The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I accidentally posted this in the Tribune II Development thread and then realilzed it should have been moved here since it deals with process and not the development itself per se.  Sorry for the confusion all and Admin


And the plot thickens...the following article references the City Council Urban & Economic Development Committee meeting held this last Tuesday that started at 10:45AM - a lil late due to an extended Public Works meeting.  Last chance to see the replay on Ch24 TGOV is Monday starting about 9:00PM.

TDA $4 million loan draws fire
by: P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
Sunday, March 29, 2009
3/29/2009 3:27:34 AM

The Tulsa Development Authority is under fire by some city councilors and local developers after it awarded a 10-year, interest-free $4 million loan with no competitive process.

"It really disturbs me that you guys predetermined how the $4 million would be recycled into the economy downtown," Councilor Bill Martinson said during a council committee meeting last week.

In February, the authority voted 3-2 to recycle $4 million in tax money back to American Residential Group for a companion project to its Tribune Lofts project, at Archer and Main streets.

"We have people actively engaged in trying to revitalize downtown Tulsa and they are not even given an opportunity to put these dollars to use," Martinson said.

During that meeting, a local developer said she was told by Authority Chairman Carl Bracy that a member of the mayor's office and other city officials presented the project as the viable one for downtown.

"In effect, (the authority) was to award the money to that project," Mayo Hotel developer Tori Snyder said she understood from Bracy.

Snyder and some other local developers are upset that they were not given the opportunity to vie for the $4 million in 1996 third-penny sales tax funds designated for downtown housing, which was originally awarded to American Residential Group through a bidding process.

American Residential's initial proposal suggested the funds be repaid to provide a perpetual fund for downtown housing, the city agreed and initiated such a policy.

Of the initial award, American Residential has repaid $2 million of the $4 million, with the other $2 million due in 2011.

Bracy, who was present at the council committee meeting with Snyder, did not dispute her comments. Instead, he told councilors that the authority wasn't legally required to competitively bid the funds and could have originally given it away and have nothing.

"I don't think we did anything wrong and inappropriate and that it was fair," Bracy said about the recent award process.

Martinson, who has been critical of the authority, said he and Bracy had a fundamental disagreement.

"I think when we are dealing with taxpayer dollars it needs to be as transparent as possible," he said.

Snyder said there are local developers who have been waiting for those funds to be available and didn't know they could just ask for it outside of a competitive process.

American Residential principal Jay Helm said on Saturday that his firm went to the authority with its financial proposal after it was awarded a contract on purchasing the property that did go through a bidding process.

The financing was discussed several times in the authority's meetings, which are open to the public. A majority of the members appeared not to support the request during those discussions. However, during February's special meeting, the request was approved in a split vote.

Mayor Kathy Taylor said Saturday she didn't direct TDA and has never directed TDA on what to do.

"My friendship with Jay (Helm) had nothing to do with him being awarded the property site for his development or the $4 million."

She said she knew there were plans for an addition to the Tribune, but that she knows about all of the economic development efforts.

Martinson said that the authority's desire to recycle the funds is admirable, "but I'm wondering to what extent they are really being recycled if they keep being recycled with the same developer."

Councilors Rick Westcott and Bill Christiansen also voiced concerns after they said they received several e-mails from local developers upset about the process.

Authority member Julius Pegues, one of the two votes against awarding the funds to American Residential, said the board is working to correct its procedures.

"Let's assume TDA erred in its process to distribute this money," he said.

He said the authority's goal is to prevent these type of issues from occurring in the future as it relates to proposals for available funding.

"We may have made mistakes here recently, but I don't think we made any that we can't correct," said Pegues, who was vocal about the lack of a competitive process.

The principals of American Residential, Jay Helm and Steve Ganzkow, both contributed to Mayor Kathy Taylor's campaign. Helm gave $5,000 and Ganzkow $2,000. Helm's daughter also was employed as Taylor's personal aide for about a year and left in the fall of 2007.

The award of the initial $4 million to American Residential occurred under former Mayor Bill LaFortune's term. Officials at that time said the group's payback clause played a significant role in getting the funds.

