[text&analysis: CEAV at Cal Expo - Feb. 25th-26th]
CEAV made an obligatory appearance before the Cal Expo Board of
Directors at its regular monthly meeting. The occassion was Cal Expo's
hearing of developer Gerry Kamilos
(Land-Swap proposal)
speak to the Board's 70 questions regarding Mr. Kamilos land-swap plan.
Red Slider presented
a brief summary of CEAV's Extended Written Remarks (below) during the segment
in which the Board discussed the current status of their
'Letter of Understanding' with the NBA. CEAV pointed out to the Board that
they were in violation of that agreement with the NBA which forbid discussion
of conflicting proposals or the siting of sports-arenas in locations other
than the one specified in the original NBA plan (to site the arena at Cal Expo).
Cal Expo's response was to unanimously vote to nullify that 'Letter of Understanding'
which clears the way for their moving ahead with the Kamilos proposal. While the
Board gave the appearance that they were not persuaded by the Kamilos plan and gave
public assurance that nothing was "a done deal", it was fairly evident at the meeting
that the Kamilos group had worked itself into a fairly advantaged position with
the Board."
In other matters, CEAV joined the Natomas Chamber of Commerce in their request
that the 'Real Estate Committee' of the Board be reconstituted (increased membership)
such that it must comply with the Bagley-Keen Act and other California Sunshine Laws
and, thus, become visible and open to public participation.
CEAV notes that such a call has become academic since the number of Committees dealing
with Cal Expo development matters seems to have suddenly mutliplied and they will all
have to be followed closely to keep abreast of what Cal Expo is doing with respect
to these matters. The constitution, status and agenda of these new committees
is not known at this time. Subsequent calls to open all committees of interest
to public view will undoubtedly be required. The fact that Cal Expo "requires"
the public to go through such excercises, tells much about Cal Expo's true regard
for the public it is supposed to serve.
Cal Expo's actions indicate that it remains entirely committed to proceeding
with its agenda, above and outside any requests by the public to create a
fairer and more publicly engaged process. The Board continues to act as if
it were a private company and that it will continue its work with
little regard to the public interest (other than a pro forma compliance with
technical and legal requirments, which it seems to regard as a burden rather
than a mechanism for cooperative exchange.)
In general, questions reviewed with Mr. Kamilos at the meeting show
a familiar pattern of naive understanding on the part of many of the Board
members. The questions themselves (which are included in their Board Meeting
agenda for 2-26-10 at the www.calexpo.com website) are awash in financial and
other detail that would normally be reserved for a much later stage in the
development process and generally fielded by experts in large-scale project
design, financing, land-use planning and similar disciplines. That the
Cal Expo Board, itself, is wading through such minutia before establishing
its own conceptual ideas and principles underscores that their posture
regarding these matters is as much the result of their own ignorance
as it is their disdain for any opinion outside of their own narrow vision.
Of the 70 questions, the Board only reviewed a handful of developer Kamilos'
answers. Even that examination was rather cursory and superficial, though
the entire document is riddled with vague responses, questionable assumptions,
deferrals until after a non-disclosure agreement is in place and matters can
be hidden from pubic view, and awash in detailed confusion. The whole affair
was either a dog&pony show or, a group of very ignorant people not wishing
to admit they were wearing the 'Emperor's new clothes.' Either way, a sad
commentary on our political process. At the moment, Mr. Hime appears to be
the ringmaster of this circus (though one can never be sure who is really
calling the shots.) In any case, the others seem willing to follow along.
Mr. Kamilos' presentation seemed an exercise in patience more than anything else
as he continued to herd the group toward the first gates of committment to his
project. Once there, despite the Board's assurances that they have "learned from
past experience", it is certain that it will be far easier to manage their deepening
investment (often shored up by assurances of 'non-commitment' and a comfortable
zone of 'reconsideration') to the point of no-return (sometime shortly after the
commencement of the PDA phase of the project.) No one on the board (save one, perhaps,
Mr. Mlikotin) seems to have any sense that the rules of the game to which
Cal Expo is sheepishly assenting, even while posturing that it is aware and in
control, are simply rules constructed by the industry as it distracts its
clients and plays city against city, client against client,
holding them hostage to the idea that the 'sale will soon end' if they
don't buy into the game that the industry has engineered for them. A familiar
scenario in which Cal Expo seems to be playing its role, to a tea.
