Lancaster, Pennsylvania
|
QUOTE: We did it solely to rescue the closed former Watt & Shand building when no one else would do it. Not true. There was at least one other firm bid that matched the PSP's, but Charlie Smithgall refused to consider it. There was also a firm agreement for HACC to take over the property, but again it was killed by Charlie Smithgall. QUOTE: We responded again when our government and community leaders asked us to wait and not pursue other uses for our building, while they defended against an endless progression of mean-spirited lawsuits by local hoteliers. Which were settled when the County threatened to counter-sue NEARLY TWO YEARS AGO. What have you been doing since then? QUOTE: As a community we stood united and identified this project. I thought the "community" was the people, not a few individuals in positions of power who are primarily interested in promoting and protecting their special interests. If you were so interested in the "community", then why was this project never subject to a county-wide vote? QUOTE: Since purchasing the Watt & Shand Building, we have spent $2.35 million, and counting, to secure, insure, maintain and even decorate the building for the holidays. We have spent $3 million, and counting, for architecture/engineering plans, development and legal fees How do you account for the millions in loans you have already received specifically for this project? QUOTE: We have committed $35 million to the project: $10 million in cash, $1 million in interest income and lease payments to repay a $24 million bond that will be used to build the hotel shell In your public presentations you stated this will be $10 million in EQUITY, to come from profits to be made from the operation of the hotel. There is no indication that you will be putting $10 million in cash into this project. QUOTE: To imply or conclude that PSP has requested public support without adequate public disclosure and scrutiny flatly misrepresents the truth. This project has been scrutinized, under a public microscope, for five years. Yet you refuse to answer all of the County Commissioner's questions. The only definition of "adequate" when dealing with taxpayer dollars is FULL AND COMPLETE, a test that you have repeatedly failed to meet. QUOTE: The public agency created by the county and city and entrusted by our community to assure the public’s interest, the LCCCA, for five years has held routine monthly public meetings to which all citizens were invited and welcome to comment. By throwing a pie at a citizen who was trying to make a comment? Just like at City Council meetings, NO CITIZEN'S INPUT WAS EVER SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED. You know this as well as I do. QUOTE: As any reader of this message knows, the LCCCA has been a strong negotiator on behalf of the citizens of Lancaster, having used several independent consultants to review our financial projections and to negotiate with PSP. I suppose that is why the LCCCA was FORCED to use your choice of management when you threatened to pull out of the project, after the LCCCA had made a definite choice to use a competing management company for the convention center. QUOTE: PSP and the LCCCA have given numerous public presentations to the Lancaster county commissioners, the City Council of the City of Lancaster, the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Lancaster (RACL) and the School District of Lancaster’s board. None of which contain any independent evidence - other than the discredited PricewaterhouseCoopers report and its successors - that this project makes economic sense. You never even bothered to spend the money for a feasibility study. QUOTE: LCCCA has engaged two nationally recognized consulting firms to evaluate the feasibility of the Lancaster County Convention Center. PSP engaged one of the nation’s leading consultants specializing in hotel feasibility. Claims that these studies are flawed, are not, in our view, credible. Having read the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, it is very clear that this is a MARKETING study, based on information provided by groups interested in promoting their industry. All of the conclusions of the PWC report that considered factors outside of Lancaster have been proven over the last five years to be inflated several times over. The two reports since then used the PWC report as a starting point. There can be no doubt that these studies are NOT credible. QUOTE: These analyses were disclosed publicly on multiple occasions, including during public presentations to the School Board and City Council. Instead of asking PSP and the LCCCA why we haven’t answered the commissioners’ questions, we suggest that the people who elected them ask the commissioners why they continue to claim their questions have not been answered. So where are these answers? Or, don't you plan on revealing them to the public? The answers provided to the commissioners by the LCCCA were described by Attorney Howard Kelin at a public meeting at the Farm and Home center as incomplete and deceptive. I personally counted less than thirty answers to the 57 questions, and many of these "answers" skirted the issues. Post these answers on your web site, then we can talk about them. QUOTE: PSP will be responsible for $35 million of the cost of construction. This