Greenfire plan: Of the ends and the means

Continuing our series on Greenfire's proposed public-private partnership for the construction or redevelopment of seven buildings in the city center, we'll look next at one of the thorniest issues in the discussion: namely, the process and approach by which this plan has reached the public.

Not surprisingly, this has proven to be one of the more controversial aspects of the incentives plan announced Friday. We at BCR have had a chance to hear from several local developers to get their take on the proposal, as well as to have a conversation with a source close to Greenfire's process to better understand their perspective. (Given that the former has played out already in some depth in some of the public discourse today, this analysis will tend to focus on the latter.)

Much of this debate comes down to a question of means, not ends. There's universal support for the concept of replacing underused surface parking lots and worn-out structured parking decks with new construction, and Greenfire's concept of residential- and retail-wrapped buildings has broad appeal -- no surprise, since it's an integral part of the recently updated downtown master plan.

Similarly, there's little to quarrel about over the dollar cost of the incentives Greenfire is asking for. Assuming we look at nominal dollars, the Greenfire incentives request will total approximately $40 million (once an expected County request is factored in) in exchange for a private sector investment of almost $285 million.

By contrast, the 2003 agreement between the city, county and Capitol Broadcasting provided almost the same dollar incentives for a smaller, though still substantial, private investment of $130 million for the American Tobacco project. Compounding the impact, much of the American Tobacco incentives -- the public-sector financing of two large parking decks -- were invested before Capitol Broadcasting had even begun renovations on the office complex.

Reportedly, Greenfire's deal points include a number of non-cash incentives; the cash payments come largely at the end of each proposed structure; and, most surprisingly, Greenfire must complete each of the seven proposed projects or all incentives dollars would revert back to the city. We'll know more about the incentives once the City releases the full memo on the deal points on Monday, but for now, the proposal seems less generous than those before it, which one would expect from a market that's growing stronger at drawing private investment.

So if we expect broad consensus that the proposed projects are good for Durham, and if the incentives seem at first blush reasonable, then why the opposition?

Ultimately, there seem to be three key bones of contention. Does the proposal favor the "big developer" at the expense of smaller, organic development and developers? Should the City have made a deal directly with Greenfire instead of opening the public parking lots and decks at play to a formal proposal/RFP process? And, for a project with massive impact to public facilities and the downtown streetscape, should the development of the plan been a more open, inclusive project?

...

All of these criticisms have arisen in the brief public discussion to date on the proposal, and all of them seem to have their roots among long-time Durham development players in Greenfire's rapid acquisition of so many properties downtown, which with each passing purchase raised new questions as to the developer's intents.

From the other perspective, as we've discussed here many times before, Greenfire seems on the surface to be simply taking advantage of a market anomaly: the presence of a very large number of properties in downtown Durham available for sale at a relatively low cost, sitting in a diverse number of hands -- about 100 by one estimate at the time Greenfire's buying spree began.

As a source close to Greenfire's operations notes, however, that very diversity, while positive in many respects, contributed to challenges in sparking downtown's transformation. In one sense, past redevelopment plans -- including the creation of the hotel/civic center/Carolina Theatre complex in the late 1980s, and the Loop plan almost twenty years before -- all stemmed from similar concentrations of property ownership, albeit in the public sector.

Part of that, one surmises, stems from the historic pessimism in investing downtown, be it from a property owner's perspective or that of possible commercial and retail tenants. By the time urban renewal brought downtown to a state of disrepair, it was tough convincing corporations to locate offices or stores in the district; without the market demand, on the other hand, there's little incentive to renovate and improve properties.

It's worth noting that the city center has had three decades in which redevelopment could occur on a property-by-property basis, yet this chicken-and-egg problem, one can argue, has stymied any activism towards renewal.

American Tobacco didn't have this problem, and neither has West Village. The former was able to lease up hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space even in the midst of high vacancy rates at buildings like the Durham Centre, while the latter leased up a large number of apartments and retained a strong tenant base. The common element in both of these projects was not site control for its own sake, the argument goes, but the fact that each developer could offer enough of a "critical mass" of amenities and environment to attract businesses and residents.

I suppose I have the lowest level of support for the argument that the renovation en masse of such a large base of properties hurts smaller property owners. All the properties were available for sale on the open market, and one organization finally stepped forward and bought them up. A concerted and organized effort by real estate interests like that which has taken place around the DAP district might have accomplished the same thing in downtown years ago, but failed to materialize.

