The Oshkosh Northwestern Editorial Board's outrage over the 100 block and call for future transparency is amusing given that the paper in 2001 played a key role in preventing the public from learning the intricacies of the Ganther/Niebauer/Kinney financing scheme. My recollection is this:
In late March of 2001 the Common Council held a closed meeting in which two proposals for the 100 block were considered: an office complex and a mixed use development (the Ganther/Niebauer proposal). Before the Council met on April 10th, there was no announcement that the Ganther proposal had been selected, nor did the Oshkosh Northwestern do any digging to find out what the Council had done behind closed doors. That means that during the critical two week period between the time the Council met in closed session and the time they would meet in public to approve the 100 block proposal, no serious attempt was made to investigate the nature of the financing plan.
On the day of the April 10th meeting, when it became clear to some government watchers that the Council should delay a vote since a questionable deal was being rushed through, this is what the Oshkosh Northwestern editorial board wrote:
"While we are sure the Common Council will want to peer into all of the nooks and crannies of the proposals, which is prudent, it cannot afford protracted, frivolous deliberations."
As it turned out, only Councilors Melanie Bloechl and Kevin McGee had any interest in peering into the nooks and crannies of the proposals, and as I recall Bloechl called to delay a vote to allow for more public input. The call was not listened to. Thus the Ganther/Niebauer/Kinney financing scheme was put into place with little input from the public and no resistance from the Northwestern.
Today's Northwestern editorial talks about lessons learned from the 100 block fiasco, but it is not clear that the editorialists have yet learned any. Last week's paper included an absolutely inane editorial on TIF financing that contributed little to our understanding of that important topic, and today's editorial refers to the Akcess Waterfront proposal as a "far more confident" and "fiscally supported" effort than Five Rivers or the 100 block. Exactly how is it that a development can be labeled "far more confident" when its centerpiece--an office building--will house already existing local businesses, the majority of whom have yet to even make a commitment to locate there? The Waterfront proposal might be more fiscally supported, but only if we have faith that what we are being told about master developer agreements and pay-go TIFs is accurate.
Based on the track record of the city officals responsible for cutting such deals, and the Northwestern's track record of after-the-fact outrage, it's not clear that the Waterfront proposal deserves to be treated with enthusiasm at this point.
The Northwestern's call for transparency in future projects is much appreciated. However, in order for their call to be credible they should do two things:
*Apologize for their role in creating the conditions that led to the 100 block fiasco.
*Engage in more in-depth and serious reporting on TIF, master developer agreements, and other redevelopment tools.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Tony, Congratulations! You have called out the rat on the ship...The Oshkosh Northwestern. there was not only a call to postpone a decision on the 100 Block (as Mr. Ganther was so ill- prepared in the closed sessions he did not even provide the sketch of his proposal) I further asked for a D&B (or Dunn and Bradstreet) to be done on him and his associates.
This was viewed as over the top, and the paper was extremely critical of any and all questions that were obviously very uncomfortable for Mr. Ganther and his partners to answer. Yet these same REPORTERS have the nerve to caution today's council. But alas we must remember these are the same folks (including Stu Rieckman) that didn't do their homework on the DA's office and Joe Paulus.
These are the same folks that cry foul if uninformed Councilmember blows off steam in the media about a serious personal issue. Free Speech they cry, yet they slap the daylights out of those that have darned to ask questions about what has been happening in this community for years, but that did not seem to agree with their idea of progress and leadership.
Maybe we need new blood at The Northwestern, because I'm sorry time after time, really isn't getting the job done for the taxpayers of this community.
Post a Comment