Greenfire plan: "It's a Wonderful Vote"

The discussion of the Greenfire incentives plan at Monday night's City Council meeting was one of the, well, more unusual such sessions I've ever attended. The mood was something more akin to a Frank Capra film, with a parade of well-wishers from within and outside Greenfire's direct sphere of influence.

Sure, you expect to see Bill Kalkhof from Downtown Durham Inc. and Ted Conner from the Durham Chamber of Commerce to step forward and support the plan. And, similarly, for some of what we termed here the "loyal opposition" to raise points they'd like to see considered as the deal moves forward.

But you really didn't expect to see Kevin MacDonald, the founder and president of TROSA, to come into the meeting with one-hundred-plus TROSA staff and program participants -- themselves drawing a well-earned round of applause for their dedication to self-transformation -- and to talk in support of the program, based on their experience with downtown and Greenfire (which is the landlord for the frame/furniture shop they lease on Foster St.)

Nor to see Steve Channing, filmmaker of "Durham: A Self-Portrait," praising Michael Lemanski and Carl Webb for supporting the documentary film in a way second only to the legendary K. v. Dey. Or the head of Big Brothers/Big Sisters, testifying to Lemanski's work first as a volunteer, then a board member. Or the artist-in-residence in Baldwin Lofts, praising Greenfire for offering rent-free arts space. Or restauranteurs Charlie Deal and Jim Anile, expressing their enthusiasm for Greenfire's vision and their hopes for their own new projects.

Ah, here comes Ms. Victoria Peterson. Here must stand the opposition to the plan. Right, Victoria?

"Carl, who also is one of the parters with Greenfire... it is very hard in this community to get support for people who fall through the cracks... I want to thank Carl publicly for his support for [these individuals.]...  Many times [the Council has] given money for economic development in downtown Durham. Many times I have been up early in the morning, 6 and 7 o'clock, seeing what these companies are really doing. Who are they hiring? What are they doing? And they [Greenfire] have a racially diverse, gender-diverse company. Many of the companies you are giving money to [cannot say that]."

Yes, your eyes don't deceive. Here's an economic incentives plan even Victoria Peterson can get behind. This was the point when, if I was drinking a tasty beverage procured at said Council meeting, I would have set it down for fear of falling under the influence of psychotropic drugs.

Now, this retelling is not to imply a fundamental disagreement with the outcome -- which, as by now comes as no surprise, was a 7-0 approval of the deal points by Council. Nor to disparage the outcome proposed by the developer; while we've discussed here concerns about the "revelation" of the plan with limited time for public input, the fact remains that this project can be, if executed right, transformative and positive for downtown.

Still, it was a performance of coordinated support and good feeling that's rarely seen inside the contentious rounded walls of the Council chambers. And, indeed, would have made a terrific final scene with a humbled Jimmy Stewart doin' his best "aw shucks" in front of a hometown crowd turning out to support his failing savings & loan, or his downtown master plan, or whathaveyou.

...

As predicted, the Council's comments after the public voiced its thoughts telegraphed well the questions one can expect to see play a role during the development of the formal development agreement. All of the Council members were quick to remind the assembled crowd (throngs?) that this was, as Eugene Brown mentioned, an engagement, not a marriage -- and that the serious wedding planning was still to come.

Howard Clement pushed again for more details on the financial backing of Greenfire, to which Office of Economic and Workforce Development Alan DeLisle provided a comprehensive answer, noting that the City did due diligence up front on this issue and felt the developer's ability to invest $60 million into acquiring downtown properties was a sign of fundamental financial strength. The next steps? Getting more public dollars, and demonstrated sources of debt or equity:

"What we don't do -- because we know, just as we did with American Tobacco, or West Village, or Heritage Square -- we know that the financing of these projects occurs after the development agreement, and we're only talking deal points here.  ... The ball is in the court of the developer here. Over the next several months, they need to figure out how how they close their entire gap. So they've still got a lot of work to do, finding another public partner in this deal. If that occurs, then they will come back and we'll negotiate a development agreement, where we'll put the meat on the bones, so to speak.... I suspect that the actual financing won't happen until the development agreement is in place."

Bill Bell emphasized this point among his concerns, and stated his assumption that the Council would find out more about how Greenfire would plan to finance their project, concurrent with any final approval of the development agreement this summer.

The impact on parking during the reconstruction of the E. Chapel Hill St. deck and other parking lot build-outs were mentioned by several Council members as well; so, too, was the limited number of affordable housing units currently specified -- 10% of apartments, which could translate to less than 5% of all housing units built in the project. One should definitely expect to see a greater focus on these issues in the summer's development agreement.

Still, the only known wavering vote, Eugene Brown, summed up what might be thought of as the Council's collective opinion in his statement of support for the deal points in their current form. Brown noted that he "still [has] questions on this project... and quite frankly i was put off when asked to vote for this two weeks ago. Some of the questions that i have asked have been answered. Some have not," Brown added, referring to the direct transfer of City assets to a private developer, the affordable housing level, and office space subsidies.

Yet, Brown noted, a failure to support this plan would exacerbate what he described as the emergence of "two downtowns" -- a Class A office space area south of the railroad tracks, and a Class C office space in the city center district. As Brown summarized:

"So tonight, we celebrate. Not a marriage, but an engagement. An engagement where the City is being asked to show their diary. So I intend to support this project, with the understanding, and the hope certainly, that it succeeds. Because, folks, these are hard times. There is a national credit crunch that we have not seen or endured in years. And this is not the time for... exaggerated exuberance. But this is time for a firm plan, that hopefully this group can implement for the benefit of all of us in Durham."