...

The second concern -- that the City ought to open up the bidding for the parking deck and sites through an RFP or other broad process -- is likely to gain more traction during the public debate. As we've noted above, the idea of redeveloping downtown surface parking lots and decks is not a new one; in fact, there's no shortage of developers who might want to step up to the plate and bid on such a package.

There is a fair question as to how likely that would be, of course. The multimodal transit station development RFP attracted just a couple of responses; same for the Rolling Hills redevelopment project.

The RFP for the vacant plot of land where Woolworth's sits attracted exactly one offer, despite dozens of solicitations and requests from the City. That winning proposal came from Carl Webb, now a principal with Greenfire and the originator of the deal to build a signature office tower on the property capable of attracting a corporate HQ, a goal of the city's.

According to our source, it's that very RFP that's at the crux of the parking issue for Greenfire. While the City pushed for a signature addition to the skyline, they didn't bring forward enough parking capacity to make the building work on its own. A design like the Durham Centre's might have worked, but could also have required a building footprint that would have taken out much of the block between Corcoran and Mangum, and one imagines could have repeated the mistakes of the Centre's massive street-level parking nightmare.

The argument here goes that the addition of new decks on E. Parrish and Ramseur and the expansion of parking capacity in the E. Chapel Hill St. deck together are needed to add enough parking to be able to support the Parrish St. skyscraper -- an RFP-driven deal that sunsets roughly in 2010. The new decks also could have a positive effect on retail by increasing street-level traffic between the new office development and the decks. (The new decks would retain at least the same amount of publicly-accessible capacity as today's lots and structures.)

Could the City move fast on an RFP and get assurances that the decks needed to support the tower would be built quickly, and on spec? Perhaps. Still, that scenario presents a riskier situation when trying to finance a big-build project like a tower, or when trying to find tenants.

There's also, we're told, a challenge of timing. Some impact on existing downtown businesses is unavoidable with the construction work on the various parking locations, as they'll temporarily displace parkers. (Unavoidable in at least one case: the current repairs to the E. Chapel Hill St. deck are temporary, giving the current deck just five or so more years of life before it's razed, anyway.) The City is likely to require in the deal points that only one location be impacted at a time to minimize the impact.

Given that constraint, having a single developer handling both the deck build-outs and the tower construction is challenging in and of itself, given the ripple effect that delays would have on subsequent deck construction and the tower construction and lease-up. Having one developer (Greenfire) build the tower while the RFP winner builds out the decks? Significantly more complex. And one should not try to imagine the challenges of multiple deck builders in the mix.

I suspect this is why city staff -- which has worked for months with the developer to put this deal together -- don't seem to have a problem with the arrangement. (From what we've learned, under the negotiated arrangement the City will at least receive fair market value (as of the date of the deal) on each property. Is it good public policy? That's a question for City Council and the public to debate. If I were a developer, would I have made the same deal (especially given the profits to be expected from mixed-use integrated into the decks)? In a heartbeat.

I can see both sides on this one; there's no question that there's a benefit to sharing the wealth on projects where possible. If it could be done in such a way as to assure completion of the decks in a way that doesn't hold up the Parrish St. tower, opening up an RFP here could make some sense. On the flip side, if the Parrish St. tower -- a major goal of the city's, and an important step towards incrementing density in the urban core -- is to succeed, it's not outside the realm of reasonableness for Durham to negotiate this as a single package deal, particularly given the challenges of orchestrating both a quick bid/design/build process and of actual execution on this.

This wouldn't be the first time the City availed of such an arrangement. While Capitol Broadcasting bought the American Tobacco factory complex from a private party, the City agreed to sell much of the land where Diamond View II and the ATC's future northward growth to Capitol at a steep discount, and without putting the land up for bid.

Nonetheless, expect this to be one of the major points of contention in the public debate.

...

The third point of conflict seems to stem from the the perception that this project dropped out of quiet negotiations and straight into the Council's lap as a finished process. This is the toughest question for me, particularly as the outcome of the project includes transformation not just of properties that Greenfire currently owns, but of those it will be buying from the City. Does that necessitate a higher level of public input not just into the deal points, but into the very concept itself of what should get built, and how, and where?