In summary, the Cal Expo Board is being lead down the same path it traveled before.
Little has changed, save the costumes the particular project wears. The former was
a tight squeeze into a sports-arena package laced with mixed-use development. The
new costume is to change dressing-rooms altogether and leave the land to be pillaged
by unnamed beneficiaries. Cal Expo moves out, shopping malls move in. The process
is much the same as well. Giving the appearance of leaving much to the decision
power of the client, in reality, the developer is actually
feeding specifications for the project to the Cal Expo Board even though it
should be the other way around.
It is done with a little slight of hand that assures the
Board that many of the critical decisions are under its (the Board's) control,
at the same time it insures a framework in which the developer is in control.
It is the developer, with its "legislative teams", its "design teams" and its
independent engagements with a multitude of separate entities (NBA, City, state,
arena, financial teams and brokers, contractors and others), many with attendant
ENAs (Exclusive Negotiation Agreements) and other private arrangements of which
the separate entities know nothing, that really sits in the driver's seat and
calls the shots.
Though the developer may pretend that the various jurisdictions are quite
independent of one another, they (the developer) alone creates a framework
through which all of the other potentials and options are to be known.
Since it is the developer that is informing the client about how things work
(describing/creating, for example, the legislative process
through which the project must pass), it is the developer who actually specifies
to the client what must be done, even before the client describes (or knows) what
it is they wish to have done. This 'pre-fabrication' of outcomes impacts every
element of decision, from the mechanisms for public exposure to the mechanics
of indemnification. All is preconditioned under the developer's control and
the product will resemble that which the developer anticipates will be
most profitable to themselves.
While a couple of the Cal Expo Board members may be vaguely aware that this
is how matters are proceeding, most of them are content to go along with things
they really don't understand too well. A few, indeed, may welcome this type of
manipulated process, and for reasons which remain unknown at this time.
Only one thing is certain. When any sizable group of political appointees get
in the same room with anything over the size of say, one-hundred million dollars,
and all of them declare that they are all there for the good of "fill in the blank
name of their organization", You can be sure that at least a few of them (often
the ones who are driving the others) are in it for reasons other than the good
of their "blank organization". Moreover, When thinly disguised veils are drawn to
hide matters from public view, you can be sure of it.
February 25, 2010
Mr Albiani, Chair,
Board Members
Cal Expo Board of Directors
Preliminary Comment to Public Input & for the Public Record;
To the Cal Expo Board of Directors
re: 'Kamilos Q&A; regular, Friday, February 26, 2010 meeting,
[SENT via Email]
Mr. Albiani, Board Members,
The following was sent to your colleague, Mr. Paul Stacy
in separate communication. After review, however, The CEAV
Project felt it might serve as a suitable preface to
tomorrow's discussion on the Board's Q&A exchange with
Mr. Kamilos ('New Business', item a.) We believe it raises
some important questions that need to be considered well before
any further explorations with the Kamilos group, or any other plan
for Cal Expo's future are entertained by your members:
Mr. Stacy
You are exactly right when you say, "Its kind of like I woke up...and
found out I'm engaged without even being asked." Actually, it is a
little worse than that. More like you are being passed from a pending
divorce directly into the hands of your next bride (without the benefit
of even seeing her, I might add). You don't even have your 'walking papers'
(release from the current L.O.U.) from the first marriage.
CEAV has looked over the 70 questions the Board handed to the developer.
We were also there when a similar set of questions was constructed last April
for the previous failed endeavor. Though some of the details address separate
schemes, the two documents and processes to handle them are all strikingly
familiar. Haste, uncertainty, "negotiations" veiled in exclusion and non-disclosure language, vague answers, deferment or deflection until after that 'magic moment' when the two principles are closeted and locked into listening only to each other. All this has the mark of a definite pattern; of returning to exactly the same place you were before and expecting to find something different. Even your 'Real Estate Committee' remains shielded from the Bagley-Keen act and, the numbers of your Board members that need to be on it and take personal and public interest in the matter do not appear to have stepped forward. The public, of course, is simply left out of that committee's loop (I have people asking me what their agenda is tomorrow and when/where they will be meeting; but they are not even listed on the Cal Expo website.) Perhaps most questionable and egregious is the fact that Cal Expo does not even have a concept/conceptual plan (not one that would pass anyone's muster) for what the State Fair of the future should even be. The last one of those we saw was from 1968 and that was mostly about turning the place into golf-courses. As it stands now, Cal Expo's 'future concept' is a farrago of mixed ideas and speculations, being harnessed to whatever financial-package comes down the pike promising to save the day. As we said on our website and in written testimony to the Board - it's the tail wagging the dog.
