Feb 28, 2011
Former CCDC board member gets lucrative consulting contract
Providing "technical assistance" on plan to end homelessness Downtown pays $464,750
By Kelly Davis
Today, the San Diego City Council (sitting as the Redevelopment Agency) will be asked to approve an amendment to a contract with LeSar Development Consultants (LDC) that will pay a total of $464,750 for 15 months of work. The contract, which began in July 2010 and lasts through September 2011, is for "technical assistance" on a plan to end homelessness Downtown within five years. LCD's already been paid $235,000 for work between July and the end of 2010. Today's contract amendment adds $229,750, bringing the total to $464,750.
LDC's president, Jennifer LeSar, sat on the Centre City Development Corp.'s board directors from 2002 to 2009. According to the staff report, LDC was the only respondent to a request for consulting services put out in January 2010. On Jan. 12, 2010, LeSar sent a letter asking the city's Ethics Commission if any conflict-of-interest provisions prohibited her from being paid to provide consulting services to CCDC. She was told it was OK as long as she didn't participate in making the contract.
The contract is being paid with money from CCDC's low- and moderate-income housing fund.
LeSar's hourly rate, according to the scope of services, is $225; Matthew Doherty, who's worked for the San Diego Housing Commission and Corporation for Supportive Housing, has a listed hourly rate of $175. Rachel Ralston, whose resume includes four years as associate editor at the Gay and Lesbian Times before joining LeSar Development in February 2007, is listed at $90 an hour.
LeSar defended the cost and said that her company's per-hour rates are competitive. When I pointed out that Ralston's per-hour rate would come out to $187,200 annually if it were a full-time job, LeSar said I wasn't taking into account the built-in costs of running a business.
LeSar said that LDC's work will create an infrastructure that previously didn't exist for collaboration on homeless services between the San Diego Housing Commission and the county. "We are getting people housing because of this partnership," she said.
Under the contract, LDC was responsible for coordinating last September's "Registry Week," for which 30 teams of volunteers went throughout Downtown to count and survey the street population and create a database that will help get the most vulnerable people into housing, starting with 75 veterans, for whom the Veterans Administration is providing 75 housing vouchers, and 50 mentally ill individuals who will receive Section 8 vouchers and case management services from county mental-health providers.
LDC's role, according to the scope of services, is to coordinate with the San Diego Housing Commission and the county's Health and Human Services Agency to develop a "five-year work plan" for ending homelessness Downtown. The plan includes developing financing strategies, setting annual targets for creating supportive housing Downtown and working on state- and federal-level policy. LDC will also look at the feasibility of holding another Registry Week in 2012, handle PR and community education and outreach and provide recommendations for developing a data system to track and measure the program's progress.
You can download the staff report and supporting documents here.
Showing posts with label CCDC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CCDC. Show all posts
Friday, March 04, 2011
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
The Anatomy of a Botched Testimony
The Anatomy of a Botched Testimony
Voice of San Diego
February 1, 2011
by Liam Dillon
It was an idea without an author.
San Diego City Councilwoman Marti Emerald wanted to know who had gone around the council's back to breathe 20 more years of life into downtown redevelopment.
The guy at the Oct. 12 City Council meeting who had answers was Frank Alessi, the executive vice president and chief financial officer of the city's downtown redevelopment agency, the Centre City Development Corp.
Except Alessi wasn't saying much.
Here's a breakdown of Alessi's testimony to the council now that we have the benefit of three months of reporting and the context from newly released emails. It shows that not only did Alessi fail to respond to many of Emerald's questions, but that a key answer was false.
Emerald started her questioning by wondering if she could trust Alessi.
Emerald: If you were monitoring my comments from before you know how very upset I am about what I believe is a gross breach of trust. Going forward, I'm going to have a very difficult time believing anything that you and your staff have to tell us as a board.
Then she launched into him.
Emerald: Who actually hatched this idea?
Alessi: Well.
Emerald: Whose idea was it? To go behind this council's back and go to Sacramento?
Alessi: I don't have an answer to that. Other than (Assemblyman) Nathan Fletcher was the author of it.
Emerald: He just in the middle of the night came up with the idea? Who did he talk to about crafting this idea to bury it in the budget bill? Was it you? Was it the mayor?
Alessi: I can't speak for the mayor.
Alessi now is CCDC's highest ranking official following the resignation of former interim head Fred Maas in December. Alessi has been with the agency since 1979 and makes $176,800 a year. Ultimately the City Council, as the board of directors for the city's Redevelopment Agency, is his boss.
Emerald continued asking whose idea it was.
Emerald: Fred (Maas)? Who?
Alessi: Unfortunately, Fred, our chairman, is unavailable today. He's back East on personal matters. And he ...
Emerald: So who was involved, once the mystery person came up with the idea, who sat down and came up with the plan?
Alessi: There were several people involved. It's ...
Emerald: They were who?
Alessi: I defer, I would like to defer the answer to that question.
Emerald: Why?
Alessi didn't answer. He just stared straight ahead.
Emerald turned next to Alessi's personal involvement.
Emerald: C'mon I mean it's out here on the table here, you did this, you didn't talk to us, but at least let us know who was involved.
Alessi: Well, I personally was knowledgeable of the information.
Emerald: Were you involved in it?
Alessi: To a degree.
Emerald then began asking him how long he had been discussing the deal. His answer, the most significant he gave to any of Emerald's questions, was wrong.
Emerald: Can you tell us when this idea fell out of the sky or what?
Alessi: There was probably a week or, two weeks ago that was.
Emerald: Two weeks ago, you think?
Alessi: I'm guessing. I mean I can only tell you from my perspective.
Emerald: When did you first learn of it?
Alessi: I believe it's been about two weeks. I don't have ...
But that's not what emails we obtained through a public records request show. Alessi was involved as far back as August, six weeks earlier than when he said he was.
Alessi's answer to council fit the deal's official narrative at the time — that it was only weeks in the making. But that narrative fell apart a few days after Alessi's testimony. The deal's formation began in August, around the same time Alessi got involved...
Voice of San Diego
February 1, 2011
by Liam Dillon
It was an idea without an author.
San Diego City Councilwoman Marti Emerald wanted to know who had gone around the council's back to breathe 20 more years of life into downtown redevelopment.
The guy at the Oct. 12 City Council meeting who had answers was Frank Alessi, the executive vice president and chief financial officer of the city's downtown redevelopment agency, the Centre City Development Corp.
Except Alessi wasn't saying much.
Here's a breakdown of Alessi's testimony to the council now that we have the benefit of three months of reporting and the context from newly released emails. It shows that not only did Alessi fail to respond to many of Emerald's questions, but that a key answer was false.
Emerald started her questioning by wondering if she could trust Alessi.
Emerald: If you were monitoring my comments from before you know how very upset I am about what I believe is a gross breach of trust. Going forward, I'm going to have a very difficult time believing anything that you and your staff have to tell us as a board.
Then she launched into him.
Emerald: Who actually hatched this idea?
Alessi: Well.
Emerald: Whose idea was it? To go behind this council's back and go to Sacramento?
Alessi: I don't have an answer to that. Other than (Assemblyman) Nathan Fletcher was the author of it.
Emerald: He just in the middle of the night came up with the idea? Who did he talk to about crafting this idea to bury it in the budget bill? Was it you? Was it the mayor?
Alessi: I can't speak for the mayor.
