Minutes 07/22/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

July 22. 2008 5. Clifford Kalmbach, 3702 Magnolia Drive, spoke in opposition to this item. 6. Steve Carroll, 3112 Riveredge Drive, spoke in opposition to this item. 7. Glenna Cornett, 201 Thelmar Lane, spoke in opposition to this item. 8. Martha Ann Creecy, 317 Dinwiddie Street, spoke in opposition to this item. 9. Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky, 2713 Sterling Point Drive, spoke in support of this item. '" The following statement was read by Councilwoman Elizabeth M. Psi mas: "A few weeks ago I took the oath of office for my second term on the Portsmouth City Council, to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me". I take that oath very seriously. I've done much soul searching and have done my best to be impartial with my decision when such esteemed investors like state senators, city council members, respected business leaders, and frankly personal "friends" have invested in this project. There is certainly no requirement of our elected leadership to not make investments or earn an honest living, but I DO believe there is a reasonable expectation, of all elected officials, to keep their projects out of the public sector. Not one of us sitting on this dais, can say that they have not had the support of many of this projects investors. If that were a requirement for abstaining from this vote - we would all have to excuse ourselves. Therefore it is left to those of us, whose families have not invested in this project to make a decision - a very tough political decision. This project has created a lot of dialogue, emotion, politics, and excitement in our community. I've spent a great deal of time listening to both the citizens and the experts. Interestingly - I've been contacted by many folks asking me to deny these bonds. However, on the flip side - I've never been approached by a sinqle investor in this project asking for my support. I've tried very hard to treat this project as I have many others before it - fairly, impartially, and based on the facts -- that's exactly what the voters expect, demand, and deserve. I would like to explain what led me to my conclusion. These bonds are intimately tied to both the cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk. Knowing that - I decided to look into other high profile projects similar in nature to this one, and how they have progressed. In Norfolk, I see three high profile projects that requested economic assistance - Granby Towers, a convention center & hotel, and the Newby Medical office building. Each of these projects has struggled to obtain proper development sponsorship and have suffered from the inability to secure financing. What I draw from these examples and others, is that we as a city have a responsibility to insure that every project we participate in has the necessary development sponsorship and a reasonable expectation for financing in place PRIOR to asking the city for significant economic incentives. It's clear in these economic times that ALL real estate development is challenged. The most challenged appear to be those needing new construction financing. So - my question is - where is the financing for this project? Some weeks ago there was an attempt by some of us on this Council to add amendments to these bond resolutions that made clear our intention to provide NO city incentiveslinvestments to this project. Those amendments were denied by the project's bond counsel, Mr. William Nusbaum. His reasoning was that any amendments would raise a red flag to perspective bond purchasers about the commitment of the city to this project. That same denial raises a red flag for ME, as a steward of the taxpayers' money.