Mayoral transition stories hint at bad things to come

Mayor-elect D. Michael Collins 

In looking online at The Blade, I had three important observations I want to share.

The first one deals with the editorial, "Mayor Collins His challenge is to persuade jaded Toledoans that city government can be a vital, positive force in their lives"

As editorials go, it's not bad, though it is the usual Blade telling their endorsed candidate what to do, which is a really a warning should he not follow their instructions.

No, the problem is the premise in the headline that city government can - and should - be a "vital, positive force" in our lives.

Government is not supposed to be any such thing. Governments exist to protect our individual rights. We grant them the opportunity to serve us as we see fit, giving them the authority to provide essential services like road repair, sewers, police and fire which we'd have a hard time doing alone (though when it comes to police, even that is changing).

Government should be seen as a necessary evil - something that must constantly be watched and guarded against lest it becomes too powerful and infringes upon our individual rights and freedom. It should be the last option - not the first choice - when there is a need.

Sadly, both the local paper and too many citizens don't understand this concept, which is probably why the city is stuck on stupid.

The second one deals with the 3/4% payroll income tax which Mayor D. Michael Collins wants to make permanent.

Since the 1980s, Toledo voters have approved this 'temporary' tax every four years. We've granted city council the ability to divert money from the original stated purposes and now use it to fund police, fire, capital improvements ... and yearly deficits.

We like the fact that we have a say every four years for it keeps a level of accountability present in how the city uses the money. If they don't use it properly, we'll take it away from them.

But like so many other things, a temporary solution was relied upon for every-day functions and the city never really makes any attempt to live without it, threatening us with doom and gloom if we fail to continue to grant it to them.

Collins wants to reduce it slightly, but make it a permanent tax. He said "growth in the economy would offset the loss and that Toledo would benefit from the positive signal the reduction would send to the business community." This just demonstrates his ignorance of the business community - and the economy.

Most people won't notice a reduction from 2.25% to 2.2% and business owners know that. The tax isn't paid by the businesses, but by the employees they hire and pay. And he has not mentioned, as far as I can tell, the impact that H.B.5, a revamp of municipal income taxes pending in the House, might have on the city or his plan.

Think about it: we're talking a $15 reduction for a $30,000 salary or a $12.50 reduction on a $25,000 salary. That's not a lot of economic growth when prices are rising.

But Toledoans will probably fall for it. Yes, stuck-on-stupid comes to mind.

The last thing is this quote from the same article:

“I plan to reach out to Dashing Pacific Group through the Regional Growth Partnership and help them develop a plan for the Marina District,” Mr. Collins said.

Did he not see the TV ads? Put out by a Toledoans for Working Families with a Columbus contact - not the Collins campaign - they portrayed a Chinese flag and said “Mike Bell cares more about creating jobs in China than he does here in Toledo.” They also said he sold the Marina District to Chinese investor Dashing Pacific Group Ltd. “for chump change.”

The ad was a direct attack on Dashing Pacific, something that the Chinese culture does not take kindly to. And since Collins refused to repudiate the ads, it's likely he will be seen as complicit.

If this were you, how receptive would you be to any outreach?

Then there is the arrogance - something Collins is well-known for. He wants to help them develop a plan for the property. How does he know there isn't one already or that he is better qualified than them to do so?

These three items are just a mere indication of what is to come - and it doesn't bode well for Toledo.

Dashing Pacific still interested in Marina District

The good news is that Dashing Pacific would still like to purchase the Marina District - and maybe more of the property than originally included in the offer. The bad news is that the deal still must go before city council and I don't think they've yet learned their lesson to not meddle in other people's affairs. Hopefully, they'll take a look at the offer and decide yes or no without placing in it a ton of conditions intended to reward their friends and special interests.

Press Release:

Letter to Mayor Bell indicates further interest in remaining acreage

(Hangzhou, China) The Chairman of Dashing Pacific Group on Thursday delivered a letter to Toledo Mayor Michael P. Bell reaffirming the group’s desire to purchase the Marina District under the terms of their existing offer and further indicated interest in purchasing the remaining acreage under a two year option.

Earlier this year Dashing Pacific made an offer to purchase 69 acres of Toledo’s Marina District for $3.8 million. There is currently legislation pending before Toledo City Council on which the Mayor will ask for a vote at Tuesday’s meeting.

The hand-delivered letter was a welcome close to the Mayor’s nine day trip to China during which time he met with Ms. Yuen, the Chairman of Dashing Pacific.

The Mayor will meet with media to respond to questions about the deal upon returning from China on Friday, May 27 at 1:30 p.m. in his office, pending the timely arrival of his flight.

'Not-business-friendly' Post #20 - Toledo council still clueless

Even after all the figurative head-slapping (ala Special Agent Gibbs in NCIS) that Toledo City Council received over the last week following their stuck-on-stupid ideas for the sale of the Marina District to Dashing Pacific, they still don't get it.

Dashing Pacific Group is 'reassessing' their interest in the deal primarily because of all the strings city council members wanted to attach for their friends and supporters. Remember, Dashing Pacific was offering to purchase part of the property for $3.8 million - and wasn't asking for anything else! No tax abatements, no grants, no loans, no special terms - unlike previous developers. They wanted to actually give the city money for the property and take ownership.

But that just wouldn't do for most of city council which wanted to make sure this 'deal' benefitted friends and supporters - primarily unions. Everything from deed restrictions to dictating the unions that would work on the project to taking back ownership if Dashing Pacific wasn't where city council wanted them to be in a paltry two years. (As if having the property sit for the last 10 and maybe for another 10 before someone else might offer to buy it was any great alternative!)

Besides, insisting on a time frame for development clearly ignores the market realities of the area. Many investors purchase land when it is affordable or available and hold it until the time is right to actually develop it. To insist that something happen in a specific time allotment shows the conceit of city council members who 'obviously' know better than the buyers.

But our smug city council members just couldn't resist using the power of their positions to interfere and dictate to the potential buyers. Well, why not? They've gotten away with such nefarious and detrimental shenanigans in the past - why should this deal be any different? But it was.

Based upon what Dashing Pacific saw and heard from council - which probably appalled them, as it should - they backed out of the deal. Dashing Pacific, clearly cognizant of the political implications, was too polite to insult city council, so they termed their withdrawal 'reassessing' their interest.