Alessi now is CCDC's highest ranking official following the resignation of former interim head Fred Maas in December. Alessi has been with the agency since 1979 and makes $176,800 a year. Ultimately the City Council, as the board of directors for the city's Redevelopment Agency, is his boss.
Emerald continued asking whose idea it was.
Emerald: Fred (Maas)? Who?
Alessi: Unfortunately, Fred, our chairman, is unavailable today. He's back East on personal matters. And he ...
Emerald: So who was involved, once the mystery person came up with the idea, who sat down and came up with the plan?
Alessi: There were several people involved. It's ...
Emerald: They were who?
Alessi: I defer, I would like to defer the answer to that question.
Emerald: Why?
Alessi didn't answer. He just stared straight ahead.
Emerald turned next to Alessi's personal involvement.
Emerald: C'mon I mean it's out here on the table here, you did this, you didn't talk to us, but at least let us know who was involved.
Alessi: Well, I personally was knowledgeable of the information.
Emerald: Were you involved in it?
Alessi: To a degree.
Emerald then began asking him how long he had been discussing the deal. His answer, the most significant he gave to any of Emerald's questions, was wrong.
Emerald: Can you tell us when this idea fell out of the sky or what?
Alessi: There was probably a week or, two weeks ago that was.
Emerald: Two weeks ago, you think?
Alessi: I'm guessing. I mean I can only tell you from my perspective.
Emerald: When did you first learn of it?
Alessi: I believe it's been about two weeks. I don't have ...
But that's not what emails we obtained through a public records request show. Alessi was involved as far back as August, six weeks earlier than when he said he was.
Alessi's answer to council fit the deal's official narrative at the time — that it was only weeks in the making. But that narrative fell apart a few days after Alessi's testimony. The deal's formation began in August, around the same time Alessi got involved...
Monday, December 13, 2010
Mayor of Redevelopment No Longer?
Mayor of Redevelopment No Longer?
(Click on the link above to get all the links in the story.)
by Scott Lewis
Voice of San Diego
December 13, 2010
Redevelopment is the reason the city of San Diego can consider building a new Convention Center, football stadium and other enhancements downtown at a time when rec centers, libraries and swimming pools are in danger of closing elsewhere.
Cities all across the state use the mechanism for their blighted neighborhoods. But unlike most of them, San Diego does things differently. For one, it allows two nonprofits, fully funded by the city, to manage its redevelopment efforts downtown and in southeastern San Diego: CCDC and SEDC respectively.
And, also unlike other areas, San Diego made its elected mayor the executive director of the Redevelopment Agency -- the entity that oversees not only CCDC and SEDC but the other areas considered blighted in town.
Now, that may change. The City Council is considering ousting him as San Diego's redevelopment leader and hiring a professional manager wake of the mayor's efforts to extend the lifespan of downtown redevelopment without involving the public or City Council.
U-T: We Want Maas Redevelopment
The Union-Tribune made its case for downtown redevelopment this weekend featuring an editorial about, and a Q&A with, the outgoing chairman of CCDC, Fred Maas.
If that didn't give you enough Maas, the man himself penned an op-ed of his own with a now common claim that visionaries like him are only held back by shortsighted "small-town undertakers."
In the Q&A, Maas blasts the proposal supported now by five City Council members that the downtown redevelopment agency take over from the city's ailing general fund, the duty to pay back bonds on the last expansion of the Convention Center - a move that would free up $9.2 million a year.
"We run the risk of bankrupting ultimately over the next 20 years the redevelopment agency. This is not that different from underfunding pensions or from granting benefits without a way to pay for them by raiding our coffers to pay for things that were never contemplated."
Moral: If you don't like something that's happening in the city, compare it to the pension system! But question: Aren't redevelopment efforts eventually supposed to run out of money?
The new City Council president is considering your thoughts on those questions and others as he proposes a new ad hoc committee for redevelopment. And he has set up an email address to collect them: budgetandfinance@sandiego.gov.
Snow? Ha!
The U-T drew a direct line from the major snowfall and incredible collapse of the roof of the Metrodome in Minneapolis to the Chargers search for a new stadium (did you see the video of the roof collapse?). Presumably, this adds urgency to the stadium debate there - the Minnesota Vikings are often mentioned in the same breath as the Chargers as possible teams that could relocate to Los Angeles.
Back in San Diego, it was a pretty nice day at the stadium yesterday, as Sam Hodgson's photos prove...
Sulking in San Diego
» Last week, we mentioned a video provoking guffaws across San Diego's political twitterati the last few days. It portrays San Diego as an insecure teenage girl uncomfortable that "the boys" keep making fun of her big pension. It's clearly trying to chide the media for begin so negative while making the case that we shouldn't worry so much about the city's problems, and we should support a new stadium and other projects championed by downtown redevelopment officials and the mayor.
As the U-T summarized, nobody wants to take credit for the flick.
I actually agree with another anonymous commenter, though, who said that the city is better represented by the mother figure in the video - always trying to convince people who are worried here that everything is fantastic. And she does that, even though she regularly admits (even trumpets) how bad things are going to get if we don't deal with our big pension.
(Click on the link above to get all the links in the story.)
by Scott Lewis
Voice of San Diego
December 13, 2010
Redevelopment is the reason the city of San Diego can consider building a new Convention Center, football stadium and other enhancements downtown at a time when rec centers, libraries and swimming pools are in danger of closing elsewhere.
Cities all across the state use the mechanism for their blighted neighborhoods. But unlike most of them, San Diego does things differently. For one, it allows two nonprofits, fully funded by the city, to manage its redevelopment efforts downtown and in southeastern San Diego: CCDC and SEDC respectively.
And, also unlike other areas, San Diego made its elected mayor the executive director of the Redevelopment Agency -- the entity that oversees not only CCDC and SEDC but the other areas considered blighted in town.
Now, that may change. The City Council is considering ousting him as San Diego's redevelopment leader and hiring a professional manager wake of the mayor's efforts to extend the lifespan of downtown redevelopment without involving the public or City Council.
U-T: We Want Maas Redevelopment
The Union-Tribune made its case for downtown redevelopment this weekend featuring an editorial about, and a Q&A with, the outgoing chairman of CCDC, Fred Maas.
If that didn't give you enough Maas, the man himself penned an op-ed of his own with a now common claim that visionaries like him are only held back by shortsighted "small-town undertakers."
In the Q&A, Maas blasts the proposal supported now by five City Council members that the downtown redevelopment agency take over from the city's ailing general fund, the duty to pay back bonds on the last expansion of the Convention Center - a move that would free up $9.2 million a year.
"We run the risk of bankrupting ultimately over the next 20 years the redevelopment agency. This is not that different from underfunding pensions or from granting benefits without a way to pay for them by raiding our coffers to pay for things that were never contemplated."
Moral: If you don't like something that's happening in the city, compare it to the pension system! But question: Aren't redevelopment efforts eventually supposed to run out of money?
The new City Council president is considering your thoughts on those questions and others as he proposes a new ad hoc committee for redevelopment. And he has set up an email address to collect them: budgetandfinance@sandiego.gov.
Snow? Ha!
The U-T drew a direct line from the major snowfall and incredible collapse of the roof of the Metrodome in Minneapolis to the Chargers search for a new stadium (did you see the video of the roof collapse?). Presumably, this adds urgency to the stadium debate there - the Minnesota Vikings are often mentioned in the same breath as the Chargers as possible teams that could relocate to Los Angeles.
Back in San Diego, it was a pretty nice day at the stadium yesterday, as Sam Hodgson's photos prove...