There really isn't time to detail all of the questionable matters in this
'alienation of affection' and problems which Kamilos' Q&A raises rather than
settles. What we and others in the public sphere need (and we believe the
Board does, too) is time to review the matter thoroughly, to make sound
judgments and ferret out strengths and weaknesses, before Mr. Kamilos or
anyone else for that matter even gets on the stage. Certainly, long before
the Board even considers entering into any agreement with Kamilos, the Board
should be hearing testamony from a variety of experts - independent of anyone
involved in the arena matter or Cal Expo. It should be receiving pubic
testimony from cities where sports arenas (like the Silverdome) and other
PBIs have failed; from people and entities at CSUS and U.C. (such as The
Center for Regional Change), or experts like Judith Grant-Long (cf her
Senate testimony in our own proposal package), or even those such as Neil
deMause (www.fieldofschemes.com) who has a very broad view of the full range
of sports arena efforts across the country - the good, bad and downright
idiotic. The Public Lands Foundation would also be a good resource to hear
from. Though its primary mission concerns federal lands and land swaps, it is
comprised of retired land-use and development experts who have considerable
knowledge about these matters.
Cal Expo should also be soliciting and encouraging input and testimony on
a matter it has totally (perhaps deliberately) neglected to consider with
respect to its future - its land holdings as part of the public commons of
the state of California. It should be listening to organizations such as
The Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) and Save The American River
Assn. (SARA) regarding the place of the main acreage of the site and its
future in relation to the preservation of public commons land and environmental
planning issues both within and beyond the borders of the 360 acres in
question. Too, it should be calling for expert testimony and papers on
options and considerations from organizations such as The Sierra Club,
The Nature Conservancy and other environmental groups that may come forth,
if asked, with high-quality pubic use options for that property or good
reasons it should not simply be turned over to private development to disappear
as yet another parcel of the paving of America. [note: this paragraph has been added
to the original text - ed.]
Above all, the Board should be hearing from
a broad range of the public, our ideas and our concerns. And it should be
poised to listen seriously and review thoroughly what we have to say.
After that, it might be in a position to operate in the fashion of say,
'Sacramento First', with a solid set of core principles, a good idea of what
it wishes to create and a willingness to regard all ideas (or some hybrid of
them) on an equal footing .
In any case, the future of Cal Expo is not a matter to be tossed off in a
few closed meetings and a sheet of half-answered (mostly unanswered) questions
from the only suitor that has been permitted to knock on the door. That is
the same mistake that has been already made. Making it again won't yield a
different result.
What we are asking is that the Board simply table the matter and begin in
earnest to call for public engagement and otherwise serve to inform and educate
itself and us about the whole range of options and concerns that lie ahead.
Most of all, give us the opportunity to educate the Board. Mr. Kamilos and
his arena are not part of Cal Expo's mission. If his group cannot wait the
few months or longer that it would take to honestly study the matter and
consider the full range of ideas and potentials, then one should really ask
whether the Kamilos/NBA concept is really a privately supported undertaking
at all. Or, rather, is it in fact a roundabout way of using public assets,
thinly disguised as PBIs. As much as we all wish to see Sacramento (and
its developers) prosper, that is really not Cal Expo's lookout. All of the
people of California are stakeholders in The California Exposition and State
Fair and it is to them Cal Expo owes its full attention and responsibility.
There are real-valued assessments (assessments of public interest and value)
concerning Cal Expo's present holdings which have yet to even enter the
calculus of 'market-valued' concerns with which the Kamilos responses are
entirely preoccupied. We all wish to 'save Cal Expo', but the way the Board
is going about it is not going to do that. Certainly, getting engaged without
being asked is in no-one's interest except the suitor. Past experience should
have taught us that much. Last year, someone on your Board said they got into
the deal (the NBA/Cal-Expo arena) "a small step at a time" and didn't know how
they wound up where they did. In our documents, CEAV likened it to boiling
frogs by turning the heat up a little at a time. You, Mr. Stacy, have
analogized the matter to a 'shotgun wedding'. But no matter how the process
is characterized, its time to turn off the heat, put the marriage proposals
aside and think hard about what Cal Expo really wants to do with its life.