Appropriately, Mayor Mike Bell asked for the ordinance on the sale to be referred back to the administration. As Deputy Mayor Tom Crothers explained to council, the ordinance was to consummate a specific deal and there no longer is a deal, so there is no need for the legislation.

But a stuck-on-stupid council wanted to hold the legislation for two weeks. At-large Councilman Joe McNamara said that holding onto the legislation would send a message that council is willing to work with the investors.

TOO LATE! McNamara's message last week was heard loud and clear and it wasn't one of 'working with' as much as one of 'dictating to.'

McNamara, still whining like a child because he didn't get introduced to the investors, had the temerity to suggest this whole thing was a misunderstanding due to cultural differences. Apparently McNamara is even more clueless than the rest of council to assume that the problem is on the part of Dashing Pacific for 'not understanding.'

I've got news for McNamara: everyone else is clear on the fact that it is council who fails to understand the business world primarily because none of them have ever run a business before. It has nothing to do with culture, unless McNamara is talking about the culture of corruption surrounding the routine use of a political office to reward his union friends by mandating their inclusion on a future development.

District 2 Councilman D. Michael Collins asked for a referral of how much money had been spent on the Marina District and the conditions under which the city accepted the money. His concern is that the City accepted grants and loans that might require repayment of the monies if certain conditions are not met. Now, it's been a decade that we've been dealing with this property and I fail to understand what difference another two or three or five might make. Collins' question is a valid one - and certainly council should know what they committed to when they accepted the grants and loans for the clean-up of the land (why they don't already is an entirely different question for another day). But if that was his concern, he certainly went about expressing it in a terrible, arrogant and condescending way last week.

Council did decide to hold the legislation, but it won't do any good. Council members have proven themselves to be the antipathy of 'business-friendly,' though many in the area already knew this to be the case. Now, our council's reputation in that regard is international.

The only way to salvage the deal - if that is even possible - would be to humbly ask Dashing Pacific if they would still like to purchase the land at the prior monetary offer and, if so, have council pass the ordinance immediately - with no changes or restrictions or mandates.

But that's not likely to happen.

I do hope Bell will be able to convince Dashing Pacific that the purchase is still a good deal for everyone involved. But I won't hold my breath that some on council won't muck it up again. Their actions and comments clearly demonstrate that they can't resist their 'not-business-friendly' antics.


***Side Note: For those of you who may be new readers of my blog, you'll notice the headline for this post is #20. I had to start numbering the 'not-business-friendly' blog posts because there were just too many of them. Fortunately, I've not had as many since Mike Bell was elected mayor, but like a leopard that can't change it's spots, I knew it wouldn't be long before the anti-business members of city council did something worthy of an additional number.

"Not-business-friendly' Post #19: Dashing Pacific and a clueless Toledo council

Yesterday we learned that the Dashing Pacific Group is 'reassessing' their interest in the Marina District. This certainly comes as no surprise to me, though it seems that members of Toledo City Council still don't get it.

From Mayor Mike Bell's letter to City Council:

Dashing Pacific Group has advised the City that they are reassessing their interest in purchasing the 69 acres in the Marina District. Therefore, I am requesting that Council cancel the Economic Development Committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, April 19th, and refer the Ordinance authorizing a sale agreement back to the Administration at the April 19th Council meeting.

After discussing, last Tuesday, 'draconian' (to use a frequently heard term these days) conditions for the sale of the property, city council members sent a very strong - and negative - message to all investors who might even remotely consider this area for their developments and dollars.

Does council not understand that people with millions of dollars ready for investment have a plethora of rusted-out cities and empty properties from which to choose? They can have their pick of locations and sites and, because of the economy, can usually ask for tax breaks or other 'incentives' from cities - and get them. In our case, Dashing Pacific asked for nothing except to purchase the property.

But council couldn't resist catering to special interests in a vain attempt to look important and curry the votes of certain groups. Even after learning that their 'stuck on stupid' conditions could jeopardize the deal, they're still insisting that they're doing what is 'right' for the community.

Really? Dictating to private investors what kind of employees they can have risks everything for the entire city while trying to placate the union workers who make up only about 13% of the workforce. It's certainly NOT in the best interests of all the residents to put deed restrictions on a sale that would prohibit 87% of the workforce from participating.

From the news article:

Mr. Copeland said he is pro-business — and pro-citizens of Toledo — and that he makes decisions based on “what affects the citizens of Toledo.”

The loss of the development would have a much bigger impact on the 'citizens' than any requirement for union labor at the job site. What part of that equation does union boss Phil Copeland not understand?

And then there was this from the district councilman:

Adam Martinez said, “I don’t think Toledoans have any issue with the global marketplace and competing. The mayor is certainly very focused on economic development and moving at the speed of business. I think a lot of times he gets caught up in that.”

But the mayor may not understand that council members have the responsibility to make sure “we’re protecting our tax base and citizens,” Mr. Martinez said.

Of course businesses 'move at the speed of business.' If they don't, they fail. The failure to grasp this basic concept is another big part of the problem on city council. Business shouldn't have to wait for self-important politicians to figure out how to carve our special conditions to benefit their friends just to be able to go forward with a plan - and certainly not in the economy we currently have in Toledo. Perhaps this is why businesses don't even try in this community?!?

But for Martinez to think he's "protecting our tax base and citizens" just shows how warped his perspective is. He's risking the bigger picture of overall development and a business-friendly reputation to try to guarantee favors for only a small portion of the community - his union friends.

But the arrogance and hubris of Councilman Joe McNamara takes the cake:

Councilman Joe McNamara placed the blame for the setback on the Bell administration, which he said failed to introduce the investors to council and did not prepare them for the public scrutiny the deal would face.

“The mayor had a relationship with the investors, but council did not,” he said. “There is clearly a cultural difference in how business is conducted in China and the United States and I think the Bell administration did a poor job of communicating that.”

You didn't introduce us - what a whiny, childish, unprofessional attitude! The message McNamara is sending is coming through loud and clear: you didn't cater to us, so we're not going to let you get what you want Mayor - and the investors be damned!

And to say that the Bell Administration didn't 'prepare' Dashing Pacific for the 'public scrutiny'??? International investors are most definitely cognizant of the public scrutiny - what they didn't expect is that a community so desperate for investment and potential growth would have representatives on council who were more interested in protecting a small group of friends than in doing what is best for the community as a whole - or that these same petty representatives would jeopardize a deal because of an imagined slight.