Sulking in San Diego
» Last week, we mentioned a video provoking guffaws across San Diego's political twitterati the last few days. It portrays San Diego as an insecure teenage girl uncomfortable that "the boys" keep making fun of her big pension. It's clearly trying to chide the media for begin so negative while making the case that we shouldn't worry so much about the city's problems, and we should support a new stadium and other projects championed by downtown redevelopment officials and the mayor.
As the U-T summarized, nobody wants to take credit for the flick.
I actually agree with another anonymous commenter, though, who said that the city is better represented by the mother figure in the video - always trying to convince people who are worried here that everything is fantastic. And she does that, even though she regularly admits (even trumpets) how bad things are going to get if we don't deal with our big pension.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Adding to the Porkfest's Questions
Adding to the Porkfest's Questions
by Randy Dotinga
Voice of San Diego
December 7, 2010
Downtown's redevelopment agency devoted quite a bit of effort to keep the public from seeing an early version of a report justifying its future existence.
The agency stonewalled our requests under public records law, but finally relented and released the draft of a report that aimed to determine whether downtown San Diego was still blighted - rundown - and needed billions in public money to help it recover.
"The study in its current form does nothing but add to burgeoning questions about the deal's legitimacy and the core mission of redevelopment agencies," writes City Hall reporter Liam Dillon.
All this comes in the wake of the secretive late-night pork-barrel deal in Sacramento that greatly extended the life of the redevelopment agency and circumvented the public process that this study was supposed to kick off.
by Randy Dotinga
Voice of San Diego
December 7, 2010
Downtown's redevelopment agency devoted quite a bit of effort to keep the public from seeing an early version of a report justifying its future existence.
The agency stonewalled our requests under public records law, but finally relented and released the draft of a report that aimed to determine whether downtown San Diego was still blighted - rundown - and needed billions in public money to help it recover.
"The study in its current form does nothing but add to burgeoning questions about the deal's legitimacy and the core mission of redevelopment agencies," writes City Hall reporter Liam Dillon.
All this comes in the wake of the secretive late-night pork-barrel deal in Sacramento that greatly extended the life of the redevelopment agency and circumvented the public process that this study was supposed to kick off.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Out of the Loop, in a Snit
My question: why wasn't Fred Maas investigated at the same time Nancy Graham was investigated? How come she took all the blame for helping developers? Maybe Fred Maas will be investigated now. See video of Maas refusing to answer questions.
City Council members grilled outgoing CCDC leader Fred Maas on Monday about details of a deal that allows the agency to sequester $6 billion more in property taxes for downtown redevelopment.
Out of the Loop, in a Snit
by Randy Dotinga
Voice of San Diego
Nov. 16, 2010
When it comes to running the city, one might assume that the City Council wouldn't just be in the loop, it would be the loop. That would be a bad assumption, as the council learned last month when the city's downtown redevelopment agency worked out a deal with the state to sequester property tax money. The council had no idea what was going on.
The City Council, which thinks the agency went rogue, spent Monday trying to figure out what it didn't know and when it didn't know it. There was plenty of bipartisan agency-slamming and talk about whether the agency's head deserves to keep his job. It's a rather moot point: he's leaving.
Council, City Attorney Feast Again on Porkfest
November 15, 2010
by Liam Dillon
If the state Legislature is where the late-night downtown porkfest gets fattened up, San Diego's City Council is where it gets slaughtered.
For the second straight hearing, council members sliced and diced staff from the city's downtown redevelopment agency, the Centre City Development Corp., about secret negotiations that led to a last-minute state deal to eliminate limits on downtown redevelopment. The deal happened without the council's knowledge even though members were working on a plan to remove the limits themselves.
Last month, the council had requested a timeline of when key players knew about the deal, which allows the agency to collect $6 billion more in property taxes and potentially finance a new downtown stadium for the Chargers. Outgoing agency head Fred Maas, who had revealed previously that discussions about the deal began in August, attempted to do that Monday afternoon.
Maas said he spoke between five to 10 times with local Republican state Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, the provision's sponsor and he had briefed others on the deal.
But that — and a bland memo from Mayor Jerry Sanders' office also released Monday — wasn't enough. Councilman Carl DeMaio wanted to know about how the deal began, specifically contact between Maas and mayoral chief of staff Kris Michell. Maas refused to answer. DeMaio, in turn, openly wondered if he could fire Maas.
"I don't think I feel comfortable with Mr. Maas staying until the end of the year," DeMaio said.
Incidentally, Maas had just formalized his resignation effective at the end of the year, as the city is seeking to replace him with a permanent downtown redevelopment chief.
Had that not happened, Councilwoman Marti Emerald said, she might have sought Maas' removal sooner.
"I think there's probably some of what you're hearing too is that maybe it should be an immediate resignation," Emerald said. "No offense to the great volunteer work you've done, but this City Council is trying to repair the damage done by previous councils and mayors in doing deals behind closed doors that have gotten us into a lot of trouble."
City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, who also was kept in the dark about the deal, poked a hole in one of the main arguments made by its proponents. City Council, backers say, has the ultimate decision on how and if the city should spend the new money.
But there are restrictions to how that new money could be spent, Goldsmith pointed out. Had the deal not occurred, property tax dollars would have flowed directly to the city's day-to-day operating budget, meaning it could pay for police, fire and other city services. Now the money will be sequestered downtown, meaning it couldn't pay for those services...
City Council members grilled outgoing CCDC leader Fred Maas on Monday about details of a deal that allows the agency to sequester $6 billion more in property taxes for downtown redevelopment.
Out of the Loop, in a Snit
by Randy Dotinga
Voice of San Diego
Nov. 16, 2010
When it comes to running the city, one might assume that the City Council wouldn't just be in the loop, it would be the loop. That would be a bad assumption, as the council learned last month when the city's downtown redevelopment agency worked out a deal with the state to sequester property tax money. The council had no idea what was going on.
The City Council, which thinks the agency went rogue, spent Monday trying to figure out what it didn't know and when it didn't know it. There was plenty of bipartisan agency-slamming and talk about whether the agency's head deserves to keep his job. It's a rather moot point: he's leaving.
Council, City Attorney Feast Again on Porkfest
November 15, 2010
by Liam Dillon
If the state Legislature is where the late-night downtown porkfest gets fattened up, San Diego's City Council is where it gets slaughtered.
For the second straight hearing, council members sliced and diced staff from the city's downtown redevelopment agency, the Centre City Development Corp., about secret negotiations that led to a last-minute state deal to eliminate limits on downtown redevelopment. The deal happened without the council's knowledge even though members were working on a plan to remove the limits themselves.
Last month, the council had requested a timeline of when key players knew about the deal, which allows the agency to collect $6 billion more in property taxes and potentially finance a new downtown stadium for the Chargers. Outgoing agency head Fred Maas, who had revealed previously that discussions about the deal began in August, attempted to do that Monday afternoon.
Maas said he spoke between five to 10 times with local Republican state Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, the provision's sponsor and he had briefed others on the deal.
But that — and a bland memo from Mayor Jerry Sanders' office also released Monday — wasn't enough. Councilman Carl DeMaio wanted to know about how the deal began, specifically contact between Maas and mayoral chief of staff Kris Michell. Maas refused to answer. DeMaio, in turn, openly wondered if he could fire Maas.
"I don't think I feel comfortable with Mr. Maas staying until the end of the year," DeMaio said.
