CityBeat - Heard on the street
newsanalysis By Tony Seaton
[Editor's note: Click on any blue 'linked' name in this story for unedited video of their comments. Some are from Friday's council work session, others from post-session interviews. This story is comprised of info from both, and from a phone interview with the mayor prior to the session.]
At Friday afternoon's council 'work session', [a meeting of the minds, as it were, of the council and the mayor, about how things will play out at Monday's regularly scheduled council meeting,] Mayor David Felinton, in arguing his case, didn't exactly come out with his 'dukes up.' Although, considering some of the hyperbole surrounding his decision to veto the sale of two alley rights-of-way to Marshall for what he considers a pittance, he might well have been forgiven if he had. But council work sessions aren't normally contentious, anyway. And this one would have been fairly calm, until THE ISSUE came up. Try as he might to deflect the onslaught the mayor knew was coming, by saying he'd address the issue at the regular meeting, the veto refused to lie fallow over the weekend.
And no wonder, with headlines shouting: "Veto Threatens MU Construction", and the Chairman of Marshall's Board of Governors saying the mayor was trying to 'skin' Marshall and that the city could take it [Marshall's offer,] or leave it.
Rumors abounded that construction contractors had already begun laying off workers, apparently in anticipation of a veto."We'll stop the project and raise tuition" came the threats. All this over a dispute about two appraisals. One widely divergent from the other. Too hot and too cold, as it were. The mayor had answers though, when one, after another, council member took their shots at the veto. "...you're picking up the pennies and letting the dollars go," said councilwoman Mary Neely, saying the mayor was ignoring the 'big picture.'
"The city would have a pig in a poke," said councilman Jim Ritter in explaining how he believes the city has virtually always 'given' land to Marshall, as a 'public entity,' and should again, in this case. Not for $10,000 and, certainly not for over a hundred grand, but for free, and consider it a 'gift' FROM Marshall TO the city.
When the mayor suggested that he'd prefer that to selling the properties to Marshall at too low a rate, councilman Paul Farrell said it was too late for that and that in fact, layoffs were already in the offing. To that the mayor asked if it might have been a little premature for Marshall to have already begun laying off workers and wondered if there might not be a little gamesmanship afoot.
As to the widely circulating charge that the mayor had reneged on a deal with Menis Ketchum, the mayor said that wasn't the case. Of he and Ketchum, the mayor said in a phone interview, "We did meet a few months ago... and I did tell him that I was excited about the project, and I still am excited about the project." But the mayor specifically denies that he reneged on anything. "He didn't tell me they were going to try and buy it at one-twentieth of what the land is worth, he said." When those numbers did come up, later, the mayor said, at a planning commission meeting, "that's when we decided to get a second opinion."
Asked if there was just a misunderstanding between he and Ketchum, the mayor said, "I think he knows, too, that it had to go through the process... I don't have the ability on my own to sign off, [on the project...] [but] I'm still excited about the project, and I still want to see it happen."
Menis Ketchum has said that Marshall has the ability to just take the land for free, through eminent domain, but that he thought the mayor "didn't want them to have it.." and "he may just get to keep his alleys." The mayor says nothing could be further from the truth: "I welcome them to do that," said the mayor. He explained that if Marshall took the land that way, it wouldn't lower the value of surrounding property, and it would then be out of his hands.-- and he'd have a clear conscience that he'd done what he could to be fiscally responsible with citizen tax dollars and land.
The mayor said he wasn't going to rescind his veto, nor was he going to try to persuade other council members over to his way of seeing the issue. "No. I think it's an issue of fairness. We shouldn't have a fire sale, and at the same time we shouldn't gouge people. When it comes to something permanent, like land... you don't want to just give it away."
As to whether a precedent had already been set,by previous giving away of land, as councilman Ritter says, the mayor responded, "Where's the limit? Should we then just give [land] free to hospitals, to public entities... does McDonald's then have the right to ask us for a refund because they paid $11.45 [a square foot] for a right of way, just a block away from Marshall?"
"I may be stupid, as people say," said the mayor, "but I'm not so stupid that I don't recognize the [value of Marshall,] to the city." but, he said, "what's fair is fair." "I don't see anyone else around Marshall paying only $.55 a foot for land."
"I haven't reneged on anything."said the mayor, "There was no secret agreement, and I think these are great [projects]." But,"I don't see how one-thousandth of the cost of construction is going to be a need for Marshall to raise tuition as Mister Ketchum alleges, said the mayor."
To be continued...
For more video from this story click here.