Did these people not learn anything from the Westgate fiasco and Costco? And they wonder why companies have little or no interest in doing business here.

District 6 Council member Lindsay Webb said:

“This is still on the table, in my opinion,” she said.

“I think this is an attempt to scare the public and members of council out of asking the questions that must necessarily be asked.”

Well, just because YOU think something is still viable doesn't mean Dashing Pacific agrees with you. But to state this is a scare tactic to try to prevent questions is beyond naive and further demonstrates the total disconnect between the global business world and the inane ideas of council.

If council were just asking questions, that would be one thing, but they're not. They're issuing not-so-thinly veiled threats that unless the investors cater to their small-minded demands, they won't be able to purchase the property and spend millions turning it into something profitable.

And then there was this priceless gem:

Councilman Mike Craig, whose district includes the area to be sold, said cultural differences are getting in the way of a business deal.

“They need to understand, in the United States, in a development this big, you have lots and lots of partners,” Mr. Craig said.

He said he opposed putting a restriction in the deed transfer requiring the use of union labor, as area construction unions are seeking, but said the Chinese investors should meet with the Northwestern Ohio Building and Construction Trades Council and negotiate.

Apparently Craig doesn't realize that in a free society - like we supposedly have here - the 'partners' are the ones brought into the deal voluntarily, not forced upon you by self-interested and egotistical government officials.

But that's not all. Even George Sarantou, who identifies himself as a Republican, went so far as to 'suggest' that Dashing Pacific go directly to the unions to prostrate themselves:

Councilman George Sarantou called for the Chinese investors’ representative, Mr. Prephan, to meet with the trades union representatives so they can show their involvement in other big projects, such as the Huntington Center arena.

Why? Perhaps Dashing Pacific isn't ready to meet with potential workers yet? For goodness sake - they've not even gotten ownership of the property. What a bunch of hypocrites - complaining from one side about not moving at the speed of business while insisting on the other side that the developer meet with building trades before they've even gotten their drawings of the site completed.

Are we fully cognizant yet about how 'not-business-friendly' this council truly is?

Here's some advice for council: It's certainly appropriate to ask for prior developments the individuals have worked on. It's certainly appropriate to evaluate the price they're willing to pay against the marketable value of the property. It's certainly appropriate to ensure they have the financial wherewithal to meet the purchase obligation and to actually do something with the property.

It's NOT appropriate to insist that your friends get the contracts, that your union supporters get the jobs or that the development fit your wants and desires rather than what can actually be successful and produce revenue for the owners and the city tax coffers.

And it's NOT appropriate to assume with such arrogance that you - without an iota of experience running a business - know better than they do what will and will not work.

Apologize for your stuck-on-stupid, anti-business posturing, sell the property and then get out of the way. Even if Dashing Pacific doesn't do anything with the property for the next several years, selling it for several million is better than letting it just sit waiting for something you deem to be 'more worthy' or for a developer who will cater to your trivial, small-minded and irrelevant demands.

Quick thoughts on the sale of the Marina District

The good and the bad in bullet point fashion:

*** Dashing Pacific Group, the new owners of The Docks, has offered to purchase the Marina District. The price is significantly less than the 'investment' that's been made with tax dollars, but then, the 'investment' costs weren't really justified by any return-on-investment (ROI) analysis. In the end, the property is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. The offer is a good thing.

*** Dashing Pacific is actually offering to purchase the land - as in, give the city money for it. Unlike prior developers, they're not asking for anything other than the sale. Prior interested parties wanted the city to spend money on various things, which the city agreed to do, putting us into the position where the 'investment' was greater than the value of the property. The fact that they want to purchase without other public dollars being spent is a good thing.

*** City Council is posturing about putting demands - or conditions - on the sale: everything from Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) to a business plan to rescinding the sale if the plan doesn't progress as expected. As Mayor Mike Bell patiently tried to explain to council, these ideas scream 'anti-business' and might not sink just this deal, but future deals for economic growth in the region. Bell's understanding of this and his directness in addressing city council is a good thing. The conditions of council are definitely in the bad category.

*** City Council has never required a business plan in the past, so why now? It might be a good thing if they've learned from prior mistakes, but it's a bad thing in this case for a single critical reason: this is a purchase of property that transfers ownership to a private entity. Government has no business dictating the terms and conditions once they no longer own the property. If they don't believe the buyers have the capacity to develop the property into a thriving, profitable venture, then don't sell it. But they'd be hard pressed to make that argument after selling The Docks to the same group. So let the new private property owners do what they must to accomplish the economic growth we so desperately want and need in Toledo. That would be a good thing.

*** Additionally, Council needs to stop being hypocrites on these types of arrangements. They should require business plans whenever they accept a grant on behalf of a development or guarantee a loan (which they've done in the past and for which we are STILL paying). But while members of council might be capable of reading and understanding such plans, I doubt that even half of them have the background and experience or knowledge to adequately evaluate such plans and determine potentials for success or failure. Some have made the argument that banks require business plans - but council isn't a bank and shouldn't act like one. If the venture is worthy of a bank loan, it shouldn't need public monies to go forward. And if a bank won't loan for a project, certainly council shouldn't either. If council would follow this premise, it would be a good thing. That they don't is certainly bad.

Sell the property to Dashing Pacific and then get out of the way. That would be the BEST thing.

Mayor Bell to sign MOU on Marina District with Chinese investors

Dashing Pacific Group is now interested in the Marina District as well as the Docks.

Press release from the City of Toledo:

Bell to sign memorandum with investors interested in Marina District

Toledo Mayor Michael P. Bell expects to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on Tuesday before City Council's economic development committee hearing with investors interested in the Marina District. The MOU is not a solid offer for purchase, but indicates that Dashing Pacific Group is interested in purchasing and developing the riverfront district pending the successful purchase of The Docks restaurant complex.

Dashing Pacific Group made an offer to purchase The Docks in January of this year and Council will contemplate the proposal at their hearing beginning at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday morning, February 8th. The administration has asked for a vote on the sale at the full meeting of council on Tuesday afternoon.

Mayor Bell will be available for comments following Tuesday's hearing.


###

Don't rush to accept Chinese investment in Toledo

I don't know if he was the first to say it, but my father-in-law was the first one I heard recite the sentiment that America will never be taken by force - but it can be bought.

This opinion is widely shared by many who know that Americans will resist, with their last breath, any foreign invader who comes ashore intending the conquest or destruction of our nation. But what if the goal is not to take us by force, but to slowly, over time, become our keepers?