Incidentally, Maas had just formalized his resignation effective at the end of the year, as the city is seeking to replace him with a permanent downtown redevelopment chief.
Had that not happened, Councilwoman Marti Emerald said, she might have sought Maas' removal sooner.
"I think there's probably some of what you're hearing too is that maybe it should be an immediate resignation," Emerald said. "No offense to the great volunteer work you've done, but this City Council is trying to repair the damage done by previous councils and mayors in doing deals behind closed doors that have gotten us into a lot of trouble."
City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, who also was kept in the dark about the deal, poked a hole in one of the main arguments made by its proponents. City Council, backers say, has the ultimate decision on how and if the city should spend the new money.
But there are restrictions to how that new money could be spent, Goldsmith pointed out. Had the deal not occurred, property tax dollars would have flowed directly to the city's day-to-day operating budget, meaning it could pay for police, fire and other city services. Now the money will be sequestered downtown, meaning it couldn't pay for those services...
Friday, October 15, 2010
Frye's Disgust at the Late Night Pork Fest; Marti Emerald stands with Frye
Frye's Disgust at the Late Night Pork Fest
October 15, 2010
by Scott Lewis
Voice of San Diego
Perhaps nobody was more angry about what happened last week when Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher and the Centre City Development Corp. just decided themselves to extend the life of redevelopment downtown than City Councilwoman Donna Frye.
Not only has she been demanding CCDC begin paying back the loans from the city that got downtown redevelopment started in the beginning, she's also been sticking her neck out for Proposition D, the tax increase paired with 10 financial reforms.
Her alliance with the mayor, once an arch rival, on that has been rather inspiring to see. But like a lot of us, she was startled to learn of the news from Sacramento that the deal had been done.
On Tuesday, she came up with the idea to send the governor a letter asking him to veto the legislation. As it turned out, the governor had yet to sign that part of the budget and she figured that if the city of San Diego officially sent him a letter asking him not to, he actually might not.
But it didn't happen.
Why? I told the story earlier of Councilman Kevin Faulconer grappling with the issue. He, like Frye, was so incensed by what Fletcher did that he just ... well ... couldn't bring himself to undo it.
But that ended up being dwarfed as a display of insecurity by what Council President Ben Hueso did. He had supported the idea of sending the letter to the governor but when the opportunity to try again — after Faulconer killed it — he balked.
Well, he didn't balk. He ran away. Seriously. After expressing his concern about it and saying he thought everyone should relax a little, he called a recess on the meeting and then disappeared. Since he runs the City Council meetings, Faulconer had to take over the dais.
Whatever bug Hueso caught also, then, landed in Councilman Todd Gloria's donut. Gloria suddenly decided that the discussion they'd been having about how outraged they were was enough for him. That is, just them bloviating in council chambers was enough to send a message to the state that they aren't going to take getting undermined like that anymore...
And Frye was angry. When I talked to her on the phone after the tumultuous day, I told her that I thought people might feel like they couldn't trust city leaders right when they're asking people to have faith in their pledges about how extensive the Prop. D reforms will be.
"I don't blame them," she said...."We sat through a very lengthy public process to assure the public that there would be a full blight study and a public process they could participate in. Not only was that not true. But at nighttime, they essentially went behind the back of the redevelopment agency members — which means the public — and completely thumbed their nose at the process and that is wrong."...
Wednesday, the letter went out, authored by Frye and Councilwoman Marti Emerald...
October 15, 2010
by Scott Lewis
Voice of San Diego
Perhaps nobody was more angry about what happened last week when Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher and the Centre City Development Corp. just decided themselves to extend the life of redevelopment downtown than City Councilwoman Donna Frye.
Not only has she been demanding CCDC begin paying back the loans from the city that got downtown redevelopment started in the beginning, she's also been sticking her neck out for Proposition D, the tax increase paired with 10 financial reforms.
Her alliance with the mayor, once an arch rival, on that has been rather inspiring to see. But like a lot of us, she was startled to learn of the news from Sacramento that the deal had been done.
On Tuesday, she came up with the idea to send the governor a letter asking him to veto the legislation. As it turned out, the governor had yet to sign that part of the budget and she figured that if the city of San Diego officially sent him a letter asking him not to, he actually might not.
But it didn't happen.
Why? I told the story earlier of Councilman Kevin Faulconer grappling with the issue. He, like Frye, was so incensed by what Fletcher did that he just ... well ... couldn't bring himself to undo it.
But that ended up being dwarfed as a display of insecurity by what Council President Ben Hueso did. He had supported the idea of sending the letter to the governor but when the opportunity to try again — after Faulconer killed it — he balked.
Well, he didn't balk. He ran away. Seriously. After expressing his concern about it and saying he thought everyone should relax a little, he called a recess on the meeting and then disappeared. Since he runs the City Council meetings, Faulconer had to take over the dais.
Whatever bug Hueso caught also, then, landed in Councilman Todd Gloria's donut. Gloria suddenly decided that the discussion they'd been having about how outraged they were was enough for him. That is, just them bloviating in council chambers was enough to send a message to the state that they aren't going to take getting undermined like that anymore...
And Frye was angry. When I talked to her on the phone after the tumultuous day, I told her that I thought people might feel like they couldn't trust city leaders right when they're asking people to have faith in their pledges about how extensive the Prop. D reforms will be.
"I don't blame them," she said...."We sat through a very lengthy public process to assure the public that there would be a full blight study and a public process they could participate in. Not only was that not true. But at nighttime, they essentially went behind the back of the redevelopment agency members — which means the public — and completely thumbed their nose at the process and that is wrong."...
Wednesday, the letter went out, authored by Frye and Councilwoman Marti Emerald...
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Ethics Commission Fines Graham $32,000
See all posts re Nancy Graham.
Ethics Commission Fines Graham $32,000
Former CCDC President Nancy Graham at an Ethics Commission hearing in May
By Rob Davis
Voice of San Diego
August 12, 2010
Nancy Graham, the former Centre City Development Corp. president, was fined $32,000 Thursday by the San Diego Ethics Commission, ending a two-year saga that derailed nearly $2 billion in downtown projects, drew FBI attention and almost took down the city's downtown redevelopment agency.
Graham, who didn't attend the hearing, was penalized for failing to report some $3.5 million she received from a private business deal done in Florida before moving here in 2005. The commission found that she violated city ethics laws 18 times.
Her partners in that deal, which included the Lennar Corp., paid Graham while she was CCDC's president. But she never reported that income on her annual conflict-of-interest disclosures. Without any stated conflict, she went on to negotiate the terms of a downtown hotel proposed on land Lennar owned near Petco Park.
The issue went unnoticed until I asked her about it in spring 2008.
She told me that the private deal was long in her past, that she hadn't had any interest in the private deal for years. She said she'd sold her interests in N-K Ventures, the business she owned with her former husband.
"I have no interest in N-K or anything they do," Graham told me in 2008. "It is a bullshit argument by either sour grapes losers or other people."
That claim proved false.
In fact, it was Graham's own testimony -- this time under oath, not to me -- that unraveled her changing story. We found a sworn deposition she'd given in 2007. In it, Graham acknowledged receiving $125,000 from the Lennar deal while she was CCDC's president.
At the same time she was negotiating a deal with Lennar, the company was paying her profits from the old business deal.
That drew the Ethics Commission's attention, prompting an investigation that started in the summer of 2008 and ended Thursday night.
