Yesterday we ran a post describing the full extent of the subsidy being received by Salisbury Mall Associates (SMA), developers of the old mall project. Forget for a moment that this group has yet to fulfill a single major commitment on time. Forget for a moment that we have now learned that SMA will be collecting the lion's share of the city property tax revenue from this project to pay off the TIF (tax increment financing) bond was issued by the Barrie Tilghman administration.
Today, Delmarva Dealings ran a post from its too infrequent contributor Amicus reminding us of the role played in this fiasco by the house organ of the Tilghman administration, the Daily Times. Was the Tilghman Times duped, or were they complicit in the deliberate spread of misinformation by the Tilghman administration and her minions then serving on the Salisbury City Council - Mike Dunn, Gary Comegys, Lynn Cathcart and Shanie Shields?
As Amicus has ferreted out for us, the Tilghman Times both reported as news, and printed as op-ed, that institutional investors such as banks, insurance companies or money managers would be investing in these bonds and therefore they would be deciding on the financial viability of the project (through their decision to purchase, or not purchase, the TIF bonds). We now know that the city and developer never intended to market these bonds.
This (yet again) disgraceful episode in Salisbury history keeps bringing up questions. Since the city and developer never intended on marketing this bond to outside investors, why did the firm of Stone & Youngberg receive a hefty fee? And you may want to know who paid their fee? It is my understanding that the fee was built in to the issue, so this is an additional subsidy being paid (albeit indirectly) by the Salisbury taxpayer.
The coming days will tell us whether or not the Tilghman Times was complicit in this fiasco or not. Will they begin to ask real questions and demand truthful answers (a first), or will they respond by doing nothing? Another likely response is claim that this is "Much Ado About Nothing". After all, the old mall project is moving forward (or is it?). They may also choose to take the Clintonesque approach and fall on their use of the word "usually" in their reporting of the matter.
I've got a sneaking suspicion that this will somehow be blamed on Councilwomen Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen, along with the usual suspects like Linda Kent.
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
Technorati Tags: Maryland, Salisbury, politics, Salisbury politics, Barrie Tilghman, Mike Dunn, Gary Comegys, Lynn Cathcart, Shanie Shields, Debbie Campbell, Terry Cohen, Linda Kent, subsidy
Powered by ScribeFire.
Today, Delmarva Dealings ran a post from its too infrequent contributor Amicus reminding us of the role played in this fiasco by the house organ of the Tilghman administration, the Daily Times. Was the Tilghman Times duped, or were they complicit in the deliberate spread of misinformation by the Tilghman administration and her minions then serving on the Salisbury City Council - Mike Dunn, Gary Comegys, Lynn Cathcart and Shanie Shields?
As Amicus has ferreted out for us, the Tilghman Times both reported as news, and printed as op-ed, that institutional investors such as banks, insurance companies or money managers would be investing in these bonds and therefore they would be deciding on the financial viability of the project (through their decision to purchase, or not purchase, the TIF bonds). We now know that the city and developer never intended to market these bonds.
This (yet again) disgraceful episode in Salisbury history keeps bringing up questions. Since the city and developer never intended on marketing this bond to outside investors, why did the firm of Stone & Youngberg receive a hefty fee? And you may want to know who paid their fee? It is my understanding that the fee was built in to the issue, so this is an additional subsidy being paid (albeit indirectly) by the Salisbury taxpayer.
The coming days will tell us whether or not the Tilghman Times was complicit in this fiasco or not. Will they begin to ask real questions and demand truthful answers (a first), or will they respond by doing nothing? Another likely response is claim that this is "Much Ado About Nothing". After all, the old mall project is moving forward (or is it?). They may also choose to take the Clintonesque approach and fall on their use of the word "usually" in their reporting of the matter.
I've got a sneaking suspicion that this will somehow be blamed on Councilwomen Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen, along with the usual suspects like Linda Kent.
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
Technorati Tags: Maryland, Salisbury, politics, Salisbury politics, Barrie Tilghman, Mike Dunn, Gary Comegys, Lynn Cathcart, Shanie Shields, Debbie Campbell, Terry Cohen, Linda Kent, subsidy
Powered by ScribeFire.
7 comments:
I watched that Council meeting where they approved that TIF subsidy for the mall and remember them saying that the bonds would be sold to investors who would make sure it was a good deal. I guess that all of us, including the newspaper, were lied to. But that's how it is in Salisbury with that mayor.
Here is what the Daily Times published:
March 27, 2007 (Article) –
Nate Betnun, representing the California-based public finance firm Stone & Youngberg LLC, assured City Council members that the buyers of the bonds are usually large insurance and mutual funds companies that decide whether the project is viable and who the players are before making the purchase.
March 28, 2007 (Editorial) –
Sometime soon, bonds will be available for sale, mostly to banks, mutual funds and other financial investors. The money with which they purchase the bonds — the proceeds — will go to the developer for use in creating new infrastructure and other items approved for funding through the TIF.
Here's the meat from that other post on Delmarva Dealings:
**********************************
"The clear understanding and expectation at that time – less than a year ago – was that the bonds would be marketed and sold to a buyer or buyers other than the owner of the mall, which is the party referred to above as “the developer.” In the interim, the building has been demolished, but there has been no discussion or disclosure of information about the bonds. Until recently the citizens of Salisbury have been left in the dark about important aspects – have the bonds been sold and to who, at what interest, etc.
Recently, however, we have learned that these bonds were sold by the City to – would you believe – the very same party that said it could not redevelop the mall unless it got the special TIF subsidy. That’s right, the owner of the old mall. It seems likely, but we do not know for sure, that funding for this transaction is coming from the “silent partner” in the mall property – the Alex Brown Realty firm, located in Baltimore.
How, you may ask, could this happen when the ordinance was passed with the understanding that the bonds would be sold to independent investors whose “scrutiny” would assure that everything was – and would remain – appropriately according to Hoyle.
Actually, my dear Watson, it’s really very elementary.
You see, that bond ordinance also authorizes the Mayor, Barrie Tilghman, to set almost any terms and outcomes in the bond issuance. The rest, as they say, is now history.
My question is whats in it for Barrie and her gang? Are she or her buddies invoved witht eh developer in any way? One must assume there is some profit being made in some cpaapcity by Barrie and her gang.
Cato your on target again! The whole prospecxt of this project is suspect and should be turned over to the Attorney General for investigation. Or at least someone should do some real digging on this one, someone besides poor Debbie and Terry!
The public needs answers to a lot of cogent questions.
A. Goetz
Wanna bet you will find Dunn and Tilghmans names on that LLC? Might even find Cathcart involved since she is so adamant about having a street named after her in the development never to be built.
Dontcha just luuuuv the way the Daily Times editors blabber someone else's claim quoted in one of their stories as gospel? I'm talking about the March 28, 2007 Editorial mentioned above.
How many rings do these great thinkers have in their noses?
Good exposure of Dirty Delmarva Dealings by the blog "Delmarva Dealings." Salisbury, you got screwed -- what a bunch of deceit.
Post a Comment