With the current amount of our nation's debt owned by the Chinese, some are very concerned about the implications, especially with Chinese President Hu Jintao's state visit going on in Washington, D.C.

Now we learn that unnamed Chinese investors are interested in purchasing waterfront property in Toledo.

To a city that never got out of the last recession, this one has hit us especially hard, so news of investors is welcomed by many. But Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH9) isn't so thrilled, "because she believes it would be a calculated move by the government, rather than individuals looking for opportunity."

There is validity to her concern. While I certainly don't mind a corporation or individual investing in our area or purchasing property, I do mind if a foreign government does. The only exception I would see to a foreign government - especially a communist one - owning land is if they are building an embassy on it. But that's not what is planned in this instance.

Before we leap without looking, we need to give serious thought to multiple aspects of any potential transaction.

The first thing we need to know about these potential investors is whether or not they are a state-owned enterprise (one of the roughly 150 companies that report directly to the Chinese central government) or one of the subsidiaries (one owned by a municipal or provincial government in which the central government is a major shareholder).

Should we have a healthy distrust of a potential investor that is actually controlled by a communist government structure? Or, in this era of a global economy, do we overlook the communistic aspect in favor of potential jobs and tax revenues?

As this 2008 Forbes article explains, it's not so clear anymore:

In one portrayal, they are infiltrators to be viewed with suspicion. An example: Aluminum Corporation of China's (nyse: ACH - news - people ) recent multibillion-dollar purchase of a stake in Rio Tinto (nyse: RTP - news - people ) has raised fears about China's agenda for the acquisition of Australia's resources.

The other version sees state-owned companies as muscle-bound goons: without the smarts of a private company but with plenty of brawn. In this characterization, they are relics of a failed economic experiment that still dominate the national economy--controlling natural resources, utilities and many other vital sectors. Their power and influence--particularly their links to the ruling Communist Party and government--give partners and competitors pause.

Both views, however, fail to recognize that as the Chinese economy evolves, it is no longer so easy or desirable to pigeonhole state-owned enterprises. The line between them and private sector companies has blurred considerably.

There is also the question of which properties we should allow them to purchase if we decide we do want their presence.

As above, are they interested in acquiring our natural resources? Our relatively inexpensive waterfront property is a rarity in the world, much less here in the United States and I've been amazed that it hasn't been bought up before now. It's also our greatest asset and something I worked to emphasize when I was in office. But do we want our most valuable asset owned by a company controlled by a communist foreign government?

Restricting the sale of such property isn't a new idea. The government of Mexico has a restriction in their Constitution that prohibits foreigners from owning waterfront land. As this website explains:

The law declares that the Mexican nation has original ownership to all land and water in Mexico, as well as minerals, salts, ore deposits, natural gas and oil; but that such ownership may be assigned to individuals.

The Mexican Constitution prohibits direct ownership of real estate by foreigners in what has come to be known as the "restricted zone." The restricted zone encompasses all land located within 100 kilometers (about 62 miles) of any Mexican border, and within 50 kilometers (about 31 miles) of any Mexican coastline. However, in order to permit foreign investment in these areas, the Mexican government created the "fideicomiso," (FEE-DAY-E-CO-ME-SO) which is, roughly translated, a real estate trust. Essentially, this type of trust is similar to trusts set up in the United States, but a Mexican bank must be designated as the trustee and, as such, has title to the property and is the owner of record. The Mexican Government created the "fideicomiso" to reconcile the problems involved in developing the restricted zone and to attract foreign capital. This enabled foreigners, as beneficiaries of the trusts, to enjoy unrestricted use of land located in the restricted zone without violating the law.

A "fideicomiso" is a trust agreement created for the benefit of a foreign buyer, executed between a Mexican bank and the seller of property in the restricted zone. Foreign buyers cannot own real estate in the restricted zone due to Constitutional restrictions. The bank acts on behalf of the foreign buyer, taking title to real property. The bank, as trustee, buys the property for the foreigner, then has a fiduciary obligation to follow instructions given by the foreigner who is the trust beneficiary. The trust beneficiary retains and enjoys all the rights of ownership while the bank holds title to the property. The foreigner is entitled to use, enjoy, and even sell the property that is held in trust at its market value to any eligible buyer.

In order to allow foreigners to enter into the agreement contained in the Calvo Clause, Mexico requires all foreigners to apply for and obtain a permit from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs prior to contracting to acquire real estate in Mexico.

While we have no such prohibitions in our Constitution, the City of Toledo is the owner of the properties in question and, as owner, can place restrictions on the sale of the property. The city could even retain ownership of the land and offer, for example, a 99-year lease, preserving the ability of both parties (seller and buyer) to protect their interests in the transaction.

The potential sale of city-owned property to a foreign entity might be an issue that will unite previously opposing groups. I can see developers, free-market supporters, environmentalists and public access groups joining together to ensure the land is not owned outright by a foreign government whose long-term interests might conflict with our own. The communist Chinese government is well-known for taking a very long-term approach to accomplishing their goal of dominance.

There will be those who embrace the idea without any details, simply because it may bring needed jobs and tax revenues to the area. There will be others who reject it outright because it's communist China.

I believe the proper approach is somewhere in between: welcoming the interest of foreign investors while protecting American land from ownership by a foreign government. If it's done correctly, we can all be happy with the outcome.

Logic and reason in the Toledo Mayor's office

Fox Toledo is reporting that Mayor Mike Bell is not interested in doing anything further at the Marina District - at least, not with city money.

Mayor Bell says it's a project he doesn't plan to pursue unless someone else comes up with the money to push it forward. He says basic services need to be provided before anything else.

"I have no intentions as a mayor to put anymore city money into that project," the mayor said. "So, what needs to happen is have private investors step up and do what they do."

Finally! Logic and reason on the 22nd Floor.

Finkbeiner should be judged by the promises he made

If you read the headline of Sunday's Toledo Blade article on out-going mayor Carty Finkbeiner, you'd think that even his critics gave him praise on his terms of office.

After all, that's what the headline says: Finkbeiner's legacy: Even critics admit he made Toledo better.

The problem is, the only 'critic' they found was fellow Democrat Frank Szollosi, who didn't get mentioned until the 35th (yes, 35th!) paragraph. And, even then, gave no praise. The article states in paragraph 34:

Even his critics agree the city is, in some ways, a better place after his 12 years in office - the first eight of which were with Mr. Finkbeiner as Toledo's first modern strong mayor.