In one sense, the fallback point here is likely to be the updated downtown master plan which, coincidentally or not (and I'd guess not), calls for many of the elements we see in Greenfire's proposal. The residential building with parking on Ramseur is straight out of the charette process, and helps achieve the important goal of creating a south-facing, inviting vista to help connect American Tobacco with a city center that turns its back on the Loop. Ditto the E. Chapel Hill and E. Parrish deck projects, which fit exactly into the goals of increasing residential units downtown while removing voids from the urban landscape.

To that end, some may end up viewing this development plan as the natural outcome of a planning process that already happened. Downtown Durham Inc. and the city put forward their plan, and someone stepped forward to build it.

In another sense, there's a very realpolitik question at play here. If you have a city center that lacks vibrancy and large-scale investment, and a team of investors walks in, buys up a good chunk of the place, and offers to put down $300 million towards a renewal of your urban core -- what do you do?

We've speculated here for months that this was exactly the scenario behind Greenfire's large scale acquisition: a desire to have leverage with the City in negotiations. A smart business strategy in most contexts.

A strategy that will work in Durham? Among the diverse mass of property owners and stakeholders, perhaps not. Among public leaders -- I think it has a good chance, simply given the positive benefits that the projects would have on the Bull City.

Does the end justify the means (or perceived means) in this case? That's a question that interested citizens, and every public official, will be pondering over the next few weeks.

Comments

[lwn]

Lets all pull back a bit and think... has anyone, ever, invested so much in Downtown Durham, even before the first spade of earth is turned? Greenfire has taken a huge leap of faith, and deserves the chance to "transform" our once vibrant, now dreary at best, downtown.

For those of us who remember shopping downtown at Belks, The Young Men's Shop, Thalhimers, Sears, Stewarts, Raylass, Kress, Woolworths, Baldwins, Roses, Record Bar, Durham Sporting Goods, Addisons Play World, and many others, this plan looks like a good one, and I for one don't see any one else lining up to do the work or take the risk!

ATC and West Village are self contained almost gated sanctuaries on the fringes of our downtown loop.

And what about the restaurants, who remembers George's Pizza Palace, The Palm, the lunch counter at Woolworths, Amos and Andy, the S&W Cafeteria? If Greenfire can jump start this process inside the loop, we ought to be giving them twice what they asked for... money and two dangerously under maintained parking decks... our city goverment can't seem to manage a thriving city center, its time to let someone with some vision try, and we ought to give them the means to do so.

lwn

[Jason G.]

Durham needs some leadership, and I'm happy to see someone like Greenfire step up and push for his vision.

Will terms be beneficial to him? Of course, but would a developer ever show up when terms aren't beneficial? As citizens of Durham we should be so lucky that he is asking for so little.

If Downtown Durham is going to survive as a viable downtown, it needs someone to come in big. And if you're a private company putting up the risk, you deserve to reap the rewards if it is successful.

[Carol]

I think its fantastic. They are providing a master plan concept that individuals wouldn't be able to do on a large scale. This continuity can only be an asset to downtown. Aren't we lucky that they are also interested in building green? I can't believe that anyone is looking for a downside in this.

[Michael Bacon]

As far as the question of whether anyone has invested that much in downtown before, the names Capitol Broadcasting and Blue Devil Ventures/Partners comes to mind. Yes, I know, they're "outside the loop," but the two campuses that they're renovating comprised Durham's and downtown's raison d'etre for 100 years, and were going to be inextricably linked to "in the loop" development in any event.

Looking at the dollar figures, I'm just talking entirely off of memory, but I think Ambacco cost something like $750 million and $150 million in public money/tax incentives. WV ran like $800 million and got more like $100 million in incentives. So Greenfire is proposing nearly $300 mil with $24 mil in public money. On the one hand, you could say that CBC got the sweet deal with Ambacco, but on the other hand, I guarantee you that their success greased the wheels with banks and REITs for future projects.

[KeepDurhamDifferent!]

I have to say no deal; that $24M could be better spent elsewhere. Granted, that means it will go towards the lacrosse suit defense, a "hip hop youth council", or to line the pockets of another of Bill Bell's cronies. And it's so easy to say yes (only a small amount relative to CBC, increased tax base, yada yada yada). However, if they need "only" $24M, they should scale back their plans and do it without subsidy.

Having said that, if I were a politician I would surely vote for it. From a pure cost/benefit perspective this is a no-brainer. We'll have more eyes on the street, a vibrant downtown, less crime, increased property values (maybe they could use tax-increment financing?), and finally someplace to celebrate Duke's next basketball championship (as opposed to 1991, when they locked down the campus to keep out the townies and their gangland mayhem).