Several concerns I have over this:

• Lack of notice and a competitive process in awarding these large funds, essentially pubicly subsidizing a large portion of the overall investment of ONE project and not maximizing the potentials for downtown
  In the televised meeting, Martinson made reference to the contract between City and TDA allowing them to distribute those tax funds for downtown housing and that the contract may have expired in 2003 with no further extension
• Tori Snyder's claim that in a conversation with Chairman Carl Bracy, he admitted TDA was directed to fund this project after Bunney and City staff recommended it - he also left that unchallenged

• Julius Pegues, TDA Vice Chair, was one of the two dissenting votes to approve funding and in an earlier article by the Tulsa World Pegues said he also has concerns about the "process and lack of openness" regarding the reallocation of the funds. "There were no requests for proposals presented," he said. "Other developers who wanted to do development housing downtown didn't get the opportunity to participate."  Juliues Pegues in the meeting Tuesday then acts like this is something new to them, stating TDA "may have erred," and that TDA has a goal to "prevent these types of issues from occurring in the future."  To which one other developer invited by the Council to speak with Snyder said "it isn't rocket science" to address.
• I have a huge problem with Mayor Taylor saying "she didn't direct TDA and has never directed TDA on what to do"...yet people have shown me numerous copies of TDA contracts signed by Taylor - yet she says she has nothing to do with TDA?

• I find it telling how the Tulsa World put in its article the relationship between Taylor, Helm, his daughter and Ganzgow.
• If you watch the meeting, you will see Chair Bracy stumble over his own words, at one point calling on Mike Bunney to jump in the discussion but Bunney essentially refuses.  At the end of the meeting, in what seemed like a surprise to TDA, Council asks two developers or citizens to come up.  They essentially refuted point for point everything Bracy and Pegues said.  Both Pegues and Bracy never stood up to refute any of the information those two provided...which seemed odd since they just took out the argument TDA was making.

Carl Bracey has integrity and tries to do his best. Christianson seems to be doing his job along with Martinson.

But this other stuff is helter skelter real estate development with the Mayor's office serving as lead director.

Not exactly free enterprise.

It would be much better for this Entertainment District to use TDA as the aquisition/redirection arm for all industrial uses while the COT Planning Dept. lays out a master plan which may or may not include more future corporate welfare developments. Call in Tulsa Parking Authority for a parking garage for the ballpark and adjacent area. The rest of development there should be left to the private sector.

What's happen to Griffin Communications? Are they still moving forward?

The 3-2 vote raises my eyebrows as much as the no-bid process. It's such a "no-brainer" that they forego opening it to bid but at the same time, barely over half of TDA supports the idea? Sounds like even TDA had trouble believing this was the right call.

I've been told that Griffin is still wanting to move forward with their development but the broadcast division has taken a hit as a result of the economy and advertising dollars.  On top of that, they are wanting to rebid all aspects in light of the economy and see if they can realize at least $3 million in costs savings.  At some point though TDA needs to say its time to go or step aside.  TDA contracts typically specify a start of construction date usually within a year of execution of contract...think that time has come and gone or is very, very close.

On that Grizzle, I will completely agree with you.

The larger question here is - when does the Council stop demanding answers only to fail to make changes?  The City administration is using TDA.  Mike Bunney has gone on record saying that the City still needs TDA for the flexibility they provide under state statutes.  The City uses the TDA to advance their objectives even though they are supposed to be separate legal entities devoid of political pressure. 

When the TDA gets called on it, they are forced to respond that they dont have to answer to the Council since they are a state governed entity...I think one could argue that.  Particularly in light of the City dolling over more and more responsibilites to the TDA that have nothing to do with Urban Renewal as defined by statute but everything to do with how taxpayer dollars are spent.  By using the TDA, the City is unaccountable to anyone and that is wrong.

I believe that announcement also said they were going to have a large "internet news" division at that office and I believe that was the same group hit hard in recent layoffs.

Maybe Griffin should look at a phased building plan. Build the museum, helipad, web group space, later.

Griffin Communication is currently being rebid

Brenda Miller left TDA in an embarrasing position with their pants down.

Where is the unaccountable beach these daze?

One of her cronies is walking around with Frizzbee's brief case.....

Thanx for the info on Griffin......

I was out of town and missed this great editorial by the Tulsa World on Saturday...

Smelly deal
by: World's Editorial Writers
Friday, April 03, 2009
4/3/2009 3:42:06 AM

The February decision of the Tulsa Development Authority to award a 10-year, interest-free $4 million loan to a well-connected local developer without any sort of competitive process was wrong.

The chairman of the TDA says it was legal, but that doesn't mean it's the right way to use the public's money.

The money is coming back to TDA in repayment of a previous city loan to American Residential Group, developers of the Tribune Loft project, at Archer and Main streets. The original loan money was a piece of the 1996 third-penny sales tax.

The plan — which worked — was to start a recycling loan fund that would create a chain of development.