CEAV, along with others, have a few ideas about that (ones that haven't been
considered). However, as long as your organization is a 'private club',
closed to "outsiders", and ready to jump at any offer (or jump in any pot)
those potentials will remain out of sight and out of reach, to the detriment
of all.
The real discussions that need to take place haven't even begun yet. And
they do not have anything to do with Mr. Kamilos and his plan, or anyone
else's plan. They have to do with Cal Expo, the public interest, all the
people of all of California and the mission of a State Fair and potentials
beyond the narrow interests of a single region, let alone a single developer.
That is, unless this Board wishes to carry the same mistakes made in the past
forward into the future.
Respectfully submitted,
And for the public record,
Red Slider
cc:&et. al.
- - - - - - - - - -
Red Slider, steward
The CEAV Project
California Advocates for the 21st Century
P.O. Box 661747 Sacramento, CA 95866
(916) 925-2828
www.ceav.us - www.stopcalexpo.wordpress.com
[a supplement to written remarks sent to Cal Expo Board on February 25, 2010
The oral presentation consisted of a 3-minute summary of this text.]
My name is Red Slider, I live two blocks from Cal Expo. I am the
current steward of The CEAV Project (www.ceav.us) . The CEAV
Project is a grass-roots, California Citizens catalyst group.
It has no membership structure or financial structure. Indeed,
CEAV does not accept money or donations of any kind from any source.
The CEAV Project takes no position on the location or development of
a sports arena for Sacramento. We neither support nor oppose the
project. Our sole mission is to preserve the current land holdings
of Cal Expo for real-valued, public interest use for all the People
of California, both here in the Sacramento region and throughout the state.
We believe that there are public use values for this land that far exceed
any market value that private for-profit development communities may place
on it. The CEAV Project has already presented one such alternative to
this Board, nearly a year ago. We believe there are many other such uses,
with or without the presence of the State Fair, that may also come forth,
if and when this Board and other state entities are willing to seriously
entertain them.
I do not know Mr. Kamilos or his group. CEAV has nothing in particular
to say about his plan or its potentials. We have read Mr. Kamilos'
responses to this Board's 70 questions and we note that there are no
questions among them that were solicited from the public through open
public processes or in which the public was invited by Cal Expo to
participate. In that, we observe that Cal Expo is once again repeating
a familiar pattern of acting in haste and excluding the public from
participating in the very processes that will shape our future. We also
note that Mr Kamilos seems to prefer to engage in the same rushed, secretive,
exclusive and non-disclosing manner as this Board has employed in pursuing
its previous failed plans to privatize its current Cal Expo holdings. His
own responses to this Board's questions reveal as much. He deflects or
defers many questions to a time after an 'Exclusive Negotiation Agreement'
(ENA) is signed and which typically removes important matters from public
view, inhibiting or preventing public discussion of the matters at hand,
as well as all other options and potentials. Most disturbing is that
those initial ENA discussions become a gateway to a series of processes,
once engaged, from which it is difficult to back out. Investments of time
and money flow seamlessly from ENA to PDA to implementation planning phases
until one is finally locked into commitments whether they are desirable
or not and whose origins they can no longer track.
Mr Kamilos group worked in secrecy for at least nine-months with the NBA,
to the exclusion of most of the members of this board (though, we suspect,
not all), even though Cal Expo was one of the principle components of his
plan. He worked in secret with some members of the City Council to the
exclusion of other Council members. The NBA and his group held a surprise
meeting at the Citizen Hotel that upstaged the Mayor's 'Sacramento First'
task force; and, again, upstaged all other proposals received by
'Sacramento First' by appearing at a City Council meeting as the sole
'proposal of interest', long before the task force had made any decision
or announcement about its selection. Mr. Kamilos' answer to that appearance
was that he came because his group was on the City Council's agenda;
as if he had absolutely nothing to do with being on that agenda.
As a private business, Mr. Kamilos is entitled to work in private,
behind closed doors, with Exclusive Negotiation Agreements (ENA) and
with any 'deadlines he wishes to invent to rush public entities into
making such agreements. However, as a public entity, Cal Expo is
charged to do the public's business in an open and transparent manner.
