A sweetheart land sale deal smells pretty "unsweet"

From Robin Diener, Director, DC Library Renaissance Project:

Attached is “emergency” legislation, concerning the West End Library, released last night [note: not attached], and scheduled to be voted upon today by our city council (likely late this afternoon or tonight). The legislation:

• Sells to developer Eastbanc the land on which are located the West End Library, a Special Operations Police building, and a fire station (lots 37 and 50);
• Establishes a formula for establishing a price of sale that specifically ensures a profit for the purchaser;
• Requires some housing units (up to 30%) to be “affordable” or “work force” as formulated in the price of sale;
• Reserves for the District the air rights (only) for rebuilding the library and firehouse.

As Gary Imhoff wrote in TheMail:

“The council is abusing its emergency legislation procedure to avoid holding public hearings with adequate public notice, to avoid alerting citizens to its actions until after they are taken. [...] This overuse and abuse of emergency legislation signals an emergency for the people -- a breakdown of the legislative process, a breakdown of good government, a massive failure of respect by elected officials for the citizens of the District.”

There is still time to urge your council member to vote against this legislation. Here’s why:

1. The legislation does not qualify as an emergency in any way. Further, the issue of the sale of lots 37 and 50 has not been subjected to the processes of public notification and input legally required.

2. The legislation states that the real estate is “no longer required for public purposes” yet specifies the retention of air rights over the library (and fire house) A library and a firehouse are public uses. In our opinion, a library should be prominently positioned and that would seem to require a presence on the ground level. It is also difficult to understand how a firehouse would make sense if it were built above ground level.

3. There needs to be a better process for determining the disposition of public buildings in DC, but even the existing processes required to make the determination that a piece of real estate is no longer required for public purposes were not carried out. Thus, the following inadequate closed processes occurred:

“One day of notice of a public roundtable; “surplussing” combined with instant approval of the no-bid winner; committee markup meeting held quickly thereafter (in 2 days) which doesn't appear in the Legislative Calendar; with no video record of either the public roundtable or the committee markup vote; vote on it in Council three days later (today).”

4. There should be an open bidding process. Why is City Council contemplating emergency legislation to sell the West End library to one particular developer -- Eastbanc – instead of holding a bidding process that would allow any interested developer to participate? Library Board Trustee Richard Levy said at a public board meeting last year, “Developers are salivating over the West End.” It is in citizens’ best interests to hold government to a process that maximizes the value of our limited resources.

5. Eastbanc was a partner in the Ritz Carlton development in the West End where promised amenities still have not been provided five years later, including a public green space and street level retail. The Washington Post quoted Eastbanc at the time as promising they would go so far as to pay retailers to occupy space if necessary.

6. The legislation further calls for “the construction and maintenance of a new library to replace the existing West End Library in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the Board of Library Trustees.” There are no plans in existence, let alone ones approved by the Trustees.

7. The legislation further states the price will be “reduced” or “adjusted” to “ensure a positive Purchase Price,” meaning that the public benefits (affordable housing) to be provided by Eastbanc “through development of Affordable and Work Force Housing Units shall be reduced or the required AMI income levels for such units shall be adjusted” (to higher income) to ensure a profit for the developer.

Write to council to urge against this legislation.
---------
I wrote this to some Councilmembers this morning:

There is no question that an open transparent process with a defined RFP process is the best way to monetize public assets that have been declared surplus. Actually, I am fine with mixed use redevelopment proposals for city-owned properties. It makes sense to do so when multiple objectives can be obtained simultaneously, and the overall quality of life and amenities available within the city can be extended and enhanced.

However, without a process in place to ensure that this happens, that the public interest is engaged and foremost, rather than pushed to the side, it is unavoidable that citizens react viscerally and so negatively when such proposals come forward, the Benning Library debacle being one good example.

To be frank, that these kinds of processes appear to more often be the rule rather than exception is why I didn't favor the dissolution of the NCRC and the AWC. There is no question that neither of those institutions is perfect, but the City Government, both at the Executive and Legislative Branches, shows that it is far too susceptible to extranormal suasion, in ways that force many of us to question the process, because we see this kind of business as usual inside dealing inappropriate to representative democracy.