But when we should be celebrating the success of the program, instead we're wondering if there was a sweetheart deal involved.

The decision to award the latest loan back to ARG for a companion project to the Tribune Lofts could be completely legit, but to do so without first publicly seeing if any other developers have better ideas doesn't pass the smell test.

It isn't lost on anyone that Jay Helm, a principal in ARG, was a big donor to the mayor's election campaign, which makes everyone suspicious.

TDA Chairman Carl Bracy has said there's no legal requirement that the money be awarded on a competitive basis — although it was the first time. There was at least one other potential bidder.

We shouldn't have to say it, but we don't want our city run on the basis of the minimum legal limit.

Tulsa expects transparent, equitable government.

Julius Pegues, one of two TDA members who voted against the plan, has said he thinks the authority has learned its lesson and won't repeat the error.

We hope he's right, but wonder if legislation might be needed to make sure the problem isn't repeated.

If the TDA plans to operate under the bare minimum of public standards, it may be time to tighten the standards.

In the comments section, someone claiming to be a TDA Board Member by the name of John D. (can only assume he means John D. Clayman) posted the following:

John D. 1960, (4/3/2009 2:40:16 PM)
I am a member of the TDA Board and find your editorial to be misleading and devoid of substance. To suggest there was a "sweetheart" deal is libelous, but, then again, calling for a "competitive" process is laughable coming from a monopoly who readily resorts to litigation when someone dares to question the power of the Tulsa World.

I have furnished a response to the improper suggestion of wrongdoing by TDA to your reporter, P.J. Lassek. I encourage you to print my e-mail communication for a more balanced viewpoint of this inflammatory "editorial." 

In response I raise these questions:

What else can you call it when $2 million of the original $4 million loan is "being repaid" but then lent right back out to the same entity?

So John D., if you are a member of the TDA board perhaps you can answer how you and the other board members determined this was a viable project for downtown?

What criteria did you use to examine this proposal?

Did you take into account the ever growing number of high income housing units versus low/moderate income needs?

By what definition did this project outweigh any other potential development project for downtown?

What necessitated the lack of public input or competitive bid?

Did this decision best serve the interests of the TDA's mission to encourage private investment and redevelopment in the downtown area when you essentially have shunned all other developers out of the process by this action?

Guess we will wait to see John D's response in the Tulsa World.

...and we jump the shark.

Calling the process stupid I'm all behind. Insinuating there was some sort of backroom deal when there's no evidence whatsoever of it? That's irresponsible.

Now, if the World wants to do some investigative journalism and find the evidence, let's all get out our pitchforks. Somehow I doubt that will be happening.

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.

This guy gives money to every campaign.

He contributed the maximum amount to Hillary Clinton, Rudy Guliana, Mary Fallin, John Sullivan, Dan Boren, and a small amount to Barack Obama.

He gives big money to campaigns and always has.

If you happened to watch the Council's U&EDC meeting on 3/24 you pretty much had your answer.  Tori Snyder of Mayo Hotel development fame stated that in a conversation with Carl Bracy, Chair of TDA, that she was essentially told that the City administration, through Mike Bunney (Dir. of Economic Development), had proposed the project for funding and basically asserted that TDA was told to give the money to American Residential.  Carl Bracy did not stand up to refute that assertion.  

From the previous Tulsa World article on this:

During that meeting, a local developer said she was told by Authority Chairman Carl Bracy that a member of the mayor's office and other city officials presented the project as the viable one for downtown.  "In effect, (the authority) was to award the money to that project," Mayo Hotel developer Tori Snyder said she understood from Bracy.  Bracy, who was present at the council committee meeting with Snyder, did not dispute her comments.

In the original Tulsa World article 2/24 Authority OKs $4 million loan for second loft project  Vice Chair Julius Pegues stated "he also has concerns about the 'process and lack of openness' regarding the reallocation of the funds."

In the TW 3/29 article, the Mayor's statement regarding Jay Helm only addressed the purchase of the land, not the financing.  

Mayor Kathy Taylor said Saturday she didn't direct TDA and has never directed TDA on what to do.

"My friendship with Jay (Helm) had nothing to do with him being awarded the property site for his development or the $4 million."

The newspaper said a developer said that someone from TDA said that someone from the Mayor's office said that this was a viable project.

Sorry, I need more evidence than that.

Carl Bracy was sitting right there when the allegation was made, the question re-asked by Council, and the allegation made again.  So was Mike Bunney from the City.  This was in a live, attended meeting. 