But they don't provide the name or quotes of any 'critic' who actually says this.

So is this editorializing? Wishful thinking? An attempt to 'spin' Carty's actions? Or is it bad editing, leaving out details/quotes the reporter included? You can decide on your own, especially in light of the more wide-spread reputation the paper is developing for disguising their opinions as news stories.

What is a more accurate reflection of Carty's term are his original campaign promises. Here are his promises from his campaign website (in italics), saved just for today, along with my comments on whether or not he actually achieved them:

"I will outline our mission and agenda:
Our mission
The Finkbeiner administration will unite and promote, in every way possible, a clean, green, and safe city with vibrant colors everywhere – a city that inspires our citizens to improve our neighborhoods, educate our children and create jobs that offer a future in their hometown.
To accomplish our mission, we will:
1. Work with the University of Toledo, Bowling Green State University, Medical University of Ohio and Owens Community College to develop a “technology corridor,” creating the jobs of the future.

* FAIL - Carty's administration did 'work' with these entities but there is no technology corridor as of his last day in office. These institutions of higher learning are working together more effectively without the mayor.

2. Develop the marina-housingrestaurant-entertainment project on the east side of the river that voters approved in September, 2001. The Marina District project will act as a complement to The Docks, which we built in 1995.

* FAIL: While the taxpayers did fund a road and street lights and some basic infrastructure, there is no vertical development and no private funding available for the housing/restaurant/entertainment portion of the Marina District. In fact, after 9 years, there is no one capable of putting forth the private sector support needed to actually bring this plan to fruition. While Larry Dillin still hopes to have some financing for his part of the contract, we haven't seen it yet. One has to wonder if all the efforts and expenditures of employee time and tax dollars have been worth what we have to show today: a road to nowehere with really nice street lamps...and that's about it.

3. Seek private-sector developers to build a new sports arena in the city.

* MASSIVE FAIL: The city gave up the arena to the County and there was no effort by the County Commissioners to find a private developer for the new sports arena. In fact, every suggestion I made toward that end was soundly rejected by my two fellow commissioners at the time, Pete Gerken and Tina Skeldon Wozniak. They didn't want a privately-run arena. They wanted one owned by the County, despite the fact that they/we had no money for such a project. In the end, the total cost of the new arena project was over $105 million, despite a budget estimate of around $80 million ... and identified funding on only $80 million. Of course, there still is no 'name' to the arena and no estimated $14 million in naming rights income, not to mention the other revenue sources that haven't panned out. But never mind the financial facts, isn't it pretty????

4. Meet with the ownership of Southwyck Mall to forge a compact leading to a revitalized mall in 365 days.

* MASSIVE FAIL: After realizing what just about everyone else already knew, that the owners of Southwyck had no interest in revitalizing the mall, Carty embarked upon a plan to take over the property so he could have his way. That, too, failed, and all we have now is an empty space following the demolition of the mall buildings.

5. Meet with the ownership and property owners in the Westgate-Cricket West district to define the future redevelopment of this area.

* I cannot rate this promise as I do not know if Carty actually met with any of the owners of the properties in this area. What I do know of his actions regarding the planned redevelopment of Westgate would give him a FAIL rating. He, along with Gerken and Wozniak, aggressively fought the plans of the property owner to revitalize the private property with new stores and options for consumers. Together, these three politicians almost cost us the new Costco that went up. Fortunately, between the plan commission and then District 5 Representative Ellen Grachek, their efforts to derail the project failed.

6. Nurture small-business development, and establish a 25-person business advisory council, consisting of our best and brightest small-business leaders, to advise the administration on how it can help business develop in our region and eliminate government obstacles. This advisory council will review council legislation passed during the last 25 years, and we will rescind any laws that have hampered job creation.

* FAIL: While Carty did create this council, he didn't allow it to do anything. In fact, one of the first acts Carty embarked upon was the takeover of the ambulance services for basic life support transport from the small, private companies. His business advisory council asked him to postpone the effort until they had a chance to review the plan, but Carty said no. About a year after the establishment of the council, I contacted several individuals the city said were serving as part of the group. Two of them didn't even know they'd be named to the council and two said they'd only received notice of two meetings. Oh - and just to solidify my 'fail' rating, City Council did not rescind any laws relating to 'job creation.'

7. Work with Ann Arbor and Detroit public and private leaders to create an automotive R&D corridor linking our cities. The purpose – job creation.

* FAIL: There is no automotive R&D corridor linking these cities and, with the financial mess the Detroit automakers find themselves in, I doubt they had time to even consider such a plan.

8. Fill the vacancies and voids in the Central Business District with new entrepreneurs and businesses, using tax breaks and incentives..

* PARTIAL SUCCESS: There are some new businesses in the downtown area, but not enough ... and I doubt it is enough to overcome the ones that left, or to replace the employees who were laid off or whose positions were eliminated.

9. Encourage and promote a regional government to include, city, county and suburban governments all under one roof, in as many ways as possible.

* FAIL: I think Carty forgot about this one since he hasn't talked about a regional government since his first year in office. However, his failure on this is a good thing, from my perspective, because I'm opposed to a regional government as described by the Democrats in this town.

10. Establish a grass-roots neighborhood program, in which every neighborhood has representation in City Hall and will be involved in decisions impacting them. This will be modeled after the Dayton program.

* FAIL: I don't think this even got to the planning stages.

11. Develop a “neighborhood pride” program to encourage home ownership, civic pride and urban beautification. This program will include neighborhood competition to honor outstanding efforts to improve properties.

* PARTIAL SUCCESS: Carty did establish a 'neighborhood pride' and beautification program. He used various federal programs to encourage home ownership. Of course, we don't know how many of those individuals in new homes were part of the massive foreclosure problem as a result. And while he had a program, this gets a 'partial' rating because there is no evidence the program achieved the stated goals - or that it will remain once Carty is out of office.

12. Restore the urban beautification program on main streets and in city parks while expanding these efforts into neighborhoods. We will raise $250,000 annually from the private sector to accomplish this.

* PARTIAL SUCCESS: Carty did endeavor to restore the urban beautification program and received a ton of criticism for making this a priority (with limited budget dollars) over such essentials as police and roads. As for the promise to raise $250,000 annually from the private sector? That was a MASSIVE FAIL. I don't think he got to that much total for the entire term.

