[editor's notes: The quotes in this editorial are cited from memory -
but pretty damn close to what was said, and never stray far from their
meanings. To get the exact quotes you can go to the video and listen
in for yourselves -
Agenda Item #22. Also note: We didn't actually see Cal Expo at the
meeting, but it's not hard to tell that their dirty little fingerprints are
all over the place. ]
[This editorial may be reprinted, if done so, as is, in its entirety,
without further permission. All reprints must include the following
copyright information: ©Red Slider and www.ceav.us, 2010. ]
Of course we cannot trust the City Council or the Mayor.
We did. We trusted the process that had been set up to
select the location and design of a new arena for Sacramento.
We trusted the entity, 'Sacramento First' that our Mayor had
created to make the initial round of selections. We may not
have agreed with some of the ground rules and core principles
that were established to guide the process. But we saw that
it was an open, public and fair process (as far as we could tell).
So we held our objections and waited. We made public comment along
the way, and it was received. We made comments on the Sacramento First
website from time to time, and saw they were posted.
There were seven applicant proposals. And we trusted they would all
be treated exactly the same - fairly and without special consideration
or privilege - until such time as one or more proposals were actually
submitted to the Mayor and Council for their consideration. And we
trusted that even the selection process - the criteria and rationale upon which those final decisions were based - would be as open and transparent as all the other parts of the process. .
And, when that was done, we trusted that the Mayor would exercise
"due diligence" with the Sacramento First task force in determining
that they had indeed done their job and satisfied the terms of their
obligations to him. And, after that, we trusted that the City council
would exercise "due diligence" in examining the candidate proposal(s)
put forward by the taskforce to decide if the one(s) proposed had
sufficient merit to pursue. And then process would be done. Open, fair
and public every step of the way. The City, the developers and the public
would all be on the same page. .
That is, until Tuesday's City Council meeting. "What," we asked, "was
the so-called 'Kamilos Convergence Group' doing on the City Council's agenda?"
The results of the task force weren't due for another month or so. How had
one of the competing developers wound up promoting itself before the Council or having
someone from the City Manager's do the promoting for it? We knew the
why; to pitch their proposal, Of course. We certainly knew the who. It was the
same bunch that had, once before, stepped out of process and upstaged the task
force by announcing its own grand Cal Expo "land-swap" scheme to turn public
commons into private development.
(see our 'land-swap or swindle' editorial)
We knew all that.
So, how did they get there, jumping the line ahead of all the other candidates
(a month, or more, ahead) and showing up on Council's docket? Now that's a very
strange and wondrous thing that we still haven't quite figured out. The Mayor
asked who invited the Kamilos group to speak at the Council meeting, "You said
you were invited here by somebody in the city, is that correct? Who invited
you?" the Mayor asked. After a bit of shuffling and dodging, the pitchman finally
says, 'Uh, our
project showed up on the agenda...it's normal courtesy [to show up at the meeting.]"
The Mayor says, again, 'Great, except you told me earlier you were invited
here by the City." Again, the pitchman gives his 'the agenda did it' speech.
"So," the Mayor says, "you told me [earlier in the day] that Councilman Fong invited you.
Now you're not saying that?". More shuffle. "That's what you told me this
afternoon."...you said Mr. Fong invited you. Now you're saying
he didn't?" "Ah," hemmed the pitchman and again, 'the agenda did it'. Now,
that you know that, you know about as much as we do. The invitation to speak just mysteriously
appears. Mr. Fong asks the other pitchman (Mr. Dainberg from the City
Managers office) to speak on the Kamilos' proposal. Presumably he also asked
to put the item on the agenda (an interesting fact by itself.) So, the Kamilos group
(like any 'good citizen') heeds the call? Now how's that for civic
responsibility. Fong-Kamilos;Kamilos-Fong-Dainberg-Kamilos, And we thought
they were talking basketball, not tennis.
After opening with a five minutes "disclaimer" about "fairness" and "there
are six other proposals".blah,blah, and a lot of other, 'jury disregard what
we say' and 'which shell is the pea under?' shuffling, we figured out that
this little charade doth protest too much to cover the smell of dead fish.
Way too much for us to trust what was going on.
Then Councilwoman 'Enough with
the disclaimers!', Sheedy chimes in,
"We've done this with the railyards. We know what the 'takes' would be."
And so it went. Fifteen more minutes of smoke and mirrors. And, when the
smoke cleared, what hath our mighty Council wrought? ".it's just 'due diligence'"
says Councilman Cohen. "Oh," says the Mayor, "Then I can go for it. That's ok
with me." "Yes," says the pitchman, "We're just going to "scope out the process."
It's very complicated. Something that will apply to all the other proposals,
as well." "It's just a lens of the city," says Mr. Fong.
Oh? Just a "lens?" You mean the pitchman (Dainberg) we just heard is going
to shape the procedural lens through which all the other proposals will be
viewed? How nice of them. Now, I wonder just what shape that "lens" might
take (given Mr. Dainberg's 'unprecedented' gushing over the Kamilos group)?
Which proposal do you think will look most attractive in the lens crafted
by the city staff who just pitched their little circus? What processes do
you think they might scope out? The ones that would best suit Thomas Brothers?