At neither the U&EDC meeting, nor in the paper, did Carl Bracy stand up and say "whoa, thats not what I said, that never happened."  He had every right to stand up and refute that allegation when it was made and chose not to do so....perhaps because it was spot on? 

By that logic Michael, you would have to be launched into orbit just to be sure the Earth rotates on its axis giving us night and day...might not give any belief just cause the encyclopedia says so eh?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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)

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.

It would be helpful if you would read and make a serious attempt to comprehend my posts before posting your seemingly random thoughts.  My focus has not been on anything anyone "said".  My posts have been focused on the undeniable fact that the TDA (in a process you agree is "flawed") awarded the money in a no-bid, no competition, "backroom" deal.  Highly suspicious, unfair and inappropriate, to say the least.  What is it you insist on disagreeing about? 

This is what you originally posted...

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.

I say there is no evidence of any deal and no evidence of the Mayor's involvement. You understand that or do you want to keep playing stupid?

and I have not focused on the mayor since.  My point, which you keep trying your best to ignore is that this is clearly and obviously a "backroom deal" by the TDA.  There MAY be other people involved, maybe not.  (But again, there is SOME evidence of the mayor's involvement.  It may not be strong evidence, it may be hearsay, but it is nevertheless evidence; as badly as you wish to believe it does not exist.)

More to the point, my discussion with you in particular has been about your dishonest attempt to merely sweep the whole thing under the rug as nothing more than sour grapes from developers who did not "win", completely ignoring the fact (no innuendo here) that nobody except the chosen developer was allowed to apply, compete, or ask for the money.  And for some reason you kept bringing the mayor into the discussion...  Go figure...

Wrong. The loan dates back to the Savage administration. Renaissance Uptown and Tribune Lofts were already leasing in 2001, a year before LaFortune took office.

Not that it matters. The message to Oil Capital and Downtown Now is that you're not welcome here on the TulsaNow forum if you want to say negative things about city government.

Hey, we don't mind if people say negative things about the city government.  Back them up with irrefutable facts though.  Most of these 'hit and runners' probably have some kind of axe to grind, and almost never have facts that can be backed up.  It's usually just hearsay.

What?

Who said they weren't welcome?

I just argued another point of view. Posters shouldn't argue back?

PWD sux....

just want to insure my status here....

LOL  This is just the kind of thing MB is talking about.  Ignore the actual posts and facts and attack the motives of the poster...  Thanks for the timely example, Hoss.

Since you've apparently missed it. . .   It is an irrefutable fact that the TDA awarded money in a no-bid, no-competition-allowed "process".  It is also, by the way, an irrefutable fact that the "winner" of this non-contest is a friend and benefactor of the mayor.  Classic Tulsa insider back-room dealing.  (Whether the Mayor was involved is not an irrefutable fact, and I have never pretended otherwise.)

Your reply is to attack Hoss?

That's not very welcoming...

Have you no reading comprehension?  I said we don't mind the criticisms if they're based in fact.  Way to spin it with an attack.  It makes you look bad.

Yeah THAT'S it.

Has nothing to do with the fact that this is like the 30th post where one of them takes a concern (real or imaginary) and runs with it like they stole it until they pass the point of credibility. The result is we spend more time debating hairbrain theories and not enough time digging into the dirt of the matter.

Not everything is a vast global conspiracy.

Funny that you still haven't provided one iota of evidence that this is anything more than people doing what they usually do. Working with the people they already know.

Yet you hammer on how the developer contributed to Taylor's campaign and other things that are utterly irrelevant without evidence of impropriety. While we might have preferred competitive bidding, someone loaning money to someone they already loaned money to isn't evidence of anything sinister or untoward. The only thing it's evidence of is political blindness.

Nothing more than what people usually do??   If you are referring to private business, sure.  So what?  People can do what they want with their own money.  When it's public money, different standards should apply.  If you are referring to public projects. Well, you are probably right that this is the way it is usually done  . . . in Tulsa.

Hammering on???  The only thing I've hammered on is RecycleMichaels' dishonest attempt to dismiss this as nothing more than sour grapes by developers who didn't "win".

Utterly irrelevant????  Awarding public money with no bids and no competition is impropriety and is untoward (in addition to political blindness).

Sure, no laws were apparently broken, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.  Sorry, I hold those in public office to a slightly higher standard.  So, Tulsa's insiders-only culture rolls merrily along.

Insider?  Here, we've got some low-interest money for you (or was it no-interest, I've lost track).

