March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Collegiality is not dead | Main | FUBAR »

Jan 19, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Brandon Burgess

Goodness this is such a mess. How did it get to this? Were all of the details just not available or what? Were they being witheld for a particular reason? Or is the *type* of bond the source of the confusion?

It's times like this that make me thankful for the blogs and grateful to you guys who look into this stuff.

I wouldn't know where to begin and comments from our city council don't sound encouraging either.

Spag

I agree with the State. I see no legal basis for the hotel group to sue the City on a discretionary matter where no contract was created implied or otherwise.

Further, I believe the statute is pretty clear that the City could rescind the bonds and ask that they be allocated elsewhere. I am surprised that there is confusion about this. Granted, the wording of the statute isn't perfect but I've seen far worse and this one isn't hard to figure out.

Andrew Brod

I think Spag's got to be right on this. It might be unfair for the city to tell the investors one thing and then reverse itself later. But if the reversal conforms to state guidelines on these bonds, it's hard to see how the unfairness would matter in court.

Roch101

Now, see, dammit! This is why blogs are beautiful. Credible Ed posts details from careful DW. Professionals lawyer Sam and economist Andy weigh in with expert opinions. I don't care if this is "news" or "reporting" or just little ol' blogging, but I'm informed because of it. I'm with Brandon -- thanks, guys.

Spag

It's called don't count chickens before they hatch. If the investors relied on the City's filing of a Notice of Intent, they did so at their peril. A vote by a government body is not a contract and can only be challenged if there is a statute that provides for challenges or if it violates the Constitution.

David Hoggard

Ditto on the thanks.

What a mess.

One of the many things I'm unclear on is: did Greensboro have to specifically identify the projects that would be funded back in December? I mean, do we have to move forward with the three plans that are currently on the table?

Or.

Was it an application for funding of projects that meet certain criteria. I've got a specific reason for my asking: The Aycock Neighborhood has a plan to move forward - quickly - on the development of a particularly large tract of land within our borders. I can tell you that we are MUCH further along the road to "shovel ready" than the Chisholm/Kaplan & Co. hotel or the Deep Roots projects.

cheripickr

I'll raise my cup with Brandon and Roch on this one. Unfortunately I'm too stupid to follow or understand most of it. Anybody have any medical questions...?

glenwoodobserver

Who is this mythical "staff" that is to blame? I'm not encouraged that City Council is sounding like they aren't capable of conducting their own research and making their own inquiries. I'd like to know they are basing their decisions on not just what the City presents to them. Obviously, the process for these bonds is difficult and complicated so with a new(ish) council, a new city manager, and a state that is struggling to interpret and handle the federal rules that are attached to these bonds.

I say this because I know the state has been having similar problems with getting the Neighborhood Stabilization Funds out of Raleigh and into the cities for much the same reason.

triadwatch

Pursuant to a Resolution adopted by the Board of Commissioners on 11/19/09 designating Guilford County as a Recovery Zone for purposes of the Recovery Zone Act of 2009, the following developers have submitted Notice of Intent statements requesting financing authority through the Recovery Zone Economic Development & Recovery Zone Facility Bond provisions of the American and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for projects located in Guilford County: The Shoppes at Pyramids Village, LLC - $9,000,000; the Shoppes at Pyramids Village, LLC- $10,000,000; Summerfield Veterinary Hospital - $340,000; Ole Asheboro Hotel - $4,000,000. (The projects have been reviewed by the Guilford County Industrial Facilities and Pollution Control Financing Authority. ( Brenda Fox, Mark Payne, Betty Garrett)

Does anyone want to know what don linder might be up to with 19 million from county?

David Hoggard

"Does anyone want to know what don linder might be up to with 19 million from county?"

Artificial turf soccer fields built in parking lots, perhaps?

Good find, tw.

Spag

The actual 12/15 Notice of Intent described the projects with specificity down to a hotel at "Lee and Elm". A hotel somewhere else might not qualify.

Tim

wow If I didnt know any better it seems that Mary Rakestraw doesnt seem to be against this project as I thought. She made a point tonight that there would be no risk tax payers. If she is supportive of this project than I have a hard time believing there are enough votes on city council to block it.

Tim

Spag, i'm sure there is legal leeway for this project to qualify at a different address in the same recovery zone.

Tim

From the News & Record:

"No council members indicated that they wanted to prevent the projects from pursing the tax-exempt financing method, which now must be approved by a county bond authority and a state commission"

That says it all. I think I feel like singing "puttin on the ritz" :)

Spag

There probably is Tim, IF THE CITY as opposed to the developers want it.

Fec

Guilford County was allocated $5.6M in RZED and $9.8M in RZF bonds. We know from YES! Weekly that Elm Street Center submitted $9M of the facility bonds.

Where did these outlandish numbers for Pyramids come from?

Where did KB get his info?

Fec

If Don Linder is hanging out waiting to be funded during reallocation, how can Elm Street Center jump in front of his projects now that the Ole Asheboro deal is dead?

Spag

Will there be a Democrat Fiasco Update here anytime soon?

Tim

I'm going to make a prediction on the branding for this hotel project. Its either going to be a Crowne Plaza or a Wyndham.
The reason? Urban Hotel Group said they were looking for an InterContinental brand and they happen to own Crowne Plaza. On the other hand Kaplan said the Elm Street Center was in discussion with Wyndham several years ago when they were studying the idea of putting a 15-story hotel behind the Elm Street Center. A Wyndham luxury hotel in downtown Greensboro would be a big deal. Their luxury hotels are on par with Westin. But The fact that Greensboro already has a working relationship with Wyndham through PGA makes it realistic. Its very important that this hotel carries an upscale brand, otherwise it would be competing with the Marriott down the street which has higher than average vacancies. Its not wise to have a hotel brand on par with Marriott and offer rooms at a significantly higher hotel rate. If its a Wyndham, it will be more successful than the Marriott and would likely take some business away from the O'Henry and Proximity. This is probably why Dennis Quaintance has voiced concern over this project.

Tony Wilkins

Chant with me Spag...
Gas up the truck! Gas up the truck!
Driving directions from Boston, MA to Washington, DC
441 mi – about 6 hours 55 mins.

Tony Wilkins

She was just a bad candidate Sam. This has nothing to do with Obama's policies.

Tony Wilkins

Tim, between the two you mention I'm betting on Wyndham.

Spag

That is a great Ged/Roch/Justcorbly impression, Tony.

Tim

Well you know this hotel will have office space so if it will indeed be a Wyndham hotel, the Wyndham Championship can move its offices from Greene St to office space in the hotel complex.

Brandon Burgess

I think Fec is on to something. Further, if Linder is entitled to money because Pyramid Village already exists, does that mean we need to take Green/Chisolm/Hayes claims seriously?

http://www.yesweekly.com/article-8304-bridget-chisholm-answers-her-critics.html

vet

The city needs to vote on the changes. There needs to be large concent before bond.

- Mathew R.

The comments to this entry are closed.