includes the $10 million in equity we will invest to turn an empty shell into the full-service Lancaster Marriott at Penn Square, our obligation to pay a $24 million bond via our lease payments to our landlord, the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Lancaster (RACL) and the reinvestment of $1 million of interest income. BUT NO CASH. $10 million in "equity"; what is that, but money not made yet? And "$1 million of interest income"? Interest on what money? QUOTE: As our public sector partners recently observed, if a written commitment backed by letters of credit that guarantee repayment of the cost to build the hotel shell is not a private-sector investment in this project, millions of average homeowners will be greatly surprised by the news. The key is "repayment of the cost to build the hotel shell". This is TAXPAYER DOLLARS you are talking about. I cannot understand why the PSP, which originally committted upwards of $40 million to this project, now wants the public to provide ALL of the up-front money. QUOTE: Here are the facts so that you can draw your own conclusions: the hotel and convention center project will be built with 73 percent public funding and 27 percent private funding. If we focus on just the hotel, PSP will invest more than 50 percent of the cost to build the Lancaster Marriott at Penn Square. This is true only IF you consider a 20 year time period, and IF the hotel turns a profit. If the PSP cannot meet its "lease payments", the taxpayers will be responsible. QUOTE: PSP has not received a cent of revenue related to this project. But you have received millions of dollars in loans. What happened to that money? QUOTE: The $6.8 million that RACL will pay to PSP comprises three components: $1.5 million for the building itself, reimbursing us for expenses to hold the building for seven years and buying development work we already have purchased that will benefit RACL. It does not include a single cent of profit. Once received, we will reinvest the $6.8 million plus an additional $3.2 million as equity in the hotel tower. So you expect the taxpayers to reimburse you for every singe expense you have had in this project to date? Including "$307,000 for real-estate taxes"? Once you have received the $6.8 million, your cash investment will be ZERO. At that point, ALL of the risk will be on the taxpayers; this would be a great time for the PSP to conveniently walk away from the project, leaving the taxpayers holding the bag. Then you claim you will "reinvest the $6.8 million plus an additional $3.2 million as equity"? Equity, as in money you haven't made yet? And you still haven't explained the loans you've received for this project. QUOTE: Any potential use will require demolition of virtually all of the building except its façade to meet current building codes. If you have allowed the building to deterioriate since you took ownership, that may well be true. Conveniently, no one else has been allowed in the building to verify your statement. However, I don't see any other building owners being forced to demolish their historic properties. Example: the historic building at King and Lime that was gutted by fire. A developer wanted to tear down this severely damaged building, but was not permitted to by the Lancaster City government. Instead, this developer is undertaking extremely expensive renovations to restore this property that was in far worse condition that the Watt & Shand building. What makes this property any different? QUOTE: We explained that this would require us to begin construction before final bids were in place, but after we had completed the “design development drawing estimate,” a very detailed cost-estimating process based on architectural plans. This makes no sense whatsoever. In addition, it is extremely likely that the anticipated State grants will not be forthcoming, particularly since the County Commissioners have taken action to block them. It is our belief that your real goal is to make certain no one else can use this property for any other purpose, a childish response if ever there were one. QUOTE: Commissioners Shellenberger and Henderson have not shown stable leadership. They have not taken and maintained a consistent position on this project. They HAVE shown stable leadership: all of their actions have been in the best interest of the taxpayers of Lancaster City and County. What has not been CONSISTENT is the project: you went from foot-dragging to begging for more money in less than a year. When the PSP and LCCCA were barely talking, it was in the best interest of the taxpayers for the Commissioners to get this project moving. Now that you expect the taxpayers to cover all of the up-front cash, and in the process assuming all of the risk, the Commissioners realized that the best interest of the taxpayers is to get out while they still can. I have one last question: After initially offering to fund over half of the project, why are you now demanding the additional City money, State grants, and TIF financing that will reimburse you for ALL of your investment up to this point? What are you really afraid of? Link to original article: http://lookingatlancaster.blogspot.com/2005/05/response-to-nevin-cooleys-statement-in.html |
For ideas or feedback about this site, please contact us at: Idea(AT)LancasterFirst.org