OCR Text |
Show Bureaucratic Accountability: A Look at Utah's Redevelopment Agencies Adam Caldwell The second highly publicized dispute took place in 1996, in the form of Flower Patch v. Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City. In this dispute, Sinclair Oil intended to expand the Little America Hotel. For that, additional property would need to be acquired. The problem arose when The Flower Patch, a florist, was unwilling to sell its property. In this case, the redevelopment agency argued that a law passed by the legislature in 1969, that allowed the court to review the City Council's decision on the matter of blight, was unconstitutional. This was an argument which the Third District Court did not accept. This made it clear that the courts had a right to review the actions of redevelopment agencies and city councils in such matters. The arguments made by The Flower Patch claim that city officials had been improperly influenced when making their decision to use the power of eminent domain. One example was RDA chairman Keith Christensen, who had received two $250,000 business loans that Sinclair Oil had made to him in 1991 and 1992. Another accusation that raised questions about the fairness of the dealings involved the RDA director's husband. In this particular instance Alice Steiner's husband sold land to Sinclair Oil that later would be involved in the Block 34 dispute. The Flower Patch's lawsuit accused Sinclair Oil of purchasing this land from Kevin Steiner '"for a premium price... in order to improperly influence Alice Steiner'" (quoted in Baltezore 1996; Cates 1996). A final appearance of impropriety occurred in Mayor Dedee Corradini's reelection campaign. Sinclair Oil was the single largest contributor to the election campaign by donating $ 12,000 to the cause. Such a donation could be seen as problematic in a redevelopment dispute because of the Mayor's powers over redevelopment. Such powers include the authority to hire and fire the director of the agency, appoint the redevelopment advisory committee, and veto any action of the redevelopment board (Steiner 1998). Although these accusations alone do not indicate any wrongdoing, several red flags are raised. It would be no surprise if the average citizens involved in such a land dispute felt that they were being treated unfairly because of such previously mentioned circumstances. One example is the campaign donation to the Mayor's reelection campaign. Most people don't have $12,000 to give to campaigns. It could be assumed that such large donations are given in the hope of buying influence. If nothing were to be gained by such donations, what would the purpose be? In the end, the Flower Patch kept its property and is still in business in the very same spot while the massive hotel construction goes on around it. This occurred when Sinclair Oil and owner Earl Holding abandoned their quest to own the entire block and decided to build the $185 million project without governmental assistance. This decision was made less than a week before Third District Court Judge Timothy Hanson was expected to rule on the case (Walsh 1996). In this particular case it seems clear that an example of where devel- opment would have occurred anyway has been identified. Recent court decisions have not gone in favor of the redevelopment agencies. In fact, during the research for this thesis the author did not come across a single instance in which the redevelopment agencies actually won. It will be granted that if they have indeed done so, it is unlikely that it received the same amount of press coverage as occurred in the instances in which the agencies lost. Other Officials, Press and Public Sentiments. The final determinant will be found in the criticisms or support among other elected officials, press and public. Although they do not directly impact the way in which a redevelopment agency operates, elected officials and the public do have to interact with these agencies on a frequent basis. It is therefore appropriate that their opinions be considered in the matter. As far as recent press has been concerned, much of it has been critical. One of dozens of articles pointed out many recent criticisms. Some of these criticisms include a parking garage budgeted for $9 million finished at a cost of over $17 million. The Salt Lake City redevelopment agency paid over $2 million for a business plaza originally valued at $269,000. On the construction of an activity building, costs increased by $400,000 to build a more attractive roof (Jorgensen 1992). Cost overruns are fairly frequent in the construction trade. However, such cost overruns that are repeatedly criticized by press and public, suggest a potential loss of confidence on the part of the public where redevelopment agencies' decision-making is concerned. Ultimately, however, the ballot box will decide what the public is prepared to do about it. Much opposition and criticism have come from those at the state, county and city level. A notable example was Salt Lake County Commissioner Jim Bradley's opposition to the Union Fort project that ultimately was defeated. Bradley was the only Commissioner to vote against the proposition. ...I state my opposition to this agreement because I am firm in the conviction that it is not the responsibility of the taxpayers of Salt Lake County to make this shopping center expansion viable for the developer; I oppose this agreement because I find the policy of subsidizing retail activity in order to divert sales taxes from neighboring cities to be misguided and counterproductive to taxpayer interests; and finally, I oppose this agreement because I believe, quite simply, that Salt Lake County has cut a bad deal (Bradley 1994). In the end it was the courts that overturned this "bad deal." Another public official to join the attack came from the Salt Lake County Attorney's office. In support of further regulations on redevelopment agencies, County Attorney Douglas Short argued that "protecting" has been replaced with "profiteering" (Short 1996) This is the whole notion of a free market: a willing seller and a willing buyer at a mutually agreed price. The free market thereby places all property owners on an equal playing field. Our present RDA law destroys the free market by taking property rights from one person and giving them to another. 36 |