Not an insider?  Don't even bother applying.  We already gave all the money to an insider.  And by the way, don't even think about doing any re-development in the ballpark area.  That area is designated "insiders only".

Everyone just move along... nothing to see here.  No untoward activities or impropriety here...No sir.  Just Tulsa doing business as usual.

It's human nature, it happens everywhere in government and business. You deal with people you're comfortable with. There's nothing wrong with that unless it becomes so endemic that there's obvious discrimination going on.

And no, it's not really impropriety, it's just stupid. If it were as wrong as you say, we would have put a stop to the military using no-bid contracts years ago.

We're all in agreement that it's not the best way to go about doing things, but smearing the mayor and everyone else you can think of because you don't like it isn't at all appropriate. Perhaps instead of focusing your outrage on this forum, you might call your legislators and see if you can't get them to pass a law regarding awards such as this that require a bid process.

Whining on the forum and attacking other posters isn't productive in the least. If you're OK with that, I have no issue with it, but as worked up as you seem to be, perhaps action would be better than words. And perhaps diplomacy would be useful to you in getting what you desire.

Not worked up in the least, man.  Just not willing to let others sweep it under the rug as nothing more than sour grapes (and thus smearing those other developers who were given no chance to apply for these funds). 

I did not smear the mayor in the least.  Stating facts is not a smear.  It is what it is, my friend.  You and RecycleMichael have both agreed it would be "better" if they did competitive bidding or that the process is "flawed" and yet you insist on continuing to attack me.  I guess calling it "untoward" or "improper" or, goodness gracious, "a back-room deal" is just too harsh for your tender constitutions?  ;-)

Sorry, Oil Capital...your passive-aggressive tone is bogus.

You did smear the Mayor and you called me dishonest. All you have is innuendo and insults. 

When you don't know what you are talking about, it is hard to know when to shut up.

I recommend now.

Stating that there are better ways to do things doesn't mean the way they were done is improper, just not the best way of doing them.

And you did in fact smear the mayor and others without any factual basis. I can quote you if you really can't remember what you wrote. Innuendo is not fact, although you apparently still fail to grasp that.

Sooo.... anybody know when they are going to get started building?

You and Recycle Michael are hilarious!   Let me say it very clearly one more time.  These are facts, not innuendo.

1.  The TDA awarded money to a developer with no bidding, no competition, no opportunity for anyone else to apply.

2.  The developer is an "insider" who is a friend and financial supporter of the mayor.

3.  Other developers would have been interested in getting some of that money, had they been given the opportunity.

Those are undeniable, incontrovertible facts.  And that is all I have ever posted.  If that smears the mayor then maybe she needs to clean up her act.  It is entirely possible the mayor was not involved.  I never said she was.  That still leaves us with an insiders-only operation that should not be acceptable.

As to Recycle Michael, woe is me.  Sorry I had to call you out for being dishonest.  But you were in fact dishonest when you pretended this was just sour grapes by developers who lost some sort of competition. 

The facts are that TDA gave another loan to a company they had loaned money to before.

The guy who owns the company gives money to many campaigns all over America to both republicans and democrats.

The Mayor was not involved in the decision to award TDA money and was not present at the meeting.

Other developers wanted money too (duh!).

Oil Capitol doesn't care about the truth.

These are the facts.

Why don't you go back and check page 2. I will grant that I was misattributing some statements DowntownNow made to you in my head, but you still claim that there was a "back room deal" at the same time you keep hammering on the campaign contributions to the mayor, which is essentially making the claim that the mayor got involved and made sure the money went to ARG. You're trying to have it both ways.

I hate to interrupt a perfectly good private debate or anything, but here are my two cents:

This should have gone out for proposals before being decided.  There are many developers trying to do great projects downtown.  Most of those are attempting to redevelop and preserve historic buildilngs.  All of them could use a little help, and I think it would benefit the city to see many of these projects succeed.

Does adding another building to the empty site next to the Tribune Lofts have as powerful effect as spreading the money to several other developers throughout downtown?  What if the $4 million were spread around to 4 different projects of $1 million each?  Woud that create a greater impact and positive ROI?

We will never know, b/c we were never given the opportunity to analyze the relative merits of various projects, and their impact(s) on downtown.

I'm all for projects that help "fill in the gaps" that have been created during decades of downtown demolition.  However, I believe that projects receiving public money should go before a fair, open and competitive process to be judged based on their merits and the benefits to downtown.

Just giving it away arbitrarily, without a fair, competitive process, is flat out wrong.

