INC NEWS - Crime starts at the top

[Caleb Southern]

See news articles below . . .
________________________________________
From: Caleb Southern [mailto:southernc at mindspring.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 7:11 PM
To: 'council at durhamnc.gov'
Subject: You are CRIMINALS (contract zoning)

I cannot find the words to express my disgust with your vote Monday night
for the quid pro quo, contract zoning deal (theater for Duke bribe).

You truly are a COUNCIL FOR SALE. I feel nauseous.

This proposed "theater" across from the JAIL has been pursued at any cost,
and against all odds. People have been laughing at us for this boondoggle,
and now they will sue us (or you, in City Hall) for violating state law
against CONTRACT ZONING.

If you have to ask your attorney if this deal is okay, they you are no
better than Ken Lay was at Enron. And, according the N&O, you may well get
sued.

Bill Bell, you said previously that Councilors should vote their conscience
on this issue. Apparently you and your colleagues have no conscience, or
ethics, or sense of morality. (Except Mr. Stith, and Ms. Catotti, who was
absent.)

You are not my mayor, and not my council. You are in violation of STATE LAW.
You are complicit criminals. This is a new low to beat all prior lows.

I thought that the long litany of shady performance and judgment was as far
as Council would go to disappoint me - small business loan scandal, Durham
Regional Financial Corporation, dump fire, ad nauseum. But this latest
blatant violation of state law takes the cake.

No wonder this city is riddled with crime. It starts at the top - with YOU.

Caleb Southern

***

Stage is set for center
The Durham City Council approves the performing arts plan

Michael Biesecker, Staff Writer: News & Observer

DURHAM - The City Council gave final approval Monday to a $44.3 million
downtown performing arts center, the funding for which is reliant on a cash
payment from Duke University that has raised ethical concerns.

The 5-1 vote ends more than five years of debate about whether to build the
2,800-seat theater designed to accommodate concerts, touring Broadway shows
and the American Dance Festival. Groundbreaking for the center is expected
later this month.

Originally budgeted at $32 million, the council was informed in June that
the skyrocketing cost of construction materials had pushed the center's
price tag up by nearly 38 percent. After some creative financing by city
staff, the project was still left with a $2 million funding gap. Early on,
council members pledged to build the center without using local property tax
revenue -- putting the officials in a bind as where to come up with the
money.

Though Duke already had pledged $5.5 million to the project, the city asked
the university for more. Duke offered to "donate" another $2 million to the
city, but only if the council approves the university's plan to redevelop
five blocks of Anderson Street.

The public roadway is key to the university's ambitious plans to redevelop
200 acres between its East and West campuses for residence towers, retail
shops, restaurants and other amenities. In addition to the Anderson Street
plan, the council also is set to soon consider Duke's rezoning request for
the sweeping Central Campus project.

Under the agreement approved Monday, Duke will immediately write the city a
$500,000 check. The remaining $1.5 million will be granted only upon the
city's approval of Duke's Anderson Street plan and "any other necessary
approvals required by the city for Duke to undertake the improvements." Some
who have criticized the arrangement see that phrase as a direct reference to
the Central Campus rezoning.

It is illegal under state law for a local government to accept money in
exchange for granting regulatory approval.

Carefully worded

City Attorney Henry Blinder advised the council Monday they could accept
Duke's timely gift as long as the elected officials "felt comfortable" that
the cash won't influence their decision on the university's plan. The
agreement had been carefully worded to pass legal muster, he said.

"In my opinion, it is a legally defensible agreement," Blinder said.

Asked whether that meant that he thought the deal could get the city sued,
Blinder responded: "With a novel arrangement like this, that is always a
possibility."

Council member Thomas Stith was the only one to vote against the
arrangement.

"It's unfortunate we've come to this point in the history of this project to
have to make a decision with a cloud of impropriety," Stith said. "If it's
not quid pro quo, I don't know what is. I can't understand why we would put
ourselves in the position of having to make a decision under this cloud. You
know, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

That drew a sharp retort from Mayor Bill Bell, a staunch supporter of the
deal with Duke.

"It's nice to give sound bites, but we're not talking about ducks," Bell
said. "We're talking about an agreement that [the] council has been advised
is a legally defensible agreement with no quid pro quo. So you can talk
about ducks, talk about rabbits; we're talking about an agreement."

"Sometimes I feel like I'm in 'Alice in Wonderland,' " Stith shot back.

Neighborhood concerns

Residents near Duke's campus had urged the council to sever the issues of
the theater and Anderson Street. Neighborhood leaders have expressed concern
that the massive Central Campus development will hurt small businesses on
nearby Ninth Street and allow Duke's students to insulate themselves even
more from the community that surrounds their campus.

John Schelp, the president of the Old West Neighborhood Association, said
Monday's vote had effectively signaled to future developers the price for
which the Durham City Council can be bought.

"This will be a dark cloud over the Central Campus rezoning from here on
out," Schelp said. "This is clearly something for something. Duke was brazen
enough to put it in writing."