Keep it real, keep it gritty.

[lwn]

It is important to recognize Capital Broadcasting and Blue Devil Ventures for their groundbreaking work in Durham, NO DOUBT.

Both groups depended heavily on historic tax credits and landmark status, something Durham is trying hard to abolish, making Greenfire's work that much harder. Also ATC, and WV are inward facing, depending little on city infrastructure, streetscape, and security. WV is virtually a fortress at night. Greenfire's projects are at the epicenter of the destruction caused by years of neglect and decay, fostered by a City that seems unable to stop the slide.

Greenfire probably deserves a greater share of the public dollars than either WV or ATC simply because their efforts are not contiguous, nor can they wall off the undesirable parts until the gentrifcation catches up.

Good Luck Lemanski and Co this taxpayer supports you!

lwn

[Johnny]

The question of if this is good or bad for Durham is complex. It is hard to argue that, if successful, the downtown area could have a great vibe and be a great place to live. However, the question of process and disposition of public assets should not be taken lightly. There are many legitimate questions regarding Greenfire's capability to deliver a project of this magnitude. I would also remind everyone that politicians need flagship projects to advance their careers. Of course, I hope that hasn't played into their blind faith of a single developer scenario but I can't help to think about it.

I would also correct your point about the Woolworth site. There was another bidder and had they won, there would be a productive building on that site today. But starry eyed decision makers offered it to a developer with bigger plans and now years have past with nothing. If I understand the point in the article, the purchase was disingenuous since there is now a claim of interdependence with these parking decks. Greenfire's strategy is simple, buy up as much as possible to strong arm the city into getting public funds for their projects. Greenfire has also been active in trying to shape the city & counties incentives policy to restrict it to projects of $50mil or more. This seems just a tad self serving.

I would also want to ensure that the future parking decks, whomever builds them, are operated with a single policy towards users. There cannot be a situation where public dollars have funded the business advantage of a single developer. There is a real possibility where a Greenfire tenant has free parking while another downtown property cannot offer such a deal. If the parking decks are being offered, and I question the "market rate" presumption, then equal access to the replacement structure should be the deal. The value the developer gets are the surrounding areas they can develop. They will have prime location with regard to parking and should not have further incentives and the shoulders of other downtown business who have been funding those decks to date.

[cw]

I do not see why public parking is such a huge area of contention here. Greenfire ultimately is not eliminating all parking in Downtown. There are multiple structures that are still city-owned and do not factor into Greenfire's vision. The city, furthermore, has proven that they cannot, or at least are unwilling, to properly maintain the structures that they do have, and they are certainly not developing them further. There is a good deal of space wasted to parking decks inside the loop, and this space is wholly unproductive. I also do not see how the city has a responsibility to offer free parking. Take New York as an example - there are virtually no city-owned garages, and street parking is a mess. If you want to park safely, you have to pay $20 an hour.

Greenfire is merely taking a few parcels in Durham and making them productive, while at the same time realizing a vision for Downtown Durham. Is it self-serving? Of course! We live in a capitalist society, and anyone would be hard-pressed to find companies doing things for purely altruistic reasons. But, Greenfire's proposal is also a boon for Durham generally. Downtown is a dilapidated mess, and no one so far has come up with a far better proposal. Should we let Downtown languish because a few structurally unsound decks will have to transfer to private hands? I think not. Privatization is more efficient than bureaucratic bloat.

If you really want to take issue with the misuse of tax dollars, how about the so-called stimulus package? If that isn't redistribution of wealth from one tax level to another, then I don't know what is. Ultimately, I think the city and everyone generally will benefit from increased investment Downtown. There has to be some incentive for people to invest in Downtown, however. I would rather that the city spend money to attract investors, than the investors having to scale back their projects and deliver a mediocre actualization of their plan.

Another point - whose idea was it to create the loop anyway? If it is the city that demolished those buildings on Ramseur to create that abortion of a street system, then we can maybe view the $40+ million in incentives merely as reparations for the previous era's planning mistake.

[KeepDurhamDifferent!]

Excellent point about the parking. If you want to park, pay five dollars or hunt for 20 mins. finding a space on the street. If you depend upon customers who park you should strike a deal with a garage, build your own, or just move out to Southpoint. (You can sell your building to be used for parking.) NY is a great example.