Or, maybe Rick Tripp, or one of the other developers? Well, while Kamilos
and company are huddled polishing the "lens", let me tell you what the rest
of the real stake holders in this affair will be doing along with the rest of us,
NOT TRUSTING THIS MAYOR OR THIS COUNCIL OR THIS POLITICAL PROCESS, EVER AGAIN.
That's what. Fool us once, fool us twice., as the saying goes. But, don't
you ever think we don't know what "due diligence" means.
[from the Miriam Webster Dictionary]
"Research and analysis of a company or organization done in preparation for a business transaction (as a corporate merger or purchase of securities)"
"Negotiating: Duty of each party to confirm each other's expectations and understandings, and to independently verify the abilities of the other to fulfill the conditions and requirements of the agreement. Also called reasonable diligence."
or, how about
"The process of investigation, performed by investors, into the details
of a potential investment, such as an examination of operations and
management and the verification of material facts."
[from the dictionary of Investor's Words.]
Makes no difference it's all the same. City staff and Kamilos development
get to go off in some closet and bubble their brew, complete with
secret non-disclosure agreements while the rest of the peons wait for
lunch at the back door. "Oh, but," the pitchman says, "the 'legislative
process' [freely translated: 'buying and selling our legislature to swing
the deal] is very complex." If we scope it out now, says a Councilmember,
we can get a jump on the matter. We'll have that much more done.
And just who do we think these very complicated (there's that word again)
"legislative processes"
apply to? Maybe the one that has plans to turn our state land (Cal Expo)
over to private developers? And which one might that be? Oh, I'll leave
that for you to figure out.
So, then, let's scope out processes which only apply to, and favor,
one developer so that we have a template that any of the others who might
win the competition will have to wriggle through. Now that's fair, ain't it?
"Just a lens," he said. Yeah, right. Incidentally, the so-called Kamilos
"Convergence" group is waving around the flag of "performance-based infrastructure"
like it was some kind of wunderkind of financial-engineering. PBI is touted as
some new form of "public-private partnership". In reality, PBI's they are little
more than a back door attempt to privatize the the whole world. A buzz-word that
should be regarded with the same caution one approaches a buzz-saw. If you want
to see what "performance-based infrastructure" (PBI) is about, check out the
Detroit Silverdome.
That little firesale item is a prime example of what emerges from those factories
of media hype that give you gems like "PBI". Detroit can barely give their
white elephant away, and the costs of feeding it are staggering.
Not that it should matter but, If your trust isn't irrevocably busted by now,
then the NBA has probably been putting something in your koolaid. Still,
there's a few other little interesting gimmicks that slipped out
(they always do) in the dog&pony,footsie-show called the
Sacramento City Council. Guess whose
working on the design for the new&improved Cal Expo when it moves over to
the old Arco site? Nah, you'll never guess. A team called "Vision Makers" -
a bunch of ex-Disney designers. What, "Wilder, Weirder and Whackier"???
So you can just kiss that old favorite, "The California Exposition &
State Fair" sign "good-bye." Here comes the NEW! EXCITING!
"Natomas Sideshow and Amusement Park" (well at least they can reuse the '&'
symbol.)
Oh, and you farmers, ranchers, rural counties and other folks who just
plain like to show off their best once in awhile, too; forget it. Cal Expo
has been hankering for decades to "urbanize" its circus. You all know that.
Well this little Disney-landish revelation came right on heels of someone on the
Council asking what if the people didn't like all those funny "animal smells"
if the Fair moved over to Natomas? Besides educating the public on the matter,
('The Natomas Problem') up pops Disney - where the cows don't poop and
the hay never rots. So you all can hang up your boots
(or see CEAV's 'SHUT DOWN CAL EXPO' notice - coming soon at this website -
for an idea that just might save your bacon.)
What else? Well stuff like an "Confidential non-disclosure Agreement" (CNA)
that these folks have had with the city for some time
(how much time? What does it say?) which some of the Council members,
themselves, didn't seem to know about. Now that's what I call
PDGND - Pretty-Damn-Good-Non-Disclosure.' I expect Councilman Tretheway would agree.
By the way, doesn't that little piece of hide-the-pea smell an awful
lot like that sneaky LOU ('Letter of Understanding') Cal Expo has been
waving around for the last couple of years? Maybe not. Maybe they are
reserving that for their ENA ('Exclusive Negotiation Agreement') which
is just around the corner. You think maybe these boyz thought it up
together? Wouldn't be at all surprised. The will probably give us the same
excuse that Cal Expo did, "Oh, its common business practice."
So, do you think we ought to remind them, once again, that they are not
a common business, they are public officials doing the public's business -
which should be done in broad daylight where all of us can see it?
Or, is it time we just throw them out of office? I mean, what part
of P-U-B-L-I-C don't they understand? Frankly, I looked at the Council
members, then at the developers, then back at the Council and then
(in my mind's eye) at Cal Expo; and it was just as Orwell said,
"I couldn't tell one from the other." But, I can sure tell you
what I don't trust anymore. Just ask me.
- Red Slider, www.ceav.us; 01/15/10: