Five Rivers info owed to taxpayers.citizens
Earlier this evening I was told that certain council candidates who have spoken with Five Rivers developer Tom Doig about his proposed project, are "sitting on" information Mr. Doig shared with them, saying they can't share it with people in the general public because they promised Mr. Doig it would remain confidential. If this is, in fact, true, then it is a big concern to me and I think it should be to every taxpayer in Oshkosh.
We are talking about millions of dollars in taxpayer money and these council candidates who want our votes, by promising confidentiality, seem to be saying to us by their silence that they feel more of an allegiance to a possible developer who is asking for a handout than to the people they say they want to serve and protect the tax dollars for. These are also some of the same people who felt that the closed session meeting of Feb. 14 should have been done in the open. There seems to be a disconnect there. They are either willing to put the taxpayers first or they're not.
I was also told by one council candidate that Tom Doig did not ask for the recent closed session meeting; that, instead, it was community development director Jackson Kinney who pushed for it. This is both troublesome and problematic. It's also a little unbelievable.
But this is not the first time I have heard of Jackson Kinney trying to stop Tom Doig from making information public. Mr. Doig himself told me he had wanted to put certain information out there for the public but that Jackson Kinney stifled it. I asked Bryan Bain, Frank Tower and Burk Tower about this at the last Fifth Tuesday Forum and not one of them was able to answer my question. They said they'd find out though. I hope to hear the answer soon.
I also have a hard time believing that Mr. Doig so desperately wants a public forum on his project. If that is true, why is he "swearing" certain existing council members and candidates to secrecy - even having at least one councilor (Paul Esslinger) sign a confidentiality agreement, which under state statutes he can't require of sitting council members, I'm told. But if Mr. Doig truly does want a public meeting and Mr. Kinney is resisting, there is a simple enough fix. Mr. Doig simply needs to tell Jackson Kinney that the meetings are going to be held in public and with Q & A sessions being shared with the public or he is taking his multi-million dollar dream development elsewhere. This is not that complicated. In some ways it makes one wonder (but then again, not really) who's in the driver's seat here. Let's not forget it was Mr. Kinney who offered TIF money to Mr. Doig - Doig told me himself that he did not initiate the discussion about it.
We also learned at the Fifth Tuesday Forum that Mr. Kinney is speaking to banks for developer Doig. Why? Exactly whose payroll is Jackson Kinney on and why is he speaking to bankers for a developer instead of the developer talking to banks himself?
Council candidate Kent Monte has said on his blog that he spoke with Tom Doig. That conversation has taken place since Doig missed the January financing deadline and since this month's closed session meeting. Did Mr. Doig share with Mr. Monte or perhaps the council itself in the infamous closed session meeting why his financing is not in order after months and months of tying up our staff and working on this? Has he explained to anyone why he is so opposed to the "pay as you go" option? I can venture an educated guess and the two are probably tied very closely together: I bet it's because his potential financiers are not going to go for the "pay as you go" option. They'd rather have all the risk on the city and its taxpayers. That risk can be avoided or at least greatly reduced with the "pay as you go" option rather than "direct pay." To do anything less than "pay as you go" is dangerous and the council that votes on this project would be well-advised to not do it. Jackson Kinney himself recommended the "pay as you go" option in the early stages of term sheet options being presented. But it would not surprise me if (a) this is part of the reason financing seems to be somewhat of a stumbling block for Doig and his partners, and (b) we eventually see Mr. Kinney change his tune and recommend that the council approve the project with a "direct pay" option. Better to do the project under any conditions than not do it at all, right? Wrong!
The council needs to be smart about this project. Look at all the evidence to suggest that these types of projects are not the financial windfalls they are projected to be. There are far too many questions still unanswered and far too many risks. No one seems to be too concerned, if at all, about money when it comes right down to it: not the redevelopment authority, not the plan commission and not the council - at least that we've seen so far. The only ones concerned about money seem to be the developers and how much they can get from us and with the least risk possible for themselves. If that's not the case, then maybe some conversation and honest answers in public will start to dispel some of the mystery and skepticism. Until then, one can't help but feel we're being sold down the river again - this time down Five Rivers.
- Cheryl Hentz
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Five Rivers info owed to taxpayers, citizens
Authored by: popo on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 04:16 PM MST
Isn’t part of the reason this project failed in Gladstone, Mich. because of financing problems? We have a city who wants to give away millions of dollars to this project but not allow the citizens know anything about it. Now council members or council candidates want to hide details. Hotel management? Is this not a former manager of the now bankrupt Park Plaza hotel now living in Milwaukee? "City of Oshkosh" come here we will help you build your business so you can take your money out of town.
Five Rivers info owed to taxpayers, citizens
Authored by: L Schaffer on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 09:17 PM MST
There is only one way,we the taxpayers will be able to get the information that we require and that is to have a binding referendum passed that will no longer allow closed door sessions, all citizens would be allowed to sit in and see how our elected officials do business or not do business. I know our elected officials would not like this because we will see and hear if they really and truely ask tough questions or if they get on their knees and beg to have businesses come to Oshkosh by offering them money That are favourable to businesses.
Five Rivers info owed to taxpayers, citizens
Authored by: bryanbain on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 08:05 AM MST
Cheryl-
I asked Jackson Kinney the question you posed at the January Fifth Tuesday Forum and his response is posted on my website at http://www.bryanbain.com/FTF_notes_013006.htm. As with all Fifth Tuesday Forum notes, answers are posted as they are received from city staff.
I always post on my blog and OshkoshNews.org when notes are completed. I encourage you (or anyone) to check those websites or sign up for Fifth Tuesday Forum email updates on my website. I only send updates when a time and location has been chosen and when notes are completed and available online. I hope this helps.
-Bryan
We are talking about millions of dollars in taxpayer money and these council candidates who want our votes, by promising confidentiality, seem to be saying to us by their silence that they feel more of an allegiance to a possible developer who is asking for a handout than to the people they say they want to serve and protect the tax dollars for. These are also some of the same people who felt that the closed session meeting of Feb. 14 should have been done in the open. There seems to be a disconnect there. They are either willing to put the taxpayers first or they're not.
I was also told by one council candidate that Tom Doig did not ask for the recent closed session meeting; that, instead, it was community development director Jackson Kinney who pushed for it. This is both troublesome and problematic. It's also a little unbelievable.
But this is not the first time I have heard of Jackson Kinney trying to stop Tom Doig from making information public. Mr. Doig himself told me he had wanted to put certain information out there for the public but that Jackson Kinney stifled it. I asked Bryan Bain, Frank Tower and Burk Tower about this at the last Fifth Tuesday Forum and not one of them was able to answer my question. They said they'd find out though. I hope to hear the answer soon.
I also have a hard time believing that Mr. Doig so desperately wants a public forum on his project. If that is true, why is he "swearing" certain existing council members and candidates to secrecy - even having at least one councilor (Paul Esslinger) sign a confidentiality agreement, which under state statutes he can't require of sitting council members, I'm told. But if Mr. Doig truly does want a public meeting and Mr. Kinney is resisting, there is a simple enough fix. Mr. Doig simply needs to tell Jackson Kinney that the meetings are going to be held in public and with Q & A sessions being shared with the public or he is taking his multi-million dollar dream development elsewhere. This is not that complicated. In some ways it makes one wonder (but then again, not really) who's in the driver's seat here. Let's not forget it was Mr. Kinney who offered TIF money to Mr. Doig - Doig told me himself that he did not initiate the discussion about it.
We also learned at the Fifth Tuesday Forum that Mr. Kinney is speaking to banks for developer Doig. Why? Exactly whose payroll is Jackson Kinney on and why is he speaking to bankers for a developer instead of the developer talking to banks himself?
Council candidate Kent Monte has said on his blog that he spoke with Tom Doig. That conversation has taken place since Doig missed the January financing deadline and since this month's closed session meeting. Did Mr. Doig share with Mr. Monte or perhaps the council itself in the infamous closed session meeting why his financing is not in order after months and months of tying up our staff and working on this? Has he explained to anyone why he is so opposed to the "pay as you go" option? I can venture an educated guess and the two are probably tied very closely together: I bet it's because his potential financiers are not going to go for the "pay as you go" option. They'd rather have all the risk on the city and its taxpayers. That risk can be avoided or at least greatly reduced with the "pay as you go" option rather than "direct pay." To do anything less than "pay as you go" is dangerous and the council that votes on this project would be well-advised to not do it. Jackson Kinney himself recommended the "pay as you go" option in the early stages of term sheet options being presented. But it would not surprise me if (a) this is part of the reason financing seems to be somewhat of a stumbling block for Doig and his partners, and (b) we eventually see Mr. Kinney change his tune and recommend that the council approve the project with a "direct pay" option. Better to do the project under any conditions than not do it at all, right? Wrong!
The council needs to be smart about this project. Look at all the evidence to suggest that these types of projects are not the financial windfalls they are projected to be. There are far too many questions still unanswered and far too many risks. No one seems to be too concerned, if at all, about money when it comes right down to it: not the redevelopment authority, not the plan commission and not the council - at least that we've seen so far. The only ones concerned about money seem to be the developers and how much they can get from us and with the least risk possible for themselves. If that's not the case, then maybe some conversation and honest answers in public will start to dispel some of the mystery and skepticism. Until then, one can't help but feel we're being sold down the river again - this time down Five Rivers.
- Cheryl Hentz
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Five Rivers info owed to taxpayers, citizens
Authored by: popo on Friday, February 24 2006 @ 04:16 PM MST
Isn’t part of the reason this project failed in Gladstone, Mich. because of financing problems? We have a city who wants to give away millions of dollars to this project but not allow the citizens know anything about it. Now council members or council candidates want to hide details. Hotel management? Is this not a former manager of the now bankrupt Park Plaza hotel now living in Milwaukee? "City of Oshkosh" come here we will help you build your business so you can take your money out of town.
Five Rivers info owed to taxpayers, citizens
Authored by: L Schaffer on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 09:17 PM MST
There is only one way,we the taxpayers will be able to get the information that we require and that is to have a binding referendum passed that will no longer allow closed door sessions, all citizens would be allowed to sit in and see how our elected officials do business or not do business. I know our elected officials would not like this because we will see and hear if they really and truely ask tough questions or if they get on their knees and beg to have businesses come to Oshkosh by offering them money That are favourable to businesses.
Five Rivers info owed to taxpayers, citizens
Authored by: bryanbain on Saturday, February 25 2006 @ 08:05 AM MST
Cheryl-
I asked Jackson Kinney the question you posed at the January Fifth Tuesday Forum and his response is posted on my website at http://www.bryanbain.com/FTF_notes_013006.htm. As with all Fifth Tuesday Forum notes, answers are posted as they are received from city staff.
I always post on my blog and OshkoshNews.org when notes are completed. I encourage you (or anyone) to check those websites or sign up for Fifth Tuesday Forum email updates on my website. I only send updates when a time and location has been chosen and when notes are completed and available online. I hope this helps.
-Bryan
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 10:17 PM
<< Home