Too much parking = not enough density. Besides, you should be taking the bus.

[Johnny]

The parking is an issue on many levels (no pun). I don't think my tax dollars should line the pockets of a developer who will ultimately compete with me. Secondly, since Greenfire hasn't delivered much to date, the construction will have little to no impact on them - thus no down side. For those that actually have developed and are delivering and will be impacted then something should be in the package to avoid losing those businesses. BTW - Who ever said the parking needed to be free? It just has to be equal opportunity, I don't like the idea of paying for Greenfire's tenants parking either in direct incentives, undervalued transfer of property or anything in between.

I don't think it is too much to ask that the city doesn't create unfair advantage for Greenfire and I don't think it is too much to ask to help ensure existing businesses don't suffer at the hands of this project.

Maybe I'm the only one who isn't blinded by this grand plan.. What I want to make sure is that something happens to the benefit of all, not a few. And certainly not to the exclusion of those that took the early risks to bring Durham back.

[cw]

Johnny - I understand better your frustration with the plan being that you are (presumably) a Downtown developer or business owner. The burden of construction might hamper business, but what are the alternatives? If put up for public purchase, will another developer with the means to raise sufficient capital come forward and present their vision? The biggest source of tension that I see is that these parcels were not put up for public purchase. If it were, would Greenfire allow themselves to be outbid on the project?

I am not displeased that my tax dollars could go to a private developer, if those dollars allow for the revitalization of Downtown, a project that will increase value for everyone in the area, as well as for Durham generally.

Furthermore, I would assume that given the proposed plan for the parking decks, that those structures would be made available for public use, and not be restricted only to Greenfire's tenants.

Furthermore, I think that Greenfire does indeed has a lot to lose on this deal. The profitability of the construction is contingent upon people actually living and working in Downtown. Since Greenfire it putting up so a large investment, they have the most to lose by taking a risk on the revitalization, especially in a declining housing market. Just ask the developers in Downtown Miami if they are reaping the benefits of all their labor and investment.

But you are right, something needs to be done to ensure that businesses that are down here now are not completely shut down as a result. However, with any great change, there will undoubtedly be certain causalities. The revitalization of any area has the potential to increase property values, hence making the area prohibitively expensive for those that were there previously. This is a downside for sure, but the alternative stagnation is not that much better.

[KH]

I'm amazed that Greenfire is considered a "big developer" because they are bringing money to the table. Money that is still considered small potatoes in the billion dollar development world. Honestly, we should be applauding a company that is locally...better yet DURHAM-based and -owned. This is not Crosland or Hines coming into downtown purchasing everything.

The remaining property owners are reaping the benefits of doubling and tripling values with NO or little investments in their vacant properties. I'm shedding two tears in a bucket for them right now. The previous investments of our tax dollars have already benefited them w/o them going into their own pockets to invest in the community. Too much property in Durham is owned by people who are just milking the cow dry.

Make those investments NOW so you can sell at another double multiple of the pre-revitalization value. Who says only the "big" wins? BTW...these smaller renovations will also contribute to the tax base expansion.

[Bull City Rising]

"I would also correct your point about the Woolworth site. There was another bidder and had they won, there would be a productive building on that site today. But starry eyed decision makers offered it to a developer with bigger plans and now years have past with nothing. If I understand the point in the article, the purchase was disingenuous since there is now a claim of interdependence with these parking decks."

Johnny: thanks for the comment (and sharing other thoughts on this -- this is a healthy debate.)

I had just moved to Durham when all of the Woolworth deal and I wasn't yet following local news so closely, so I may be off on this. But I searched Lexis-Nexis and found the following--

"In March 2003, the city gave developers three months to submit proposals detailing their vision for the site, which is bounded by Parrish, Corcoran and West Main streets. The city asked that the selected developer have the ability to begin construction by April 2004 and have financing in place by January 2004.

The request for proposals came sooner than Niemann anticipated, and Blue Devil Ventures could not secure a partner for the project. Potential partners thought it would be difficult to line up tenants needed to support a skyscraper, said Niemann, who added that he wasn't willing to settle for developing a smaller building.

Ultimately, Webb and Zapolski were the only two companies that submitted a proposal. The time line the pair gave said the building could be complete by October 2005. However, it has taken a little over two years to negotiate a sales contract for the site.

...

In 2003, [Michael] Lemanski offered to buy the site for $1 a little over a week before the council was set to approve an $800,000 contract to demolish the Woolworth building. The offer was denied, in part because the demolition work had already been bid.

When the request for proposals went out a month later, Greenfire Development did not submit a plan. Lemanski said he was not sure he could put together a proposal that made sense in the city's three-month time allotment.

"My impressions of what's needed at that site, what's warranted at that site hasn't changed," Lemanski said. "That site demands a very large structure, and I think that with all the things going on downtown, it can support that kind of development."

Still, Alan DeLisle, the city's economic development director, says any structure that is at least four stories tall will be a "signature building" for downtown." (H-S, 6/20/2005 -- a piece by BCR reader and ex-H-S staffer Ginny Skalski.)

It is the case, though, that the initial plans from the RFP winners involved a smaller structure on the site. One presumes that the City is willing to look at the larger parking deal as a way of getting a signature/HQ building downtown, but you're right that that wasn't necessarily a deal-maker at the time.

The only other mention I could find of interest in buying the property was--

"The former Woolworth store built next door in 1915 was more significant for the civil-rights-era protests to integrate its whites-only lunch counter. After the store closed, the retail chain donated the building to the city in 1998 -- sparking a debate about whether to preserve it as a historic site. City staff estimated it would cost at least $480,000 to decontaminate the five-story building that is loaded with asbestos and toxic fungi.

In 2003, the City Council voted instead to raze the Woolworth. A Wilmington developer offered to cover the $800,000 cost of tearing down the building in exchange for buying the lots underneath for $1. But the council turned the deal down, saying at the time the land's potential for redevelopment made it more valuable. Two years later, the council voted to sell the four lots to Webb and his partners for $229,000, essentially writing off $571,000 in taxpayer money paid to clear the site." (N&O, 12/9/05)

Is the Wilmington deal the one you're thinking of? Looks like it predated the RFP. Or was there another deal?

[Scott]

First point - large scale development hurts smaller scale development because Lemanski's strategy from the start has been to acquire as much as possible, wait and then do it all at one time...create the vision for downtown all at once. As their vision grows, absorbs Webb's deal for Woolworth, becomes more complex, the amount of time their existing building's sit idle drags on. Smaller developers could have purchased and renovated some of these smaller buildings by now. Their big scale strategy of acquisition meant that a large amount of actual renovation had to wait. Their strategy works to maximize return on investment, but it's not the best way for a downtown to evolve. Lots of small pieces are inherently safer, more authentic, more sustainable and economically healthier than one large piece.

Second Point -- The City could, if it had the leadership, build the new decks in the center of the blocks and rfp the development rights for liner buildings. I would far prefer this, but according to Greenfire the City would not step up to the plate.

Third Point -- The relevance of the "heretofore" pattern of Greenfire's involvement with the public is that they've had....none. What evidence do I have that they're going to involve the public in a healthy debate about how to develop and design on taxpayer-owned parcels? Are they asking us now to trust that they'll do a good job, when they've not done anything to really earn the public's trust? Their vision of a public+private partnership is missing one (and I would argue the most important) of the partners....the public.

[Scott]

First point - large scale development hurts smaller scale development because Lemanski's strategy from the start has been to acquire as much as possible, wait and then do it all at one time...create the vision for downtown all at once. As their vision grows, absorbs Webb's deal for Woolworth, becomes more complex, the amount of time their existing building's sit idle drags on. Smaller developers could have purchased and renovated some of these smaller buildings by now. Their big scale strategy of acquisition meant that a large amount of actual renovation had to wait. Their strategy works to maximize return on investment, but it's not the best way for a downtown to evolve. Lots of small pieces are inherently safer, more authentic, more sustainable and economically healthier than one large piece.

Second Point -- The City could, if it had the leadership, build the new decks in the center of the blocks and rfp the development rights for liner buildings. I would far prefer this, but according to Greenfire the City would not step up to the plate.

Third Point -- The relevance of the "heretofore" pattern of Greenfire's involvement with the public is that they've had....none. What evidence do I have that they're going to involve the public in a healthy debate about how to develop and design on taxpayer-owned parcels? Are they asking us now to trust that they'll do a good job, when they've not done anything to really earn the public's trust? Their vision of a public+private partnership is missing one (and I would argue the most important) of the partners....the public.