A three-member panel of commissioners had proposed fining Graham $25,000. But two other commissioners, John O'Neill and Bud Wetzler, argued for more. O'Neill pointed to Graham's public statements and called them disingenuous. He recalled a statement she made during a day-long ethics hearing in May when she claimed she didn't know that building a hotel near Petco Park would be profitable to its developers.
O'Neill held up a blue post-it note he'd written in his notes about that claim. It simply said: "Absurd."
"The record does show an attempt to deceive," O'Neill said.
Wetzler said Graham's actions, coming at the top levels of the organization, were "one of the most serious of all violations we could have."
"I'm convinced," he said, "that someplace along the line she shifted from accidental to intent."
A $36,000 fine was entertained and rejected; the five commissioners had to unanimously agree, and two did not.
So they deliberated quietly and settled on $32,000 -- less than the maximum $90,000 that could've been levied but more than originally proposed. The fine was unanimously approved.
Graham was fined $4,000 each on two violations: Preparing a staff report on the hotel project and discussing it at a CCDC board meeting. She was fined $1,500 apiece for 16 other violations, including sending e-mails and participating in negotiations about the project.
It's the second-largest fine in the Ethics Commission's nine-year history
The Question on Nancy Graham: Why Was She Hired in the First Place?
By Don Bauder
July 26, 2008
Nancy Graham, who recently resigned as head of Centre City Development
Corp., has left the state, supposedly to be with her ill mother. The
city attorney's office has been investigating her for a month, and now
CCDC will hold its own investigation, supposedly by an outside lawyer.
Questions abound on whether she was at all influential in a developer
named the Related Group getting the nod on a planned CCDC project at
Seventh and Market.
Before CCDC hired her, it should have asked
questions. On Nov. 23 of 2005, I reported in a Reader column that
Graham's successor as mayor of West Palm Beach, Florida, had charged
that she was too cozy with Related Group. She didn't arrive in San
Diego until the following month.
While she was mayor, her signature project was done by Related.
Then she went into the private sector
with her husband (from whom she is now divorced), and did a project
with Related. I have subsequently learned that her ex-husband is still
owed money by Related.
On April 23 of this year, I wrote a column on
the Seventh and Market project; Karen-Huff-Willis, head of the Black
Historical Society of San Diego, and activist Ian Trowbridge,
questioned whether she had been involved in Related negotiations.
Graham told me she had been in some meetings in which an agreement had
not been reached reached, but she did not negotiate the deal. The CCDC
backed up her claim. Huff-Willis this week threatened to sue CCDC. She
says that under Section 1090 of state law, public officials must be
guided by the public interest, not personal interest...
Ethics Commission Fines Graham $32,000
Former CCDC President Nancy Graham at an Ethics Commission hearing in May
By Rob Davis
Voice of San Diego
August 12, 2010
Nancy Graham, the former Centre City Development Corp. president, was fined $32,000 Thursday by the San Diego Ethics Commission, ending a two-year saga that derailed nearly $2 billion in downtown projects, drew FBI attention and almost took down the city's downtown redevelopment agency.
Graham, who didn't attend the hearing, was penalized for failing to report some $3.5 million she received from a private business deal done in Florida before moving here in 2005. The commission found that she violated city ethics laws 18 times.
Her partners in that deal, which included the Lennar Corp., paid Graham while she was CCDC's president. But she never reported that income on her annual conflict-of-interest disclosures. Without any stated conflict, she went on to negotiate the terms of a downtown hotel proposed on land Lennar owned near Petco Park.
The issue went unnoticed until I asked her about it in spring 2008.
She told me that the private deal was long in her past, that she hadn't had any interest in the private deal for years. She said she'd sold her interests in N-K Ventures, the business she owned with her former husband.
"I have no interest in N-K or anything they do," Graham told me in 2008. "It is a bullshit argument by either sour grapes losers or other people."
That claim proved false.
In fact, it was Graham's own testimony -- this time under oath, not to me -- that unraveled her changing story. We found a sworn deposition she'd given in 2007. In it, Graham acknowledged receiving $125,000 from the Lennar deal while she was CCDC's president.
At the same time she was negotiating a deal with Lennar, the company was paying her profits from the old business deal.
That drew the Ethics Commission's attention, prompting an investigation that started in the summer of 2008 and ended Thursday night.
A three-member panel of commissioners had proposed fining Graham $25,000. But two other commissioners, John O'Neill and Bud Wetzler, argued for more. O'Neill pointed to Graham's public statements and called them disingenuous. He recalled a statement she made during a day-long ethics hearing in May when she claimed she didn't know that building a hotel near Petco Park would be profitable to its developers.
O'Neill held up a blue post-it note he'd written in his notes about that claim. It simply said: "Absurd."
"The record does show an attempt to deceive," O'Neill said.
Wetzler said Graham's actions, coming at the top levels of the organization, were "one of the most serious of all violations we could have."
"I'm convinced," he said, "that someplace along the line she shifted from accidental to intent."
A $36,000 fine was entertained and rejected; the five commissioners had to unanimously agree, and two did not.
So they deliberated quietly and settled on $32,000 -- less than the maximum $90,000 that could've been levied but more than originally proposed. The fine was unanimously approved.
Graham was fined $4,000 each on two violations: Preparing a staff report on the hotel project and discussing it at a CCDC board meeting. She was fined $1,500 apiece for 16 other violations, including sending e-mails and participating in negotiations about the project.
It's the second-largest fine in the Ethics Commission's nine-year history
The Question on Nancy Graham: Why Was She Hired in the First Place?
By Don Bauder
July 26, 2008
Nancy Graham, who recently resigned as head of Centre City Development
Corp., has left the state, supposedly to be with her ill mother. The
city attorney's office has been investigating her for a month, and now
CCDC will hold its own investigation, supposedly by an outside lawyer.
Questions abound on whether she was at all influential in a developer
named the Related Group getting the nod on a planned CCDC project at
Seventh and Market.
Before CCDC hired her, it should have asked
questions. On Nov. 23 of 2005, I reported in a Reader column that
Graham's successor as mayor of West Palm Beach, Florida, had charged
that she was too cozy with Related Group. She didn't arrive in San
Diego until the following month.
While she was mayor, her signature project was done by Related.
Then she went into the private sector
with her husband (from whom she is now divorced), and did a project
with Related. I have subsequently learned that her ex-husband is still
owed money by Related.
On April 23 of this year, I wrote a column on
the Seventh and Market project; Karen-Huff-Willis, head of the Black
Historical Society of San Diego, and activist Ian Trowbridge,
questioned whether she had been involved in Related negotiations.
Graham told me she had been in some meetings in which an agreement had
not been reached reached, but she did not negotiate the deal. The CCDC
backed up her claim. Huff-Willis this week threatened to sue CCDC. She
says that under Section 1090 of state law, public officials must be
guided by the public interest, not personal interest...
Friday, May 21, 2010
Ethics Official Says Nancy Graham's Actions Had 'Appearance of Corruption'
Perhaps Gil Cabrera wasn't the right person to head the San Diego Ethics Commission. He has made a career defending those accused of white-collar wrongdoing. Now that he's gone, the Commission is at last going after real corruption rather than small mistakes in reporting campaign finances.
* San Diego news, analysis and conversation.
* Government
Ethics Official Says Graham's Actions Had 'Appearance of Corruption'
May 20, 2010
Voice of San Diego
By ROB DAVIS
Sitting a few feet from Nancy Graham, one of her former bosses testified Thursday of how hard the former Centre City Development Corp. president worked in San Diego. Came in early, CCDC chairman Fred Maas said. Stayed late.
