Enough Already.
At last night's Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting, the surprises just kept coming. Let's recap recent events surrounding the CCOF situation before diving into the latest unpleasant surprise.
In recent meetings of the Enterprise Committee, which I chair and which ostensibly has oversight over the city's parks department, the Enterprise Committee had asked questions to the administration regarding plans for the CCOF. The current year budget includes $125,000 for the CCOF, but no details. When pressed at a recent Enterprise Committee meeting, the Mayor announced - and it was news to me and others on the committee - that specific firms had been picked to do certain services at the CCOF after the purchase (survey work, grading, roadbuilding). The Mayor further announced that these firms had also - again, news to me and others - committed to make contributions to Franklin's Charge in an amount equal to the amount they had been paid by the City of Franklin for their work at CCOF.
What hacked me off about this was that the Mayor, and perhaps other officials in this administration, had clearly been off striking deals in the proverbial "back room" without so much as a "by your leave" to other elected officials and citizens who have a responsibility for this endeavor, too. Additionally, the nature of these deals is highly unusual and completely bypassed the ordinary means by which the city obtains services. This is to say nothing whatsoever about the law that requires that we bid services like grading and road-building. I thought I had made it clear to anyone watching that these back-room deals over the CCOF were bad form, to say the nicest thing possible. I had hoped that the people who are pushing this entire deal would realize that it was in the best interest of the endeavor that everyone involved go beyond the call of duty with respect to openness and attention to procedural requirements.
Apparently my message was lost or mattered not at all to the people to whom it was directed. Last night, at the BOMA meeting, we were presented with the contract for sale of the CCOF. This is the document by which the city is to obtain the 110 acres that the BOMA has committed to purchase. In my opinion, the contract for sale should be nothing other than what is necessary to consummate the purchase of the 110 acres. There are standard form contracts for this type of transaction.
Instead, what we got, for the first time, was news that BEFORE the purchase and AS A CONDITION OF THE PURCHASE the BOMA will be required to enter into a long term (how long?) lease of 10 acres of the 110 with the lessee being the Carnton Association. The terms of this "long term" lease have not been shared with me, nor has this lease arrangement even been mentioned in the appropriate committee, the Enterprise Committee. I don't want to sound churlish about this, but the Mayor and obviously other members of this administration have again end-run the appropriate methods for conducting the business of the people in a head long dash for the result they intend.
It also turns out that a large chunk of the money Franklin's Charge is supposed to bring to the table is contingent upon a donor's blessing of a battlefield conservation easement being placed on the property- again, AS A CONDITION OF THE PURCHASE. In other words, Franklin's Charge doesn't really have $2.5 million to put in this deal, they have a lot of money with strings attached to it that they maybe can put into this deal, if everyone contorts themselves to the benefactors' satisfaction.
When will anyone see this lease that six aldermen apparently didn't think mattered enough to delay the approval of the contract of sale?
What will the terms of that lease be?
Is anyone naive enough to think the rent will be other than nominal?
Doesn't that really mean what we now propose to do is buy 110 acres only to immediately in effect donate 10 acres to the Carnton Association?
Will the Carnton Association then use the nearly free premises to generate proceeds for itself?
If that is so, then hasn't the City made an even larger "donation" than the $2.5M to purchase the property? Indeed, if the "rent" is nominal, hasn't the city agreed to an annual donation to the Carnton Association for the entire duration of the lease? That is a flagrant violation of our city policy on appropriations for charitable and community service organizations.
What other demands will the seller and "donors" to Franklin's Charge make as the closing nears?
Here's my challenge to my fellow BOMA members and the other people who want to see this deal get done: If you are proud of this endeavor, start acting like it and do it properly. No more surpises, no more back room deals. Enough already.