Yet, once again, the Cal Expo Board is engaging in an all too familiar
and failed pattern of haste, secrecy, evasion, deflection and exclusion.
Even now, this Board is discussing the matter of Mr. Kamilos' proposal
in violation of your own Letter of Understanding with the NBA. That device
(LOU, clause 3-B), has been used by this Board, in the past, to block
consideration or discussion of any ideas that conflict with the original
Cal Expo/NBA arena plan. Yet, strangely, Mr. Kamilos and his group have
found a way around this barrier, inserting themselves into proposal
discussions despite the breach of that agreement. Moreover, this Board
has yet to restructure the principle committee dealing with Cal Expo
development plans; the 'Real Estate Committee'. That Board committee
continues to operate in a manner that evades and circumvents provisions
of the Bagley-Keene Act and other California sunshine laws. We again
remind this Board that Cal Expo is not a private business, no matter
how much it might like to act as if it was.
CEAV is now asking that this Board stop these discussions with Mr. Kamilos
immediately, table the matter and begin, in earnest, to call for public
engagement and participation in the process, and otherwise serve to inform
and educate itself and us about the whole range of options and concerns
regarding Cal Expo's future. Most of all, that Cal Expo give us, the
public, the opportunity to educate the Board. Mr. Kamilos and his arena
are not part of Cal Expo's mission. If his group cannot wait the few
months or longer that it would take to honestly study the matter and
consider the full range of ideas and potentials that may be forthcoming
in an open process, then one should really ask whether the Kamilos/NBA
concept is really suitable as part of a public undertaking at all. Rather,
we must ask, is it simply a roundabout way of using public assets, thinly
disguised as PBIs to insert Cal Expo into a matter that doesn't concern Cal
Expo or its public mission; an attempt to make a gift of Cal Expo which
Mr. Kamilos and his group wishes to turn over to the City of Sacramento
in pursuit of his own interests in a completely unrelated matter.
The City's financing a sports arena is not part of Cal Expo's mission
As much as we might all wish to see Sacramento (and its developers) prosper,
that is really not Cal Expo's lookout. All of the people of California
are stakeholders in The California Exposition and State Fair and it is to
them Cal Expo owes its full attention and responsibility. There are
real-valued assessments (assessments of public interest and public value)
at stake with respect to Cal Expo's present holdings and, which have yet
to even enter the calculus of the 'market-valued' concerns with which the
Kamilos responses to the Board's questions are wholly preoccupied.
Mr. Kamilos' answers to such public-centered questions as those of Natomas'
acceptance or rejection of his plan are treated in a somewhat cavalier
fashion, more as some kind of public-relations gimmick rather than any
serious concern that must be thoroughly engaged by the citizens of Natomas
within their own communities and with their own representatives and
organizations.
We all wish to 'save Cal Expo', but the way the Board is going about it
is not going to do that. Certainly, getting engaged without being asked
is in no-one's interest except the suitor. Past experience should have
taught us that much. Last year, someone on your Board said they felt they
got into the NBA/Cal-Expo arena deal "a small step at a time" and didn't
know how they wound up where they did. In our documents, CEAV likened it
to boiling frogs by turning the heat up a little at a time. Your own Board
member, Mr. Stacy, analogized the matter to a 'shotgun wedding'. But no
matter how the process is characterized, it is time to turn off the heat,
put the marriage proposals aside and think hard, out loud and along with
the public, about what Cal Expo really wants to do with its life. CEAV,
among others, have a few ideas about that (ones that haven't been
seriously considered by Cal Expo up to now). However, as long as your
organization remains a 'private club', closed to "outsiders", and ready
to jump at any offer (or jump in any pot) that comes along, those
potentials will remain out of sight and out of reach, to the detriment
of all.
Use 'Sacramento First', if you like, as a model. Call for ideas,
define concepts. Develop some 'core principles', which are sorely lacking,
before plunging ahead on some exotic excursion with Mr. Kamilos, or anyone
else for that matter. Either that, or risk wondering how you got somewhere
you're not sure you wanted to be in the first place. Above all, don't expect
the public to stand around waiting breathlessly for your return. We are not
a cheerleading section for reckless adventures.
Presented to the Cal Expo Board of Directors,
And for inclusion in the public record,
Red Slider, steward
The CEAV Project
California Advocates for the 21st Century
www.ceav.us ceav@ceav.us