When voiceofsandiego.org first raised questions in 2008 about Graham's undisclosed financial ties to developers doing business downtown, Maas gave Graham the benefit of the doubt, he told the San Diego Ethics Commission at a daylong Thursday hearing. She was the agency's president, he said, and he held a "kinship" with her.
Maas recalled asking Graham directly about the financial relationship: Did she know where her past business venture's income came from?
"I was told absolutely not," Maas said. So he stood up for her.
Then VOSD reported that Graham earned more than $3 million from a Florida development deal. Lennar Corp., which paid her from that deal, owned land in downtown San Diego, the site of a proposed hotel that Graham was negotiating about.
Graham never reported receiving those millions on her annual conflict disclosure forms here. If she did, she would've had to recuse herself from negotiations designed to clear the way for a hotel on the land adjacent to Petco Park. If the hotel had been built, Lennar and another developer would've made about $100 million...
* San Diego news, analysis and conversation.
* Government
Ethics Official Says Graham's Actions Had 'Appearance of Corruption'
May 20, 2010
Voice of San Diego
By ROB DAVIS
Sitting a few feet from Nancy Graham, one of her former bosses testified Thursday of how hard the former Centre City Development Corp. president worked in San Diego. Came in early, CCDC chairman Fred Maas said. Stayed late.
When voiceofsandiego.org first raised questions in 2008 about Graham's undisclosed financial ties to developers doing business downtown, Maas gave Graham the benefit of the doubt, he told the San Diego Ethics Commission at a daylong Thursday hearing. She was the agency's president, he said, and he held a "kinship" with her.
Maas recalled asking Graham directly about the financial relationship: Did she know where her past business venture's income came from?
"I was told absolutely not," Maas said. So he stood up for her.
Then VOSD reported that Graham earned more than $3 million from a Florida development deal. Lennar Corp., which paid her from that deal, owned land in downtown San Diego, the site of a proposed hotel that Graham was negotiating about.
Graham never reported receiving those millions on her annual conflict disclosure forms here. If she did, she would've had to recuse herself from negotiations designed to clear the way for a hotel on the land adjacent to Petco Park. If the hotel had been built, Lennar and another developer would've made about $100 million...
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Public Records Request for CCDC's Nancy Graham e-mails finally granted, sort of
Link: 404
Voice of San Diego
by Rob Davis
November 25, 2008
E-mailWatch has ended. The Centre City Development Corp. recently turned over one final batch of e-mails sent or received by its former president, Nancy Graham.
We sought all of her e-mails after April 1, looking to determine what Graham had communicated as questions began being raised about her financial relationship with developers with business pending downtown. As my investigation continued, what did she tell people around her?
Turns out, not much. Or at least not much that was disclosed in the e-mails I fought for months to obtain.
Here's how the e-mails look by the numbers:
5,205: E-mails Graham sent or received between April 1 and her July 24 resignation.
0: E-mails that CCDC's attorneys from the Los Angeles-based law firm Kane Ballmer Berkman said were public records before our fight began in September.
4,388: E-mails that CCDC's attorneys ended up turning over after two months of back-and-forth.
413: E-mails that were spam or duplicates.
404: E-mails that were withheld and kept secret.
CCDC attorney Murray Kane offered this breakdown of why the 404 e-mails were withheld: 260 were attorney-client privileged; 35 were part of the deliberative process; 40 were confidential or related to on-going negotiations; 40 contained personnel, medical or "similar privacy matters"; 30 were preliminary notes or drafts not kept in the regular course of business.
CCDC withheld some responses to e-mails it disclosed. For example, Richard Ledford, a local lobbyist, sent Graham a May 13 e-mail entitled "Love That Press". It was written four days after our initial story documenting Graham's past business relationship with the affiliate of a developer with business pending downtown. The story was the first in that led to Graham's resignation and misdemeanor criminal charges being filed against her.
"I leave the country for a couple of weeks and you hit the press..." Ledford wrote. "you just gotta stay out of trouble! Ok, now don't shout, but my St. Paul client wanted to know if there are any fully entitled condo projects for sale in the redevelopment area. Yeah yeah yeah... don't start on me!"
Graham replied the same day. CCDC never provided her reply or the specific legal reason it was withheld.
For those who have been following E-mailWatch, at least two changes have resulted from our pursuit of Graham's e-mails.
Fred Maas, the CCDC board chairman, discovered from the e-mails that Graham had bought $18,000 in office furniture for CCDC's move to new offices earlier this year. That furniture is now supposed to be returned and replaced with less-costly furniture.
Maas said that CCDC is also taking steps to streamline the disclosure of e-mails requested in the future. Maas said CCDC's policy starting in 2009 will be to disclose all e-mails sent to staff members. Any e-mails containing confidential information will be directed to a special e-mail account; everything will be released otherwise, Maas said.
-- ROB DAVIS
Voice of San Diego
by Rob Davis
November 25, 2008
E-mailWatch has ended. The Centre City Development Corp. recently turned over one final batch of e-mails sent or received by its former president, Nancy Graham.
We sought all of her e-mails after April 1, looking to determine what Graham had communicated as questions began being raised about her financial relationship with developers with business pending downtown. As my investigation continued, what did she tell people around her?
Turns out, not much. Or at least not much that was disclosed in the e-mails I fought for months to obtain.
Here's how the e-mails look by the numbers:
5,205: E-mails Graham sent or received between April 1 and her July 24 resignation.
0: E-mails that CCDC's attorneys from the Los Angeles-based law firm Kane Ballmer Berkman said were public records before our fight began in September.
4,388: E-mails that CCDC's attorneys ended up turning over after two months of back-and-forth.
413: E-mails that were spam or duplicates.
404: E-mails that were withheld and kept secret.
CCDC attorney Murray Kane offered this breakdown of why the 404 e-mails were withheld: 260 were attorney-client privileged; 35 were part of the deliberative process; 40 were confidential or related to on-going negotiations; 40 contained personnel, medical or "similar privacy matters"; 30 were preliminary notes or drafts not kept in the regular course of business.
CCDC withheld some responses to e-mails it disclosed. For example, Richard Ledford, a local lobbyist, sent Graham a May 13 e-mail entitled "Love That Press". It was written four days after our initial story documenting Graham's past business relationship with the affiliate of a developer with business pending downtown. The story was the first in that led to Graham's resignation and misdemeanor criminal charges being filed against her.
"I leave the country for a couple of weeks and you hit the press..." Ledford wrote. "you just gotta stay out of trouble! Ok, now don't shout, but my St. Paul client wanted to know if there are any fully entitled condo projects for sale in the redevelopment area. Yeah yeah yeah... don't start on me!"
Graham replied the same day. CCDC never provided her reply or the specific legal reason it was withheld.
For those who have been following E-mailWatch, at least two changes have resulted from our pursuit of Graham's e-mails.
Fred Maas, the CCDC board chairman, discovered from the e-mails that Graham had bought $18,000 in office furniture for CCDC's move to new offices earlier this year. That furniture is now supposed to be returned and replaced with less-costly furniture.
Maas said that CCDC is also taking steps to streamline the disclosure of e-mails requested in the future. Maas said CCDC's policy starting in 2009 will be to disclose all e-mails sent to staff members. Any e-mails containing confidential information will be directed to a special e-mail account; everything will be released otherwise, Maas said.
-- ROB DAVIS
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Do CCDC officials cover up until they can't cover up any more?