In recent meetings of the Enterprise Committee, which I chair and which ostensibly has oversight over the city's parks department, the Enterprise Committee had asked questions to the administration regarding plans for the CCOF. The current year budget includes $125,000 for the CCOF, but no details. When pressed at a recent Enterprise Committee meeting, the Mayor announced - and it was news to me and others on the committee - that specific firms had been picked to do certain services at the CCOF after the purchase (survey work, grading, roadbuilding). The Mayor further announced that these firms had also - again, news to me and others - committed to make contributions to Franklin's Charge in an amount equal to the amount they had been paid by the City of Franklin for their work at CCOF.
What hacked me off about this was that the Mayor, and perhaps other officials in this administration, had clearly been off striking deals in the proverbial "back room" without so much as a "by your leave" to other elected officials and citizens who have a responsibility for this endeavor, too. Additionally, the nature of these deals is highly unusual and completely bypassed the ordinary means by which the city obtains services. This is to say nothing whatsoever about the law that requires that we bid services like grading and road-building. I thought I had made it clear to anyone watching that these back-room deals over the CCOF were bad form, to say the nicest thing possible. I had hoped that the people who are pushing this entire deal would realize that it was in the best interest of the endeavor that everyone involved go beyond the call of duty with respect to openness and attention to procedural requirements.
Apparently my message was lost or mattered not at all to the people to whom it was directed. Last night, at the BOMA meeting, we were presented with the contract for sale of the CCOF. This is the document by which the city is to obtain the 110 acres that the BOMA has committed to purchase. In my opinion, the contract for sale should be nothing other than what is necessary to consummate the purchase of the 110 acres. There are standard form contracts for this type of transaction.
Instead, what we got, for the first time, was news that BEFORE the purchase and AS A CONDITION OF THE PURCHASE the BOMA will be required to enter into a long term (how long?) lease of 10 acres of the 110 with the lessee being the Carnton Association. The terms of this "long term" lease have not been shared with me, nor has this lease arrangement even been mentioned in the appropriate committee, the Enterprise Committee. I don't want to sound churlish about this, but the Mayor and obviously other members of this administration have again end-run the appropriate methods for conducting the business of the people in a head long dash for the result they intend.
It also turns out that a large chunk of the money Franklin's Charge is supposed to bring to the table is contingent upon a donor's blessing of a battlefield conservation easement being placed on the property- again, AS A CONDITION OF THE PURCHASE. In other words, Franklin's Charge doesn't really have $2.5 million to put in this deal, they have a lot of money with strings attached to it that they maybe can put into this deal, if everyone contorts themselves to the benefactors' satisfaction.
When will anyone see this lease that six aldermen apparently didn't think mattered enough to delay the approval of the contract of sale?
What will the terms of that lease be?
Is anyone naive enough to think the rent will be other than nominal?
Doesn't that really mean what we now propose to do is buy 110 acres only to immediately in effect donate 10 acres to the Carnton Association?
Will the Carnton Association then use the nearly free premises to generate proceeds for itself?
If that is so, then hasn't the City made an even larger "donation" than the $2.5M to purchase the property? Indeed, if the "rent" is nominal, hasn't the city agreed to an annual donation to the Carnton Association for the entire duration of the lease? That is a flagrant violation of our city policy on appropriations for charitable and community service organizations.
What other demands will the seller and "donors" to Franklin's Charge make as the closing nears?
Here's my challenge to my fellow BOMA members and the other people who want to see this deal get done: If you are proud of this endeavor, start acting like it and do it properly. No more surpises, no more back room deals. Enough already.
posted by Alderman Dana McLendon at 7:52 AM
19 Comments:
Dana
About all I can say is.....why in God's name did you EVER vote for this??
This endevour has had the appearance of impropriety since day one. It has always smacked of an elitist cartel, carrying out their own personal wishes using public funding. At least Marie Antoinette had the decency to offer cake!
The "Battlefield" has always been built on misinformation and outright lies. There is no evidence that any developer was going to build on that land. For pete's sake...40% of it is on a flood plain! There is no evidence that anything other than traveling to and from the battlefield took place there. By that definition, places like Forrest Crossing could quality as core battlefield.
