White Washing South Elm...

Interesting read about one of the sought-after financing method by The Bobs...

Bob Isner and Bob Chapman were pursuing TIF financing for part of the South Elm Redevelopment.

In a letter to ever deceitful Assistant City Manager Andy Scott, Bob Chapman (one of the Master Developer) wrote:

"4. The financial structure has changed dramatically with the advent of the Union

Square Campus, which we sought aggressively and about which we are most enthusiastic.

However by providing USC with free land and tax-exempt status, making TIF financing

of required parking decks impractical, if all goes well under the new scenario, we might

earn about $1.6 million over the 12 year term of the MDA, a $5.1 million reduction in our

potential incentive compensation. The attached charts provide details of the original and

revised forecasts."

I repeatedly opposed and expressed concerns about the negative, documented effects on existing neighborhoods associated with TIF financing...and yet...Bob Isner and Bob Chapman pursued what they knew would inevitably destroy one of the oldest neighborhood in our city by displacing its long time residents.

"...Because so many of the families displaced by urban renewal were black, James Baldwin 
dubbed it “Negro removal"..."


All the MWBE programs in the world are not enough to balance what TIF financing destroys. There are plenty of other financial tools available to professional developers... I would prefer they go back to one of their original option of selling green cards.

PS: It is well documented that one parking deck ( or $3,000,000)  was going to be provided by the city as an incentive in addition to some basic infrastructure...no TIF financing was ever necessary for a deck.

If at first you don't succeed... Call Andy Scott?

Greensboro City Council -March 19, 2013 Agenda Item # 29-

Full Adopted Master Development Agreement

1.7 Limitation of Agreement; No Public Funding. Developer acknowledges and agrees

that this Agreement does not obligate or commit any public funds of the Commission or the City. The

Agreement does contemplate one or more separate Agreement(s) will be entered into between the City, Developer, and Commission regarding the infrastructure development as set forth in Paragraph 3.5.1 but the inclusion or indication of the need for such agreement(s) in no manner shall be deemed to be, construed or interpreted as an obligation on the part of the Commission or the City to execute any such agreement merely by virtue of its mention as a condition within this Agreement.

The Bob's entitlement is not surprising considering this shameless and disgusting previous attempt at double dipping.

Wake up folks!!! Union Square will actually better our community, something The Bobs are clearly not interested in.

Don't worry Bobs...daddy Andy will make it all better...Andy Scott wrote me a letter once. 

I'll have what he is having!

March 11, 2014

Memorandum

From: Robert L. Chapman

To: Andy Scott

Re: South Elm Development Group (SEDG) Compensation Model

1. Under the June 12, 2013 Master Development Agreement (MDA) between the

Redevelopment Commission of Greensboro (RCG) and SEDG, SEDG’s only

compensation is whatever SEDG is paid by sub-developers for parcels within the seven

acre South Elm Redevelopment site, less a fixed payment to RCG of $428,694 per acre.

2. In its proposal to RCG, SEDG proposed to invest $1,362,160 in the project. This

includes the fair-market value of services.

3. SEDG originally projected that after its investment of time, effort, expertise and

planning services, it would be able to resell all of the parcels for approximately $11

million within a twelve year period and receive $6.7 million for its services.

4. The financial structure has changed dramatically with the advent of the Union

Square Campus, which we sought aggressively and about which we are most enthusiastic.

However by providing USC with free land and tax-exempt status, making TIF financing

of required parking decks impractical, if all goes well under the new scenario, we might

earn about $1.6 million over the 12 year term of the MDA, a $5.1 million reduction in our

potential incentive compensation. The attached charts provide details of the original and

revised forecasts.

5. We would like for the City and the RCG to restructure developer compensation

from re-sale margin to a percentage developer fee. We believe that a fee of 3% of total

project cost, while significantly below typical development fees, would be appropriate

So, the Master Developer who has yet to create anything already thinks he deserves more money.

If "The Bobs" (Chapman and Isner -Master Developer) had taken possession of the land, as originally agreed upon, the proceeds from the original six acres would have generated about $3,000,000. The city would then have been able to repay the Community Development Section 108 loan made to the city...approximately $3,000,000.  The city would also have received some additional property taxes.

Three years later, the land has yet to be sold but the loan must now be repaid...

According to the preceding email, the Master Developer was going to make $8,000,000 profit from the resell... 

Since the land is still ours, I think the city could use an additional $8,000,000...

Maybe "The Bobs" should have taken possession of the land after all !

The Union Square Campus, (and The Mill's on going evolution) is (are) probably the best thing that could have happened to our community. 

So, if land is to be given and if subsidies are to be granted, then, I contend that Union Square is a better investment. 

Full revised financials here.