Staff writer Michael Biesecker can be reached at 956-2421 or
mbieseck at newsobserver.com.

***

Theater plan OK'd, strings attached

By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun
gronberg at heraldsun.com
Nov 6, 2006 : 11:04 pm ET

DURHAM -- Brushing aside complaints about the appearance of a quid pro quo,
the City Council voted Monday to green-light construction of a long-planned
downtown performing arts center and apply to the project an extra $2 million
donated by Duke University.

The decision came on a 6-0 vote, though Council member Thomas Stith said he
dissented on one point, the acceptance of the prospective donation from
Duke. Council member Dianne Catotti was away on a pre-scheduled trip.

Council members acted after City Manager Patrick Baker and his staff
reported that the project's construction manager had certified, after taking
bids from contractors, that it could build the center for no more than $44.3
million.

That pledge, when balanced against a momentarily favorable borrowing
environment, prompted Mayor Bill Bell to say that council members had little
choice but to approve the project now, despite qualms about accepting the
Duke money -- if they wanted to build it at all.

"We've gone through this process as long as we possibly could have, and been
as open as we could have," Bell said, pressing council members to support
the theater's finance package. "Delaying it in my opinion is almost going to
kill the project."

But the Duke money had prompted debate in the days leading up to Monday's
vote because university leaders said they wouldn't turn most of it over
unless the city allowed them to reconfigure and maintain a city street that
passes through part of the campus.

Only $500,000 of the donation is unconditional. The rest will follow only if
the council and Duke agree on the road's configuration by Nov. 1, 2007.

The road in question, Anderson Street, bisects Duke's Central Campus, a
128-acre tract that campus leaders intend to redevelop. The university has
filed a rezoning application for the tract that's scheduled to reach the
council on Dec. 18.

The juxtaposition of the rezoning application, Duke's interest in gaining
more control over Anderson Street and the city's need for money to complete
the performing arts center's financing package created what Council member
Mike Woodard termed "a perfect storm" of policy conflicts.

By law, the council can't bargain away its discretion over regulatory
matters like zoning and road design, but campus neighbors who've monitored
the rezoning process say elected officials by accepting the donation have
done just that.

"If Durham accepts the terms of Duke's offer, undue pressure will be placed
on seeing through Duke's desires with less attention paid on having a fair
and comprehensive review of the proposal that takes into account other
potential impacts on nearby business districts," Broad Street resident and
Duke alumnus Joel Sholtes said in an e-mail to the council Monday afternoon.
"How can Durham fairly assess Duke's proposal with a contingent $1.5 million
hanging in the air?"

City Attorney Henry Blinder conceded that the linkage between the donation
and the road was "a novel arrangement," but he insisted that the deal is
legally defensible provided council members "feel comfortable they won't be
influenced [by the money] in making those decisions."

Bell and other council members said they could keep the issues separate.

"There is no quid pro quo on this," Bell said. "My mind is open."

Woodard said last week that he wanted to delay the decision on accepting
Duke's money until after the council votes on the rezoning. But he conceded
Monday that officials couldn't do that without jeopardizing the price
guarantee they'd obtained from the theater's construction manager, Skanska
USA Building Inc.

He added that he would work against any proposal from Duke on the road's
configuration that "would amount to a closing off of the Duke campus," and
that in his mind there was "a firewall" between the other issues and the
rezoning, which remains controversial because the university hasn't accepted
square-footage caps on campus retail sought by neighbors.

Stith, however, said the firewall his colleagues were proclaiming was
illusory.

"When you sign a term sheet or agreement that says, 'I'll give you half a
million now and a million and a half later if you approve my plan for the
street,' if that's not quid pro quo, what is?" he said. "If it walks like a
duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

Bell was ready with a retort.

"It's nice to talk in sound bites, but we're not talking about ducks here,"
the mayor said, addressing in Stith a prospective opponent in next year's
mayor's race. "We're talking about a legally defensible agreement."

Bell had previously outlined the council's financial options, and in the
process dismissed the chances of securing money for the project from a
county government that's facing hundreds of millions in construction demands
for schools and other facilities. He noted that one way to complete the
theater's financing was to use city capital funds, an idea counter to the
council's previous opposition to the use of general revenue for the project.

The mayor said the only way he'd support doing it was if the council backed
it unanimously -- a stance that amounted to saying that he didn't want Stith
or other council members making it a campaign issue.

No one voiced interest in that possibility.

Assistant City Manager for Economic and Workforce Development Alan DeLisle
said the favorable borrowing environmental means the city can afford up to
pay up to $45.1 million for the theater.

That gives the city a cushion if the deal with Duke falls through, but it
would still be $700,000 short if officials can't reach an agreement on the
future of Anderson Street. DeLisle said the city could deal with that by
making another appeal to the county, or by using surplus money from the sale
of naming rights to the theater.

DeLisle -- who has voiced confidence that state regulators will approve the
finance package -- said construction of the theater should begin later this
month.