Chelten Plaza Update  - September 1

by Jim Foster

Editor

 

Construction and retrofit work continue at Chelten and Pulaski, as does a group of faithful protesters making the case to the public that this entire process was crafted in a manner inconsistent with commitments made to the community by the developer in 2006 in exchange for funding, tax abatements and help in rezoning. In addition there is formal opposition to the complete disregard for its obligation to reach agreement with the community on the nature and details of the development before the project was finalized on paper and work commenced at the site.

 

 In actuality, neither the city, the political leadership who negotiated the use of the public money, nor the developer made any announcement, nor did they post the required permit documents in the public manner required at the site while the prior Fresh Grocer store was still operating.  Only information from store clerks brought forth the fact that new construction was about to commence.

 

 Massive community outpouring at two community meetings clearly sent a message to the developer that the project “as structured” was inconsistent with the promises made in 2006, with the needs of the community today, and in direct violation of special area controls at L & I regarding the Germantown commercial district. 

 

 A presentation to the community by the developer and his team was met with an overwhelmingly negative reaction at a meeting attended by upwards of 150 residents. The requests and perspectives of that group seem to have been completely disregarded while a small cadre of the Germantown Community Connection leadership seems to have aligned themselves with the developer (Burns) in direct opposition to the will of the membership.

 

 Irv Ackelsberg, attorney and spokesperson for the Germantown Community Connection denies that documents purporting to give formal support to the project from GCC were submitted with intent to be filed with the developers application documents for $4 million in public financing for the project through PIDC, but they have appeared there, albeit in manner that seems very after-the-fact.  Mr. Ackelsberg has also been questioned about the fact that the small committee of the GCC which has been meeting privately with Burns did not ask some of the most basic questions about the project as an up-front requirement. Leadership of the protesters wonder why attorney Ackelsberg did not make a point from the outset that Burns present them with all the documents that were required to legalize the project and the public funding stream.  This was of particular importance since public participation is defined very clearly as a fundamental requirement for access to the public money under these conditions of development.

 

 Several groups of dedicated residents have formed vocal and visible resistance to the entire process while elected leadership and city officials seem to turn a consistent blind eye to legitimate request for information and intervention while serious questions of meeting requirements and compliance with state and city laws are in the forefront.

 

 Local attorney Yvonne Haskins has filed an appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment on behalf of 7 community groups in opposition. This is due to be heard on September 21st regarding permits issued with inconsistency and outside of district controls. Ms. Haskins has also pursued public information regarding the application filed by developer Burns in order to qualify for the public funding; a request that has just been increased from $3 million to $4 million. Response from the agencies involved for these public records through PIDC have been incomplete and only recently, after second requests, have they made some of the more pertinent details available.

 

 In summary, it seems that some of the most basic requirements to meet public funding standards regarding broad community participation had been completely omitted from the process and those with responsibility in the agencies that participate seem to be passing the buck to the Office of Budget and minimizing the importance of compliance on their part and that of the developer to meet the funding requirements as written.  City and State officials at levels up through the mayor and governor are being called on to respond to a situation where a major city block is under construction with dependency on public funding for completion, and basic up-front required compliance of a critical nature has not been met.  An after-the-fact scramble to use the minutes of a community meeting as evidence of full community support has become a major point of contention within the groups involved.

 

 The resounding questions that are being asked surround the fact that this particular development of Mr. Burns was started without any advance publicity or communication with the community (unlike most of his projects) and now, only after pressure is applied, are pubic documents coming forth that seem to support the fact that due diligence and essential compliance was never attempted but work commenced without it.  Elected officials, with the exception of State Representative Rosita Youngblood, have little or nothing to contribute despite the size and location of this Germantown project.