well, you can either call it evidence or you can call it motive.  It may fall short of being sufficient to convict, but to say there is no evidence whatsoever of  a backroom deal is preposterous. 

[RecycleMichael]

The major flaw in your argument is that the developer got the original $4 million loan under Mayor Bill LaFortune, yet he contributed money to his opponent. If there was a real deal here, wouldn't he had tried to keep LaFortune as Mayor?

No, the reality is that the project is a good candidate for the funding and the developer did a good job building housing downtown the first time. He wanted to keep the project going and add more housing in a location about halfway between the new arena and the new ballpark.

Another developer is just whining that his project didn't get an interest free loan this time.

If your project doesn't get picked, your options are to try again or blame others.

[Oil Capital]

The major flaw in your argument is that the developer got the original $4 million loan under Mayor Bill LaFortune, yet he contributed money to his opponent. If there was a real deal here, wouldn't he had tried to keep LaFortune as Mayor?

No, the reality is that the project is a good candidate for the funding and the developer did a good job building housing downtown the first time. He wanted to keep the project going and add more housing in a location about halfway between the new arena and the new ballpark.

Another developer is just whining that his project didn't get an interest free loan this time.

If your project doesn't get picked, your options are to try again or blame others.

Not sure how that makes for a flaw in my argument.  We're not talking here about the original $4 Million loan under Mayor LaFortune.  We're talking about the new loan, made under the current mayor, to whom the developer contributed money (and, if anything, your story seems as though it might make Mayor Taylor all the more grateful/beholden for the contribution from this developer.)
 
The flaw in your argument is that another developer doesn't have much of a chance to be picked when there was no opportunity to bid or compete for the money, does he/she?   It's kind of hard to "try again" when you had no opportunity to try in the first place.  In this case, the reality is, if your project didn't get "picked",  well I guess you'd better take a look at who you know and how much you've done for them lately.

[RecycleMichael]

You make some points.

But there is only so much money in this fund. It is a carryover from 1996 designed to be recycled back into new loans whenever it is paid back. The developer who is complaining got cash from another public funding source, 2025 funds. He, and three others were just given free tax dollars to work on their projects to increase downtown housing. We gave those four guys ten million to work on their properties and none to the project under fire.

The Mayo gets $3 million in cash that doesn't have to be repaid. The Tribune lofts gets a $4 million dollar loan that they will loan him again when he finishes paying it back. The Mayo guy bitches that it wasn't fair.

Sounds like uncalled for whining to me.

[sgrizzle]

You make some points.

But there is only so much money in this fund. It is a carryover from 1996 designed to be recycled back into new loans whenever it is paid back. The developer who is complaining got cash from another public funding source, 2025 funds. He, and three others were just given free tax dollars to work on their projects to increase downtown housing. We gave those four guys ten million to work on their properties and none to the project under fire.

The Mayo gets $3 million in cash that doesn't have to be repaid. The Tribune lofts gets a $4 million dollar loan that they will loan him again when he finishes paying it back. The Mayo guy bitches that it wasn't fair.

Sounds like uncalled for whining to me.

Just FYI. V2025 money is a zero interest loan.

[RecycleMichael]

If that is the case, I apologize for my earlier statements saying they were cash.

The terms of the money did not say loan. The actual language was "The financial structure for proposed projects may include public funding in loan, equity investment, or similar arrangements."

My point is that some developers were given special financing through one source, then complain that they weren't picked again when other money became available.

[Oil Capital]

If that is the case, I apologize for my earlier statements saying they were cash.

The terms of the money did not say loan. The actual language was "The financial structure for proposed projects may include public funding in loan, equity investment, or similar arrangements."

My point is that some developers were given special financing through one source, then complain that they weren't picked again when other money became available.

You keep trying to sweep the most important, central, fact under the rug.  The complaining developers are not just complaining that they did not win.  They are complaining that they were not even given the chance to compete.  (and fwiw, the chosen developer had also previously been given special financing, so they were all in the same position on that count.)

[RecycleMichael]

You are missing my point.

I am not defending the way TDA gave away the money. I am not defending TDA in any way.

You are the one who claimed it was a backroom deal involving the Mayor and you and DowntownNow are trying to ride innuendo to make the claim stick. Bottom line, she was not at the meeting and the proof is that the paper said that someone mad said that the chairman said that someone from her staff said something.

I think that your jump to conclusion was motivated not for trying to get TDA to change their policies, but just an unfounded and unwarranted attack on the Mayor.

This is the way TDA wants to conduct business and I don't like it either. You are the one who then tried to drag the Mayor into it. You want to be mad, fine. But stop making up what you think happened then trying to imply that there were deals involving people who weren't there.

[Oil Capital]

THAT is a response to my prior point?    I have not been putting that much focus on the mayor's involvement or lack of involvement; that factor is just additional "icing on the cake", if you will. 

The point you made to which I was responding (and I clearly did not miss) was that this was just people complaining because they did not win.  You keep trying to excuse the whole thing as nothing more than innuendo and sour grapes by people who did not "win" the awards of money, ignoring the salient issue that they were not given the opportunity to compete for the money.   This is not innuendo, my friend.  It is clear and simple fact.  The decision was made to award the money in a no-bid, noncompetitive process.  It does not take any innuendo to see a backroom deal there.  (Note, that I have never said the backroom deal necessarily involved the mayor... but there in fact is evidence she was involved, according to the World, fwiw)

You are missing my point.

I am not defending the way TDA gave away the money. I am not defending TDA in any way.

You are the one who claimed it was a backroom deal involving the Mayor and you and DowntownNow are trying to ride innuendo to make the claim stick. Bottom line, she was not at the meeting and the proof is that the paper said that someone mad said that the chairman said that someone from her staff said something.

I think that your jump to conclusion was motivated not for trying to get TDA to change their policies, but just an unfounded and unwarranted attack on the Mayor.

This is the way TDA wants to conduct business and I don't like it either. You are the one who then tried to drag the Mayor into it. You want to be mad, fine. But stop making up what you think happened then trying to imply that there were deals involving people who weren't there.

[RecycleMichael]

I think we have argued this enough...we ain't going to agree...

Yes, the process was flawed. No, just because someone said someone said something don't make it true.

If your cat crawls in the oven and has kittens, it don't make 'em biscuits.