Mike Woodard, echoing others' concerns over parking and affordable housing, shared his interest in an 'after-action review' on this project's unveiling, in the hopes that the City would consider adding a formal period of information sharing and gathering in all future public-private partnerships, and starting with the still-to-come development agreement with Greenfire.

"The Council should not feel the pressure to vote" on a plan without a chance for public input, Woodard added, noting that at least a single two-week cycle period needs to pass between the unveiling of a plan and the expected Council vote.

Bill Bell wrapped up the conversation by mentioning his involvement in all this decade's major downtown and urban renaissance plans, from American Tobacco and West Village to the Durham Performing Arts Center and Rolling Hills. His big concern was that, by the time this deal wraps up in a decade's time, he and most Council members might no longer be serving in their roles, and that "institutional memory" was needed to ensure that the City still understood the meaning, and not just the words, behind any development agreement approved at the process's end.

So, the deal moves forward, as expected. We'll keep an eye on this as it moves through the process in the coming months, culminating with a possible June vote. In the interim, it's off to the County Commission to look for some funding there for the Greenfire folks.

Comments

[Burch Avenue resident]

This is why I read Bull City Rising before the Herald-Sun. Great reporting!

[Michael Bacon]

I'm guessing Eugene said that the city was asked to show its dowry, not diary. Or is there some tradition about diaries I'm not familiar with?

[Vote Maybe]

The evening was an amazing gathering of characters. I think that if Greenfire had sold tickets to the event they could have closed their financing gap last night. I'm surprised that there was no spontaneous passing of the hat to donate to the charity efforts of Michael and Carl (aka Greenfire). Hopefully this deal won't become a Greenback Fire in the future.

Since the council saw fit to use the marriage analogy, I think it is import to reflect on the rate of failed marriages in this country and the cost of divorce on the impacted family and community at large. It is a horrendous statistic.

Aside from that, what occurred last night was a well scripted plan. In fact, I support the Yes vote (too much koolaid maybe). Seriously, what is the harm in approving a few innocent non-binding deal points - they are just deal points as Alan DeLisle enjoys repeating.

I do take exception to the lack of action on pushing for more transparency and public involvement. Stop telling us that you will and start showing us HOW and WHEN.

Without specifics, the vote last night was permission for DeLisle and Greenfire to go back behind closed doors to hammer out what they perceive is the best deal for them. This is not a "Trust Me" issue, I think a lot of people trusted the CEO at BearStearns until a week ago when market events over took his best intentions. Transparency is the best way forward, not only to engage the public and get residents/business owners support, but to manage the painfully obvious market risks that exist.

Furthermore, other developers are getting involved - not because they want this project but because if this fails it will make all projects in the area far more difficult to finance. That will be extremely painful for Durham.

[Mike]

Greenfire has done some great things in downtown, The only problem I have is that there is NO affordable housing. The downtown needs working class folks to help it survive!

[JC Lately]

They certainly have done a good job buying property. I'm not sure how equates to "done some great things in downtown".

[Michael Bacon]

I find this inter-developer snipping really funny. "Doesn't have the experience," as if any of them were doing anything meaningful 10 years ago. Yes, Greenfire has just done Baldwin and have done a fantastic job on the old Fire Station #1, and now they're doing multiple 16 story buildings? Capital Broadcasting had dabbled a little around their studios in Raleigh, and suddenly they think they can do a whole historic restoration? Andy R. turns a little storefront into a biotech lab, and suddenly he thinks he can pull of Venable, Heritage Square, and Golden Belt at the same time? BDV/BDP has some guys who made some coin in the NBA, and suddenly they're topping CBC on historic renovations? DAPAPA has a bunch of people who've managed the buildings they run their businesses in, and suddenly they're lecturing Greenfire on what they have the experience to do?

The only party doing anything major downtown that has anything approaching more than a decade of experience doing urban projects is SBER, and they've made a couple of goofs themselves. Me, I'm not worried too much. We've suddenly got a big stable of developers who all appear to be bright business people, who recognize the potential that downtown has, and have at least some respect for urban design and historic preservation (and all of them seem to have a few blind spots).

You want experience in downtown? Ronnie Sturdivant's your guy.

[JC Lately]

You have got to love it....

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A208935

[JC Lately]

A month goes by... Any thoughts on what the "Public" process will be and when? I heard from one local resident (in the loop) that when they approached Greenfire to participate they were told to subscribe to their newsletter. Worse, it took a couple of weeks to even get that reply...

So much for dialog, I guess no one could see this coming.

[the vlm]

This whole plan reeks of the old chummy politics of Durham.

It punishes the trailblazers like Rue Cler by sabotaging their business. Durham needs development, but it needs to learn from other municipalities that letting a favored developer run roughshod over the competition. For any Durham "revival" to be sustainable there have to be multiple players with competing, overlapping interests. I guess they don't teach econ as part of the undergrad requirements at harvard.

The TROSA stunt was a disgusting low-point. These people should be ashamed, as should you for trumpeting it.

[Bull City Rising]

VLM,

I'd invite you to re-read this post. The Jimmy Stewart reference and the tone of amazement were intended to show the orchestration of positive support, not to necessarily praise the presence of same.

It was, frankly, a bizarrer-than-usual turn for Durham politics, which was the whole point of the coverage.

Though I always had trouble remembering whether the demand curve was upward- or downward-sloping, though.