13. Revitalize the urban-blight program, and return the demolition program for blighted housing to 300 demolitions annually.

* SUCCESS: I believe he did his target goal of 300 demolitions annually.

14. Commit to hiring more police officers, so Toledo will no longer have the fewest police per 1,000 residents of any major city in Ohio.

* MASSIVE FAIL: He actually laid off police officers.

15. Will actively and personally work to restore the Erie Street Market as a centerpiece of downtown revitalization.

* FAIL: Oh, he worked at it - to no avail. The place is a money pit and still isn't breaking even, costing taxpayers and creating a continual drain on general fund dollars while we go without roads and police.

16. Implement a city Gateway project that will utilize the resources of the city as well as the private sector to improve the appearance of the main entrances to the city.

* PARTIAL SUCCESS: He did work to spruce up some of the entrances, but ignored other ones. My impression that his idea of 'entrance' was an entrance to the central core of the downtown area, not the major entrances into the city proper.

17. Increase emphasis on repairing potholes more swiftly and permanently.

* PARTIAL SUCCESS: He may have had an increased emphasis, but if it he did, it wasn't enough.

18. Commit to prioritize city Capital Improvement dollars to resurface city streets, with a target of 40 miles per year.

* SUCCESS: He made the resurfacing a priority in the CIP budget and did achieve his targeted 40 miles.

19. Commit to return every phone call to citizens within 24 business hours, and respond to specific concerns within 7 business days.

* FAIL: From my personal experience, I know that he did not return every phone call within 24 business hours and I waited much longer than 7 business days for some 'specific concerns' I raised. This was a either a bad promise to make or one that sounded good in the heat of a campaign because he did not put the effort forth to ensure he would keep it.

20. Establish monthly “Meet the Mayor” nights that will rotate locations throughout the city.

* PARTIAL SUCCESS: He did get off to a good start with this, but as the meetings got contentious, he stopped having them.

21. Establish a City Hall mentoring program that will pair city officials with young people seeking such guidance.

* PARTIAL SUCCESS: He did start this, but who knows what happened with it or how successful it was.

22. Establish privately funded, summer youth-development programs in city parks.

* FAIL: Never happened.

23. Develop a summer-job program for high school students, working with the Chamber of Commerce.
24. Seek commitments from our local companies to hire college students as “interns” during the summer months.

* PARTIAL SUCCESS: These two went together. I believe there was some type of program begun, with commitments from a few businesses, but it did not continue.

25. Develop job training and retraining programs for the unemployed and underemployed while working with corporations, labor unions and our universities.

* FAIL: The city did not do this, though The Source, the county/Workforce Investment Board (federal mandated program) one-stop shop, does have such programs in place and operating on a continual basis. Carty never should have made such a promise because the federally-mandated program was already in place. He should have just promised to support those efforts and be part of a 'regional' approach to job training.

26. Work with public and private school leaders to assure that new and/or improved academic campuses become the stimulus that creates family oriented neighborhood living opportunities around the academic setting.

* SUCCESS: Carty did work with the existing New Schools New Neighborhoods program which focuses on creating a core of services/opportunities in and around the new schools that are being built.

27. Encourage adaptive reuse of vacated school properties into neighborhood community centers.

* PARTIAL SUCCESS: He may have 'encouraged' this, but there was no success in achieving it.

28. Monitor the levy requests of TPS to assess that the taxpayer is getting his money’s worth from their product.

* FAIL: If he 'monitored' this, he never shared his analysis with the taxpayers so we would know if we were getting our money's worth. Of course, perhaps his failure in this is a good thing, because it's not the job of the mayor to perform this task.

29. Work with county officials, local civic leaders and regional organizations to seek ways to share resources, reduce costs and improve economic conditions in Northwest Ohio to the benefit of all.

* FAIL: The only 'sharing' Carty wanted was for the other organizations and municipalities to 'share' their income taxes with Toledo. Despite opportunities to improve economic conditions to the benefit of all, Carty was interested only in the benefits to the City of Toledo. He even tried to steal Bass Pro from a neighboring jurisdiction because he wanted it in Toledo and not just in Northwest Ohio.

30. Pursue further discussions on establishing a regional water/sewer authority to serve our area while ensuring Toledo residents a reasonable return on their infrastructure investments.

* FAIL: This went nowhere.

31. Will appoint a health and fitness honorary chairperson to promote a “healthier lifestyle” in Toledo.

* I have no idea if he appointed an 'honorary chairperson' or not. Obviously, the effort didn't garner much attention and Toledoans ignored it, if it existed.

32. Establish a courageous and boldcommittee to define how utility rates can be reduced in Northwest Ohio.

* BOLD FAIL: (sorry, couldn't resist)

33. Restore the minority health commission to improve the life expectancy and general health of those impacted.

* Another one I couldn't find information on. If he did restore the health commission, it worked without publicity and unknown impact. But again, this isn't the role of the mayor.

34. Seek “loaned leaders” from the business and union sectors to seek ways to reduce city costs and implement modern systems to promote increased productivity.

* FAIL: City costs were reduced through furloughs, layoffs and the elimination of funding for certain city departments - not because of suggestions made by 'loaned leaders' but because of the economy and the declining tax revenues of the city. I'm certain that 'loaned leaders' would have found even more ways to reduce the costs of government if convened and allowed to actually made and implement recommendations.

Conclusion
Toledo needs a leader who not only hears, but listens to, the voices echoing throughout the city. Toledo needs a leader who not only sees problems of joblessness and lost vision, but sees solutions involving the creation of jobs and growth. Toledo needs a leader who will awaken this city to the great dreams that helped turn this once-stagnant swamp into a jewel set along both shores of the Maumee River. And Toledo needs a pro-jobs, progrowth, pro-Toledo citizenry. It is a time for citizen/heroes. It is a time for each and every Toledoan to take up the cause of building a better, stronger Toledo. With every Toledoan’s help in this endeavor, I seek to be your Mayor – your leader."

So we come up with 19 promises NOT kept, 9 that were only partially kept and many of those without success in achieving an outcome, 3 promises kept and 2 unknown.

That's not good in terms of grades - in fact, eliminating the two unknowns, his partial success and success rate is only 37.5% ... about a third of the promises he made he actually kept in some way or another.

And this doesn't even get into the huge budget deficit he leaves, the zero balance in the city's rainy day fund, or the increased taxes we're all paying thanks to his 'leadership.'