Its been said before that the power of a battlefield experience is in standing on the exact spot where the action happened, closing your eyes, and using your imagination to relive the awful moments. I've been to Shiloh in the spring and its not hard at all to imagine what it was like to be croaching down behind the sunken road as so many bullets wizz by that the cherry blossoms fall down like snow. I've stood at Omaha beach and been awe struck by the bravery that it must have taken to charge over a mile of open beach as German pill boxes rained down fire.
The central issues remaining with the CC of F land is that nothing significant happened there. That makes what Miller, Bacon, et. al. are doing all the more apalling. Its apparant that they are working in tandam with Carnton to obtain a contigious piece of land for the primary purpose of having social affairs.
From day one, this "battlefield reclamation" project has been predicated on a lie, and one piece of Heritage propaganda after another has been spoon fed to an apathatic public.
Now, when the cronyism and old boy back door deals are gaining steam....you are shocked and outraged? The beaver dams, the back door deals to award "contacts" in exchange for donations, and to soon-to-come major issues with ongoing operating costs and this looks more and more like the tip of the white elephant. You can easily imagine a "no tresspassing" sign at CC of F to match the one over at Harlingsdale. The question is, will Miller and his ilk also allow a crony to run a for profit business at CC of F while allowing rent free occupation?
Some might say "where were you when we needed you", but I say "better late than never!"
The truth about this unseemly land grab needs to be flushed out.....good luck
Puppet Master, nobody could have said it better!
As I have said all along, Who is really running Franklin?
Parole Evidence and Pre-existing conditions. My favorite!!!
I would mop the floor with those preservationists!
Dana,
This "deal" you must admit is classic Jerry Sharber. Could Mr. Johnson by advising and helping the Mayor cut these back room deals? Mayor listens to Jay quite often, right?
Thank you for deferring the church in our neighborhood. What we really want with $2.5 million is a fire station and personnel to help Station 2 with their 6-8 minute response time!
Anonymous 07:57:40 PM:
Give us one case - any actual case where Sharber cut such an illegal deal. You can't. Even Lillian in her zeal to roll back the clock would not have done such a thing.
To the rest:
The deal maker here is Bibb. If you people want to stop this, file suit. Call the board members of these phony foundations, call the banks who Bibb says are going to loan the $ against the so called pledges tell'em you are looking to move your business, hammer that little turp Bibb with negative press about his role in crafting a circumvention of the law and send it to his law partners.
The deal is fragile, not done and can be unraveled. Get ready to talk to the US Attorney’s office, Mr. Mayor.
The contract provided to the BOMA is silent as to commissions for real estate firms, and there is no information in the contract with respect to which lawyers are handling the closing.
sounds like they tried a little bait and switch with contracts, not to mention trying to give away prime real estate for free and then forcing the city to pay for a lease. that sounds like extortion.
Dana you voted for this because you're FOR it. How dare you feather your bed insinuating that any of the board members are doing anything illegal when you KNOW they aren't. This is really a dirty trick. You KNOW why the 10 acres can't be in a conservation easement. Ane you KNOW the city isn't going to run the interpretive center. And you KNOW that's best. And you KNOW Carnton isn't being given any land. The only reason you didn't vote for this at this week's BOMA is because you KNEW it would pass without your vote. These intentionally negative and misleading assertions that you pretend you have uncovered do nothing for your credibility except with those who want there to be something wrong going on. If you so want to be thought of as the only person in town with any integrity then show it. Stop pandering to the CCOF sour grapes.
to anonymous at 8:04, why don;t you take your battlefield happy ass somehwere else and steal somebody elses money. most of the boma and franklins charge are nothgin but crooks and ihope you all go to jail.
Dana- I appreciate you bringing the facts (the one's that we know of at this point). I am sure that you will now face a lot of public scrutiny for this. Those of us that seek the truth will defend you. The Mayor and his cronies are continuing business as usual. I thought that when we got rid of Sharber that the backroom deals were finished. We missed the boat of this one though what is the one thing in common with Sharber and Miller? The answer to that is Jay Johnson. No one on this blog can sit here and say that Jay is not negotiating these deals. He is spearheading these shady deals. He did it when Sharber was in office and he is doing it now. If we the voters want an open form of government then Jay has to go. Dana you as an elected official cannot be at City Hall all day long, so you do not see what deals are being cut. Get a City Administrator that we the taxpayers can trust. Let's be honest here you cannot ignore the fact that Jay is involved in these deals. The problem is that we cannot vote him out!