The following story from Voice of San Diego contains an audio link.
Voice of San Diego
Outrageous
If you're following the Nancy Graham story, you should listen to her comments at an April board meeting of the Centre City Development Corp., the downtown redevelopment agency she once led. (Thanks to Ian Trowbridge and Pat Flannery for the audio.)
AUDIO: Nancy Graham's Statement
At the April 23 CCDC meeting, Graham read a statement into the record about concerns that had been raised that Graham may have had a conflict by participating in the negotiations of a proposed downtown skyscraper. CCDC's board defended Graham at the meeting.
(We later revealed that Graham had received money from an affiliate of the project's developer at the same time she was involved in those negotiations.)
In April, Graham said:
I can guarantee you and I think you all know me well enough to know right now that there's no truth to those allegations whatsoever. ...
Most importantly, I think what they were not aware of is that I did not negotiate this deal, but brought in two people that have impeccable credentials. ... I asked Jerry (Trimble) and Murray (Kane) to come in and negotiate this particular transaction. ... I personally think it would be an absolute insult to the members of the negotiating team to suggest that in any way they would not work to protect CCDC and the Redevelopment Agency's interests or that I could sway them to do something. These guys have incredible integrity. I did not negotiate this transaction. However, having said that, while I think the whole issue is a red herring like they say in law school, I nevertheless feel it's important for me to recuse myself from participating in any further action or discussions with regard to 7th and Market.
That statement and decision drew effusive praise from CCDC board member Jennifer LeSar:
I think it's incredibly unfortunate. I've always found Nancy to be incredibly transparent, very ethical, I've never been surprised by anything that she's done, she's an excellent communicator and has been always forthcoming about the things that have been going on in her life that could have any impact. And I just find this really, really unfortunate. For whoever's behind this behavior, I think it's atrocious. And I guess I just want to say that I think Nancy is taking the higher road here. ... Nancy, I guess I just want you to know, I'm very proud of you. I talk about you in places I do this kind of work. I think we're lucky to have you. In my mind, these going-ons don't taint my impression of you, your leadership here or the work you've done.
CCDC board chairman Fred Maas weighed in, too:
Some of the things that have been said and the tactics and conduct of people who have tried to impugn and indict Nancy has been outrageous. It's been upsetting to me as a person, let alone as chair, for the kind of tactics and untruths which have been circulated regarding this project. ... To make these accusations by whoever for whatever reasons I think is an outrage and it is worthy of scorn by this board and everybody in the community. She has my unqualified support.
Both Maas and LeSar have since been more contrite.
-- ROB DAVIS
Monday, September 8, 2008
The Un-Refuted Claim
At an April board meeting, former Centre City Development Corp. President Nancy Graham addressed concerns about her potential conflict of interest with the affiliate of a business partner working to build a city-subsidized skyscraper downtown.
"I can guarantee you and I think you all know me well enough to know right now that there's no truth to those allegations whatsoever," she said. "... I did not negotiate this transaction."
But as we've since documented, Graham was in fact involved in negotiations -- at the same time she was receiving money from the developer's affiliate.
James Lough, an outside attorney CCDC hired to investigate Graham's involvement, drew the same conclusion. In a staff report for Wednesday's CCDC meeting, Lough wrote: "Ms. Graham was involved in the negotiations of the potential [development and disposition agreement]."
Lough's conclusion came after reviewing CCDC files and interviewing the agency's staff. But the CCDC staff -- many of whom also had been involved in the negotiations -- did not publicly raise any concerns about the obvious discrepancies in Graham's explanation.
I asked Fred Maas, the CCDC chairman, whether he was concerned by the lack of disclosure. He said:
Lots of mistakes and unfortunate circumstances happened during that period of time. In retrospect I think we all wish we had done things differently, but we didn't. We recognize the omissions and errors and are doing our best to correct them.
-- ROB DAVIS
September 8, 2008
Voice of San Diego
Outrageous
If you're following the Nancy Graham story, you should listen to her comments at an April board meeting of the Centre City Development Corp., the downtown redevelopment agency she once led. (Thanks to Ian Trowbridge and Pat Flannery for the audio.)
AUDIO: Nancy Graham's Statement
At the April 23 CCDC meeting, Graham read a statement into the record about concerns that had been raised that Graham may have had a conflict by participating in the negotiations of a proposed downtown skyscraper. CCDC's board defended Graham at the meeting.
(We later revealed that Graham had received money from an affiliate of the project's developer at the same time she was involved in those negotiations.)
In April, Graham said:
I can guarantee you and I think you all know me well enough to know right now that there's no truth to those allegations whatsoever. ...
Most importantly, I think what they were not aware of is that I did not negotiate this deal, but brought in two people that have impeccable credentials. ... I asked Jerry (Trimble) and Murray (Kane) to come in and negotiate this particular transaction. ... I personally think it would be an absolute insult to the members of the negotiating team to suggest that in any way they would not work to protect CCDC and the Redevelopment Agency's interests or that I could sway them to do something. These guys have incredible integrity. I did not negotiate this transaction. However, having said that, while I think the whole issue is a red herring like they say in law school, I nevertheless feel it's important for me to recuse myself from participating in any further action or discussions with regard to 7th and Market.
That statement and decision drew effusive praise from CCDC board member Jennifer LeSar:
I think it's incredibly unfortunate. I've always found Nancy to be incredibly transparent, very ethical, I've never been surprised by anything that she's done, she's an excellent communicator and has been always forthcoming about the things that have been going on in her life that could have any impact. And I just find this really, really unfortunate. For whoever's behind this behavior, I think it's atrocious. And I guess I just want to say that I think Nancy is taking the higher road here. ... Nancy, I guess I just want you to know, I'm very proud of you. I talk about you in places I do this kind of work. I think we're lucky to have you. In my mind, these going-ons don't taint my impression of you, your leadership here or the work you've done.
CCDC board chairman Fred Maas weighed in, too:
Some of the things that have been said and the tactics and conduct of people who have tried to impugn and indict Nancy has been outrageous. It's been upsetting to me as a person, let alone as chair, for the kind of tactics and untruths which have been circulated regarding this project. ... To make these accusations by whoever for whatever reasons I think is an outrage and it is worthy of scorn by this board and everybody in the community. She has my unqualified support.
Both Maas and LeSar have since been more contrite.
-- ROB DAVIS
Monday, September 8, 2008
The Un-Refuted Claim
At an April board meeting, former Centre City Development Corp. President Nancy Graham addressed concerns about her potential conflict of interest with the affiliate of a business partner working to build a city-subsidized skyscraper downtown.
"I can guarantee you and I think you all know me well enough to know right now that there's no truth to those allegations whatsoever," she said. "... I did not negotiate this transaction."
But as we've since documented, Graham was in fact involved in negotiations -- at the same time she was receiving money from the developer's affiliate.
James Lough, an outside attorney CCDC hired to investigate Graham's involvement, drew the same conclusion. In a staff report for Wednesday's CCDC meeting, Lough wrote: "Ms. Graham was involved in the negotiations of the potential [development and disposition agreement]."
Lough's conclusion came after reviewing CCDC files and interviewing the agency's staff. But the CCDC staff -- many of whom also had been involved in the negotiations -- did not publicly raise any concerns about the obvious discrepancies in Graham's explanation.
I asked Fred Maas, the CCDC chairman, whether he was concerned by the lack of disclosure. He said:
Lots of mistakes and unfortunate circumstances happened during that period of time. In retrospect I think we all wish we had done things differently, but we didn't. We recognize the omissions and errors and are doing our best to correct them.