But judging him by what he said he was going to do is much better than trying to spin his term and claim that unidentified critics say he made Toledo better.

Why Toledo City Council didn't approve the Marina District financing

It's amazing what you find out when you ask for, and receive, a public record. One of the items on last Tuesday's city council meeting was an amended development agreement with Larry Dillin for the Marina District. I was curious about any changed terms, asked for a copy and found out.

A sticking point has been which comes first: the public financing or the letter of credit from the developer?

The new development agreement requires that Dillin submit to the city "an acceptable construction Letter of Credit (LOC) in the amount of at least $8.3 million" at or prior to closing. But it also includes this wording: "... Developer shall provide to the City the financial institution's commitment to issue the LOC prior to passage of the legislation ..."

As we learned in Mayor Carty Finkbeiner's press conference yesterday, Dillin has not been successful in getting a letter of credit from any Ohio bank and is now looking at foreign banks and investors, due to the credit conditions in the States. If he had to provide the LOC prior to closing, council could have passed the legislation committing $10 million in public funds to the construction of infrastructure and the park. However, since Dillin has to provide evidence of a financial institution's commitment to a LOC prior to passage of the legislation, council postponed the vote Tuesday with no explanation.

It should be clear that the reason for the delay is because Dillin doesn't have such a commitment.

For the sake of all concerned, I truly hope he is able to obtain the financial backing and go forward with the project. I still have serious concerns that residential housing (condos or apartments in this market and especially with Toledo's economic condition) is a risky venture in downtown Toledo, but I am trusting in Dillin's expertise and reputation. If he fails, as District 2 Councilman Michael Collins says, 'we'll all look like idiots.'

Deed requiring union work forever at Marina District is pulled

Councilman Frank Szollosi has pulled his ordinance that would have instituted a deed restriction at the Marine District project requiring only union workers for anything - forever.

According to today's paper, Szollosi says the ordinance is no longer needed.

"Mr. Szollosi said he is removing the proposed ordinance because of commitments Mr. Dillin made to local union labor. Mr. Dillin last night declined to detail those discussions."

Mayor Carty Finkbeiner and Marine District developer Larry Dillin both said the requirement would kill the project.

So now the only question remains is this: Was Szollosi just using the power of his office to force concessions with the developer by introducing this piece of legislation?

The circumstances are highly suspect. Local councilman with strong support from local unions introduces a deal-breaker ordinance setting out a deed restriction that would require only union labor for any and all work - forever; local developer, who's already invested heavily in the project, meets with entities and makes 'commitments' to local unions; councilman withdraws ordinance.

I think there's a name for this type of 'coercion.' No wonder businesses are leaving the area.

Not 'business friendly' - Post #12: deeds requiring union workers forever

Councilman Frank Szollosi introduced an ordinance at last night's city council meeting that would require all work done at the Marina District to be performed by union workers - FOREVER. And to ensure the union labor, he formulated it into a restrictive covenant on the deed to transfer the property so that it applies to Larry Dillin, the developer, and all successors, heirs and assigns.

Here's the actual language:

ORD. 376-08

Authorizing and directing the Mayor to add a Restrictive Covenant to the deed conveying City owned property concerning the Marina District project to Dillin Riverfront Properties, Inc. requiring the use of unionized workforce for any and all construction and development on this property forever by Dillin Riverfront Properties, Inc. and any successors; and declaring an emergency.

SUMMARY & BACKGROUND:
Ord. 307-08, passed by City Council on May 20, 2008, authorizes the City to convey title to its property in the area along the Maumee River between Marina Drive and Main Street to Dillin Riverfront Properties, Inc. to be improved in accordance with the Master Plan. The Marina District project will have a beneficial effect on the economy of the City of Toledo in terms of jobs, investment, revitalization of a former brownfield and other positive effects.

City Council desires to add a Restrictive Covenant to the deed requiring Dillin Riverfront Properties, Inc. and any successors to use unionized workforce for any and all construction and development on this property forever. NOW, THEREFORE,

Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Toledo:

SECTION 1. That the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to add a Restrictive Covenant to the deed conveying City owned property to Dillin Riverfront Properties, Inc. for the revitalization of the area along the Maumee River between Marina Drive and Main Street with respect to the development of the Marina District project.

SECTION 2. That the Restrictive Covenant shall require Dillin Riverfront Properties, Inc. to promise to use unionized workforce for any and all construction, reconstruction, enlargement, alteration, renovation, or development of or on all or any part of the land covered by this deed. This Restrictive Covenant shall apply to Dillin Riverfront Properties, Inc., heirs, successors, and assigns forever.

As we discussed on Eye On Toledo last night, (podcast of June 16 show), only 15% of Ohio's 2007 wage and salary workers are represented by a union, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even if - and it's a big if - Toledo has triple the state numbers, union workers are less than half of the workers in the city. When you deduct all the public employees who are unionized, I'm certain that the union workers in Toledo are a small minority of the Toledo workforce.

If Councilman Szollosi really wants to "protect the local workforce," as he stated during the meeting, he'd be as interested in protecting ALL workers and not just a small number of them.

Larry Dillin is ready to start construction on the Marina District and this requirement comes way past the 'last minute.' Dillin says it will kill the project - and he is someone who has used, and continues to use, local union labor on his projects. Mayor Carty Finkbeiner says that same thing. And they're right.

Are our elected officials so stuck on stupid that they will finally be able to kill a project that has taken years to actually come to fruition? Can they not stand the thought of actually being successful with something that they must come up with a deal-breaker just before the construction actually begins? Are they that self-destructive or afraid of success that they do not realize the seriously negative impact this will have?

Oh - and according to the Clerk of Council, Council has never passed a deed restriction like this one, so it will be a first, if approved.

But it doesn't just impact the Marina District. It sends a very strong negative message to all businesses in the area - and to those that might be considering starting or re-locating a business here. During my search yesterday for the numbers of union workers in Toledo, I had a discussion with several economic development officials. All of them said that the issue of unions is one of the top five issues business representatives ask about this area. We have a reputation for being a 'strong union town' and many business owners have a concern that they will be targeted for unionization if they come here. Legislation and laws like this one just reinforce that image and drive job providers away.

This ordinance had its first reading last night. It was not referred to committee. It will be on the next council meeting agenda for either a second reading and/or vote.

