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

[RecycleMichael]

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.

[nathanm]

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?  ;-)

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.

[TheArtist]

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

[Oil Capital]

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.

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. 

[RecycleMichael]

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.

[nathanm]

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.

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.

[PonderInc]

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.

[Oil Capital]

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.

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.

[DowntownNow]

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.

[nathanm]

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.

[sgrizzle]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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?