Portune's "Dear Bob" letter
Hamilton County Commissioner Todd Portune sent this letter to Reds owner Bob Castellini Wednesday, asking some questions about the new Banks Working Group - the new joint committee that will help pick The Banks' master developer:
Dear Bob:
Congratulations on yesterday's announcement of thirteen (13) specific recommendations
to the City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County about the Banks developer selection,
scope, financial planning, and development agreement. I appreciate the time and effort
you voluntarily placed toward assisting in moving the banks riverfront development
project forward.
Yesterday I received about a 30 minute briefing on the 13 points, the discussions and the
process that you undertook. I have since had the opportunity to carefully study the 13
points and also the proposed "RESOLUTION.. .ADOPTING POINTS OF
UNDERSTANDING" that was tendered to me and that I understand the Board of County
Commissioners has scheduled to act upon on Monday May 8, 2006 at our regularly
scheduled Staff Meeting beginning at 9:30 a.m. My review of the documents has resulted
in the identification of a variety of elements that I either do not fully comprehend, or that
I have questions about. Accordingly, I will detail those below and respectfully ask for
the favor of a written reply from you to each.
Read the rest here
8 Comments:
at 10:44 AM, May 05, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 10:47 AM, May 05, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 12:06 PM, May 05, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 2:22 PM, May 05, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 2:37 PM, May 05, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 9:18 AM, May 06, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 4:10 PM, May 06, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8:32 PM, May 09, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
Post a Comment*As usual, Hindlick & DaWhine leave Todd out of the loop.
Why doesn't this very news worthy story appear in the paper? Why does Mr. Portune have to go to a small independent website to get his viewed heard? Why does the Enquirer have a clear and present bias towards Phil Heimlich and refuse to print any story that casts makes him look bad?
At least I guess you posted this on your blog. And never let it be said that the Enquirer didn't do the very least it could do.
You really messed the formatting of this letter up when you posted it. It is hard to read as a result. Some my say that this is very sloppy work for a journalist, while others might see a more sinister motivation of bias.
Will you please clean this letter up and repost it?
For those that would like to read the letter in it's original form please go here:
http://tinyurl.com/jn34p
It is hard to read, but that's mostly because Todd Portune is a horrific writer.
It's easy to read at the Cincinnati Beacon. I guess the Dean knows how to load things on his blog. First the number you did on Dumas and then you follow it with this attempt to make Portune look foolish. You're the ones that look foolish!
typical Odd Todd
To elected officials and community leaders of Hamilton County and the City of Cincinnati,
In regards to the newly BWG (Banks Working Group):
Why there appears to be no elected representation in the group? Why is there no AFL-CIO representation in the group?
Do you believe that it is good that the majority of the members with BWG will be 3CDC members?
(To Cincinnati City Council) Do you believe that you should have any input into the Mayor’s decision on who is appointed to the board? What are you doing to make sure that the Council will have input into Mallory’s decision?
(To Mayor Mallory) Do you believe that Council should have the right to advise and give the final consent to your final decision? Will your pick be someone that believes in minority inclusion and a prevailing wage? If not then why not?
Why is the BWG being able to negotiate the contract without the ability of either the city or the county to amend the contract? Why do you think this is a good thing?
What are you doing to make sure that the contract remain a critically important issue in regard to making certain there is public benefit from this project and in making certain the taxpayers are protected?
Do you believe that the manner of conveying development rights to the developer and how those rights are returned to the public in the event of a default or non-performance are important features that, depending upon how the contract reads could result in considerable exposure to the public?
What assurances can be built in here that assures the taxpayers will be protected?
Should we not write in to this agreement that while BWG can negotiate the contract it must contain certain features that protect the taxpayers’ interests [i.e. minimum $10 Million contribution to the public garages; agreement not to use TIF for the private side development, etc.]?
Are you insisting that the policies apply to the entire project, not just the public side will include minority inclusion and a prevailing or livable wage during and after development of the banks should be written in the contract with the developer and government and private entities that will profit from the development of the Banks?
Do you believe that by placing living wage, prevailing wage and inclusion issues solely in the hands of the BWG it will excludes the Greater Cincinnati Building Trades Council, NAACP and Amos. How will they be included under the process contemplated and if they will, should we not write that into the enabling Resolution?
In regards to developing the funding and financing solutions for the Park, the Banks and the decks over Ft. Washington Way; Do you believe there should be a commitment that we will not consider extending the length of the sales tax as an option to fund this project [the sales tax was promoted by its sponsors and champions in 1996 as being 20 years or less in duration. They should not now champion extending it further].
There is also a point that involves an area where the county commissioners were in agreement that we should be seeking the help of the city in working to reform or modify several of the financial burdens and constraints the county is operating under with respect to related riverfront obligations [i.e. our present $191 Million sales tax fund deficit due to stadium costs, land costs and lease obligations] Will BWG assist us in reforming and modifying those financial impediments to getting the Banks completed? Will reforming or modifying them be an element of this agreement?
In point five of the specific recommendations from Mr. Castellini, it calls upon the county to manage the project? Can you describe by what he meant by manage? Will the county have the same right and discretion to approve contracts, approve or deny change orders, or sanction non-performance, delay or failure to comply with the county small business program? Do you believe that those authorities ought to be spelled out and preserved? If not, then do you believe that the responsibility and obligation to “manage” will becomes illusory?
The city has a similar responsibility regarding the Park except here the county is also obliged to secure funding. What was contemplated there? Do you believe that the County should have any responsibility to the Park since the City holds all air rights to it anyway?
Section 7 says that both the county and the city’s project management executives may be replaced solely at the discretion of the BWG. If that is the case does it make both points 5 and 6 meaningless. Do you believe that it sends a chilling signal that neither the county or city’s project managers ought to exercise too much accountability or scrutiny? Would you propose the elimination of this section?
Do you believe that the BWG can establish a Banks Review Board? If so then do you believe representatives from the Labor Councils of Cincinnati including the AFL-CIO should be included in it?
Section ten states that the staff will work together under the guidance of the BWG. Is there anything in these resolutions that will panelize the BWG if elected authorities are not being contemporaneously informed with what it is doing? What penalties or safeguards do you believe should be implemented to safeguard the citizens that our elected are being contemporaneously informed?
In section 12 it states that The BWG will organize itself, including develop the rules on how it conducts its business. Do you believe that we should ask that our Resolution approving the BWG be drafted to reflect as much, that the BWG operate as a public body subject to all open meeting and open records requirements under either state or federal law?
And do you believe that all parties agree to cooperate and work in good faith. What type of penalties or fines should be implemented if this is not done?
Your response will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Peter Deane
CC: Mr. Castellini, NAACP, AFL-CIO, AMOS, Mr. Berding, Mr. Bortz, Mr. Heimlich, Editor City Beat, Editor Enquirer, Editor Post, Mr. Portune, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Cranley, Ms. Cole, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Monzel, Mr. Tarbell, Mr. Crowley, Ms. Ghiz, and Mr. Mallory
Portune is irrelevant and thus he feels compelled to make noise somehow.
This is his way of getting noticed.
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.
<< Home