Jay Johnson is the city administrator not the city attorney. People at city hall rely on the legal advise from the city attorney. They depend on that advice since they are not attorneys. Dana is also an attorney. I'm sure he understands these things better than some. He also knows the value of attorney arguments. Doesn't necessarily mean any thing is actually wrong with the deal. I think Dana knows this.
Many of us, including Mike Benton, tried to “fight city hall” from day one when Miller and his band of merry men, and woman, decided to take our money and purchase a faux battlefield. We watched them maneuver the political process at every turn and finally force the spending of 2.5 million dollars of tax money down the taxpayers throats.
I do not know if what they did is legal or illegal and do not have the personal resources to prove the BOMA right or wrong.
The Tennessean seems to have no interest in investigation this matter. I am out of town but review the on line version every day. I did not see a story on the Tuesday BOMA meeting and Dana McLendon’s statement and have yet to read anything in the paper that is against the preservationists. . In my mind this latest information is front-page news to an impartial newspaper.
We need outside help on this matter but do not have an organization to make this happen. This BLOG is a great place to vent but it is not going anywhere. We need to write to the Attorney General and local TV stations investigative reporter groups.
I have written to the news stations and others to try to get them to investigate. We need more people to do the same thing.
We might be able to get one of the stations to look at this if more of their viewers write them and request that they look into the matter. We need to get some outside source involved to prove if the BOMA actions are legal or illegal. This seems to be the State Attorney General’s job.
Let’s stop the anonymous complaining on this blog and start taking action. Write to the TV stations and tell them what you are telling this BLOG. Write the Attorney General’s office. Ask them to look at the information on this BLOG and get involved in this fiasco. There should be no reason for BOMA supporters to fear this investigation. If our leaders are doing what is right the investigation will prove they are if they are wrong Justice will be served and that is what we need.
Below is a list of local TV stations. If you know someone that can help let’s get them involved.
nancy.amons@wsmv.com
phil@philvalentine.com
news@fox17.com
newstips@wkrn.com
To anonymous at 10/13/2005 08:04:02 AM:
The answers to the questions I have posed matter. The process by which this endeavor is conducted matters. If this is a noble end, then it deserves noble means to acheive it. I stand by my statements.
Or better yet, State Attorney General:
Paul.Summers@state.tn.us
Way to go Dana. Keep it up and you will EARN your votes.
Our mayor states that this one was done by the rules.
Dana, can you post the contract on your site? I think we would all like to see it for ourselves.
Let the sunshine in.....
Anon 10/12 7:57pm:
Isn't it interesting whenever there is a negative comment about the city it meanders it's way to Jay Johnson and then it seguays into something about the Franklin Firefighters? Could it be the FF are trying to get rid of Jay by whatever means they can? And could that be because Jay won't negotiate with individual unions in city employment? Could it be that Franklin has been chosen as a test "market" for unionization? That the Nat'l rep has put Franklin elected officials on notice? "You be good to FF and we'll be good to you"?
Anon 10/15 11:31am-
I agree. In this and other posts, a comment is sure to appear bashing Jay Johnson and pleading for help for the FF's. What's a shame is that a few "bad apples" may spoil it for the lot. The FFA appears to thrive on creating disunity. Look at their own organization-a few members hold power and make decisions for everyone. (Oops- I just did what I was complaining about!)
And to Anon 10/12 7:57 pm-
If you'd bother to check some facts, you'd know that the delay in building the new fire station is not the City-it's the developer deeding the land to the City. From what I've seen at meetings,everyone else is ready to go. Guess your FFA buddies didn't tell you the whole story. Course, that wouldn't make it near scary enough to cause a feeling of being unsafe, would it?
Post a Comment
<< Home