You just can't help yourself, can you?  The fact is, neither you nor I know for sure whether the mayor was involved.  The fact is, even if she wasn't involved, the facts you posted combined with the ones you conveniently left out (again, with the dishonesty) are damning, not necessarily of the mayor herself, but of the Tulsa way of doing things.

And this gets an update...as reported in the TW tonight.  My what a tangled web they weave.

Tribune II project causing apparent confusion
by: P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 06, 2009


Tulsa Development Authority members appeared confused this week over terms in a draft contract related to a deal that recycles $4 million in tax dollars to fund the Tribune II project.

Authority member Paula Bryant-Ellis asked that a summary be given to the authority “that walks us through this debacle.”

“I wouldn’t call it a debacle yet,” the authority’s interim attorney, Jot Hartley, said during a Tuesday work session.

Chairman Carl Bracy said he wants “a good paper trail all the way through so anyone can pick it up way down the road and say I understand the process that took place.”

In February, the authority voted 3-2 to recycle $4 million in tax money back to American Residential Group for a companion project to its Tribune Lofts at Archer and Main streets.

The developers also purchased land owned by the authority for the project.

Two issues raised by authority members on Tuesday related to loan repayment and whether the new contract would eliminate the authority’s equity partnership with the developers in their Tribune Lofts and Renaissance Apartments.

“Did I miss something?” authority member John Clayman asked about the timing of how the funds were to be repaid.

The financing is complicated because it involves $4 million in 1996 sales tax funds designated for downtown residential development. The funds were loaned to the developer for the lofts and apartments, which are completed. Of the total amount, $2 million is outstanding and due in 2011.

Authority member Julius Pegues said the authority was told that if it reloaned the $4 million, the developers would expedite the repayment of the outstanding $2 million before its due date.

The timing for repayment of the outstanding debt and the new loan remain unclear. Also complicating matters is that the authority’s long-time attorney, Darven Brown, recently died, leaving Hartley to finalize the contract between the parties.

Pegues said he wanted to know why the authority’s equity partnership in the lofts and apartments would be lost in the new deal.

“How did we give up our equity position in these projects with out there being some” written documentation, he said.

Hartley assured the members that he would try to sort out the issues and try to put on paper “what you all agreed to.”

After the meeting, Pegues said that he wanted “to make sure that we do not get our hind end in a ringer.”

“I want to make sure that if we were equity partners in those previous two projects that we don’t give that equity away because that is what is going to keep TDA functioning,” he said.

Controversy erupted in February when American Residential was re-awarded the $4 million with no competitive process. When the funds were originally made available, American Residential won them in a competitive process.

So it now seems that some members of the TDA Board were told one thing, only for another to be put in front of them later.  The big question here is now the equity stake TDA took in American Residential Group's Renaissance Uptown and Tribune I lofts. 

The TDA originally took an equity position within these projects as a part of funding the original $4 million loan.  The idea then was to not only recover the original loan amount but some payback through the equity stake instead of taking interest on the loan.  Now it seems that ARG is looking to cut out the TDA's participation AND acquire the $4 million no-interest loan.  Funny how this was not discussed by the TDA Board during their new $4million approval meeting.  I'll bet Jot Hartley didn't draft this agreement, the terms were already stipulated to by Darven Brown prior to this.

I must be blind, for I can't see how raising the question "does this eliminate our equity interest in the other two projects" equates to "this draft contract before us eliminates our equity interest in the other two projects."

If the contract does in fact have that language, I'd say ARG is dealing in bad faith.

What this article leaves me wondering is whether or not there's more than $4 million total in play here? ARG is asking for $4 million now. They still owe $2 million. That seems to make $6 million, unless they aren't getting the full sum until they pay off the previous loan.

If there is in fact a total of $6 million, it looks like there's $2 million left over to lend to other developers that will be coming available sooner if ARG gets the money.

Perhaps someone more familiar with the subject can explain the facts of the situation to me without all the insinuation of wrongdoing.

I believe they can borrow "up to" $4m. I've heard Sager has, or is attempting, to do something similar with his property (reborrow paid back money)

Have heard this incident is not unnoticed and moneys are coming available soon that will be handled under new guidelinhelp multiple projects and be more widely available.

Well, at least the TDA reviews transactions more closely when they think they are getting screwed.  The city, other developers, or individuals - fine.  But if the TDA is getting screwed they can spend time figuring out exactly what is going on .   :-\

There was no mention of the process itself being unfair.  I'm excited to see a new building go in there and for more residential downtown.  But am unsure about the process being used in this instance.  What are the terms of the loan anyway?