-- ROB DAVIS
September 8, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Is the CCDC a charitable organization for San Diego developers?
By Ian Trowbridge, Mission Hills
Voice of San Diego
August 29, 2008
On Tuesday, the mayor will ask the City Council to confirm his reappointments of three CCDC Board members, Fred Maas, Kim Kilkenny and Robert McNeely whose terms have expired even as several investigations of CCDC are underway and it is important to know whether any of these board members are implicated in the growing scandal at CCDC. With the collusion of Council President Scott Peters, these reappointments have been placed on the consent calendar.
..Maas is a Republican political operative turned developer and a confidante of Nancy Graham -- meeting with her according to her calendar for the whole of Wednesday mornings for weeks.
As befits a political operative, he currently has the role of distancing the CCDC Board from Graham even though they appointed her, gave her a $65,000 bonus for unknown services, and allowed her to run CCDC as if it were a charitable organization for downtown developers.
Maas refuses to release documents detailing the goals set for Graham and how she achieved them to warrant the $65,000 bonus even though the board violated the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54957) in conducting and voting on her compensation in closed session. Kilkenny is an executive of a major developer of Otay Ranch who seems to have little concept that he is supposed to protect the public interest. McNeely was on the selection committee that chose Nancy Graham...
Voice of San Diego
August 29, 2008
On Tuesday, the mayor will ask the City Council to confirm his reappointments of three CCDC Board members, Fred Maas, Kim Kilkenny and Robert McNeely whose terms have expired even as several investigations of CCDC are underway and it is important to know whether any of these board members are implicated in the growing scandal at CCDC. With the collusion of Council President Scott Peters, these reappointments have been placed on the consent calendar.
..Maas is a Republican political operative turned developer and a confidante of Nancy Graham -- meeting with her according to her calendar for the whole of Wednesday mornings for weeks.
As befits a political operative, he currently has the role of distancing the CCDC Board from Graham even though they appointed her, gave her a $65,000 bonus for unknown services, and allowed her to run CCDC as if it were a charitable organization for downtown developers.
Maas refuses to release documents detailing the goals set for Graham and how she achieved them to warrant the $65,000 bonus even though the board violated the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54957) in conducting and voting on her compensation in closed session. Kilkenny is an executive of a major developer of Otay Ranch who seems to have little concept that he is supposed to protect the public interest. McNeely was on the selection committee that chose Nancy Graham...
CCDC Attorney Resigns
CCDC Attorney Resigns
Voice of San Diego
By Rob Davis
Aug. 29, 2008
Helen Holmes Peak, the corporate counsel for the Centre City Development Corp., has resigned, citing concerns about a potential conflict of interest.
Peak, who is a partner with Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak LLP, an Escondido law firm, participated in discussions about the proposed Ballpark Village from 2005 to 2007, while one of her partners represented Lennar Corp., one of the project's developers.
She did not disclose the relationship on her statements of economic interest until 2007. Even when she did report it, she did not recuse herself from meetings and discussions about Ballpark Village, a massive mixed-use project proposed by JMI Realty and Lennar.
Peak disclosed receiving more than $10,000 from Lennar in 2007, according to her annual conflict-of-interest disclosure forms. But she didn't subsequently recuse herself from discussions about Ballpark Village, saying that she didn't know Lennar was involved.
Lennar is essentially a silent partner in the project; it is part owner of the underlying land but is not listed documentation submitted about the project...
Voice of San Diego
By Rob Davis
Aug. 29, 2008
Helen Holmes Peak, the corporate counsel for the Centre City Development Corp., has resigned, citing concerns about a potential conflict of interest.
Peak, who is a partner with Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak LLP, an Escondido law firm, participated in discussions about the proposed Ballpark Village from 2005 to 2007, while one of her partners represented Lennar Corp., one of the project's developers.
She did not disclose the relationship on her statements of economic interest until 2007. Even when she did report it, she did not recuse herself from meetings and discussions about Ballpark Village, a massive mixed-use project proposed by JMI Realty and Lennar.
Peak disclosed receiving more than $10,000 from Lennar in 2007, according to her annual conflict-of-interest disclosure forms. But she didn't subsequently recuse herself from discussions about Ballpark Village, saying that she didn't know Lennar was involved.
Lennar is essentially a silent partner in the project; it is part owner of the underlying land but is not listed documentation submitted about the project...
Monday, August 25, 2008
Shocking! Nancy Graham lied to the press!
Voice of San Diego reports: "When she resigned July 24, [CCDC'S Nancy]Graham said she was in Tennessee, caring for her elderly mother..."
The Palm Beach Post reports:
"Her 83-year-old mom, Virginia Roskan, has Parkinson's. But when Page Two called Roskan's home Thursday, Graham's sister said she had no idea where Graham was.
"'She's not here right now, and I have no idea where Nancy is,' Kay Smith said from Lebanon, Tenn. 'She's been traveling a lot. I haven't seen her in a while...'"
The Palm Beach Post reports:
"Her 83-year-old mom, Virginia Roskan, has Parkinson's. But when Page Two called Roskan's home Thursday, Graham's sister said she had no idea where Graham was.
"'She's not here right now, and I have no idea where Nancy is,' Kay Smith said from Lebanon, Tenn. 'She's been traveling a lot. I haven't seen her in a while...'"
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Dealings of former president Nancy Graham of CCDC to be examined
See all posts re Nancy Graham.
CCDC Chairman Fred Maas wants to conduct an investigation into the business connections of former CCDC president Nancy Graham (left), who resigned on July 24, 2008.
ROB DAVIS of Voice of San Diego wrote on July 25, 2008:
"Fred Maas, the chairman of the Centre City Development Corp.'s board of directors, said today he will seek a "fact-finding mission" to examine the circumstances surrounding former CCDC President Nancy Graham's involvement in the development project at 7th Avenue and Market Street downtown...
"Graham, who resigned Thursday, had previously been a business partner with a sister company of the 7th and Market developer, Related of California. The company, along with CityLink Investment Corp., is leading efforts to build the 41-story, $409-million downtown skyscraper. Under the current terms of the deal, which has not been finalized, the city of San Diego via CCDC will give the developers an $8.7 million subsidy to construct affordable housing in the building...
"Graham's resignation comes eight months after signing a three-year contract with CCDC. She does not get a severance and walks away from more than $496,000 in salary, as the contract set her annual pay at $248,000."
CCDC Chairman Fred Maas wants to conduct an investigation into the business connections of former CCDC president Nancy Graham (left), who resigned on July 24, 2008.ROB DAVIS of Voice of San Diego wrote on July 25, 2008:
"Fred Maas, the chairman of the Centre City Development Corp.'s board of directors, said today he will seek a "fact-finding mission" to examine the circumstances surrounding former CCDC President Nancy Graham's involvement in the development project at 7th Avenue and Market Street downtown...
"Graham, who resigned Thursday, had previously been a business partner with a sister company of the 7th and Market developer, Related of California. The company, along with CityLink Investment Corp., is leading efforts to build the 41-story, $409-million downtown skyscraper. Under the current terms of the deal, which has not been finalized, the city of San Diego via CCDC will give the developers an $8.7 million subsidy to construct affordable housing in the building...
"Graham's resignation comes eight months after signing a three-year contract with CCDC. She does not get a severance and walks away from more than $496,000 in salary, as the contract set her annual pay at $248,000."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)