Call City Council and tell them this is a terrible idea and shouldn't get their support: 419-245-1050.

A question on the Marina District - what about Riverfront Park?

In response to a comment from Tim Higgins on my earlier blog post about the funding for the Marina District, I came across this press release on the city of Toledo's website.

It's the original announcement from March of this year that highlighted the details of the agreement between Toledo and developer Larry Dillin. What I found interesting were the following statements:

"After Dillin solidifies private funds $50M* for vertical buildings and $15M* to fund the balance of the Riverfront Park area, the City will deed the land to Dillin Corp and invest $10M* in the Riverfront Drive and Park area.
...
Dillin is currently in negotiations with users on several parts of the site both commercial and residential. “When the Waterfront Park is delivered, there are several other interested developers for other areas of the land,” stated Sarah Penner, Project Manager of the Marina District for Dillin Corp. “The backbone of this agreement is the Riverfront Park.” The Riverfront Park would typically be funded as a “Public Works” project. In this case, the City, State and Dillin will all participate in the expenses.
...
To jumpstart the vertical development and Riverfront park, Dillin will provide the following by October 1, 2007**:
• Leadership for the entire development/master-planning process
• $50M* in private investment for building structures
• Financing for the gap in funding to complete the Waterfront Park ($15 M*)
• Vertical Development to begin before December 31, 2007**"

The press release also details the city's commitment, including "$10M* for the Riverfront Park which includes monies available from the State or Federal government."

So it appears from the agreement that Dillin is supposed to have not only the $50 million for the development, but financing for any gap in funding for the park as well. Because of the way the press release is worded, it's unclear if Dillin's commitment is for $15 million - or if the total cost of the park is $15 million. Either way, Dillin needs to come up with the funds to add to the city's $10 million that is apparently dedicated to the park.

But nothing I've seen in any of the news coverage or council ordinances specifies that the city's portion is going to the park. Now, this doesn't mean it isn't, but I will be watching to see whether or not gap financing for the park is part of the public announcement now scheduled for October 11th - and how the city's $10 million will be allocated.

Follow the money...

Yes, such a powerful phrase that can apply to just about any subject or topic. But especially pertinent in government.

The City of Toledo has been working to develop its waterfront...something that should have been done quite some time ago, but at least it's getting done. Several grants and loans have allowed for the clean-up of this former industrial site and developer Larry Dillin has agreed to take on the project.

The agreement for the Marina District was for Dillin to come up with $50 million in private funds and the city of Toledo to contribute $10 million for infrastructure, etc.

Dillin has met his commitment and plans to make an announcement on Oct. 10th. And the city has its $10 million - but that's where the problem comes in.

Originally, Toledo was short. And then they got a $5 million loan from the state's Infrastructure Bank. According to this June article in The Blade, the loan brought the amount the city had to $9 million, leaving them short only $1 million.

"The loan is guaranteed by funds from the city’s capital improvements budget over the next 10 years, the administration said. The administration has said it hopes to obtain a $5 million grant from the Ohio Cultural Facilities Commission that would offset the loan."

Okay, follow the money ... we'll apply for and accept a $5 million loan, and we won't have to use it when we get our expected grant from the Cultural Facilities Commission.

But, just to reiterate the point, there is this Blade article from earlier in June which said:

"In a memo distributed to city council members over the weekend, the administration said it would ask council to vote today for authorization to borrow up to $5 million against an expected $5 million grant from the Ohio Cultural Facilities Commission.
...
Todd Davies, commissioner of development for Mr. Finkbeiner, said the $5 million loan from the State Infrastructure Bank would temporarily fill the place of a $5 million grant the city hopes to obtain from the Ohio Cultural Facilities Commission. He said the city is highly confident that the grant will be approved, but confirmation may not come until August."

But the city was still short $1 million, prompting this comment from Davies:

"As things stand we're $1 million short. The idea is not to borrow that money," Mr. Davies said. "We want to make sure we're covering all our bases. This is a backstop."

Except, the city couldn't come up with another $1 million and yesterday decided to approve accessing part of the Infrastructure Bank loan.

According to today's article, council voted 11-1 to tap into the $5 million loan to reach their $10 million commitment.

"The $1.1 million loan from the Ohio Department of Transportation's State Infrastructure Bank would be paid back over 10 years at 3 percent interest, with zero interest the first year, and with payback deferred for 30 months, according to the legislation.

Councilman Betty Shultz cast the no vote, saying she objected to pledging the city's gasoline tax revenue as collateral.

Fran Song, the city's debt management officer, said gas tax revenue would be pledged for legal reasons, but the loan likely would be repaid from capital improvements funds."

(Note: we've got 10 years to pay back the loan and we don't have to pay interest for the first year. However, the loan terms say we don't have to make a payment for 30 months - meaning that we'll incur 3% interest for 18 months before we ever have to make the first payment. That's $33,000 - and how much does a new police car cost?)

However, in looking at the original ordinance (378-07) passed June 12th, you find the following explanation of how the loan will be repaid:

"As of the date of this ordinance the City has applied for several multi-million dollar grants from Federal and State agencies, including a $5 million reappropriation of a grant already awarded from the Ohio Cultural Facilities Commission. However, in order to ensure timely construction the City intends to borrow from the State Infrastructure Bank pending receipt of grant monies. This loan will have a 10-year term with a 30-month deferment. It is the intention of the City to repay the loan through any one of the above-mentioned sources prior to the expiration of the 30-month deferment."

Here's my concern: we have the flexibility in the CIP fund to pay interest and principle on this loan, but we don't have the flexibility to just use the CIP to come up with the $1.1 million that we're short for this project? Long-term, is it better to just use existing CIP funds or to take out a loan and pay interest?

The answer to that question would depend upon our priorities and whether or not we, as a city, are willing to forgo something else in order to meet an obligation made to the developer of this project.

The only good aspect of this is that the loan is more like a line of credit and, according to mayoral spokesman Brian Schwartz, the city will only request $1.1 million - and not the full $5 million that is available. But that means that the remainder is available to be accessed for other expenses.

I understand the decision that's been made, but I don't like it. City Council and Mayor are spending money - some of it necessary, some not - with little prioritization or anticipation of future needs. Knowing that the city needed to come up with $10 million to meet our obligation to this project, shouldn't council and mayor have NOT spent other monies previously? That's what you and I would have done ... but with a loan readily available, they didn't have to prioritize or pick and choose among spending. And that's the problem.