GEORGE HAS A SECRET

Many of you have probably heard by now of the mysterious deal being put together for a thirty-acre parcel on the southern edge of downtown Grand Rapids.  The site is bounded by the Grand River on the west, Grandville Avenue on the east, the US-131 s-curve on the north, and Wealthy Street on the south.  A lot of wild rumors have been floated about a project that an out-of-town interest wants to develop there.  For what it's worth, the project I have heard described most often is a pair of residential towers to be built by a local developer.

The parcel in question includes some property owned by the City of Grand Rapids.  To find out about the proposed project, Mayor George Heartwell signed a confidentiality agreement to keep it secret from the public.  I can understand why this unknown developer wants to keep a lid on everything until he is ready to act.  It's only sensible.  But I don't see why any public official should oblige him when a public interest is involved.  Of course, the developer doesn't want details leaking out so that others can start buying up options on the property he wants.  But his interest is not necessarily the public's interest.

But we cannot evaluate whether or not there is a conflict because our mayor has agreed to keep the developer's secrets from the public.  Heartwell had no compelling reason to do this.  Whatever the developer needs from the city government must be handled openly in full view of the public.  So, there is nothing that Heartwell can legitimately do for or against the proposed project in his capacity as mayor.  Nothing.  If that's the case, what does he need to know about this project before the developer decides to make it public?  Nothing.

Comments

[NW Activist]

Mayor Heartwell's secrecy and the supposed confidentiality agreement he signed about this development just continue to prove he is not a public servant, but a protector of private, profit-hungry interests instead. Or is this secrecy garbage just more of what the Mayor likes to call "transparent" government? General George's latest behavior is once again a big slap in the face to the public's right to know.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Phyllis.

Like a lot of so-called progressives, Heartwell talks a lot about his compassion for the common man. But when it comes to action, he shows mostly contempt for you and me.

The essence of a progressive like Heartwell is that he thinks he knows better than you what is in your best interest. That's called elitism, and it's an attitude that's obnoxious and ill-suited to democratic government.

Regards,
Bill

[Steve Goulet]

I'm not sure I agree with the assumption that Mayor Heartwell had a choice. He was probably not given the option to disclose the details to the public. His choice was to either sign the confidentiality agreement or be kept out of the discussions. In the best interest of the community (including the common man) he chose to be involved.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Steve.

I think you are correct. Heartwell's choice was to either sign the confidentiality agreement or not be privy to the developer's plans.

My point is that Heartwell has no business as mayor getting involved with those plans except through an open public process. He cannot properly exercise any authority of his office in a matter like this in secret. So what good does it do Heartwell to know a secret he can do absolutely nothing about -- at least ethically and legally. More to the point, what good does it do the public he was elected to serve?

Therefore, his choice should have been to tell the developer he refuses to get involved until the developer is ready to proceed in full public view.

Regards,
Bill Tingley
Executive Director

[Steve Goulet]

Bill,

I hear what you are saying. My current bias is to trust the mayor to make the right decisions based on my long term knowledge of his judgement. But I can put myself in the shoes of someone who does not trust his judgement, and I understand how the secretive nature of this process would be a concern.

It doesn't take long to think of other politicians who have made big decisions far from the spectre of public knowledge. Each situation is unique and each politician takes a risk when they bypass the process of public debate.

My guess is that Mayor Heartwell has thought this through carefully, and that once the details are revealed, most of us will be glad he was involved. And I'm not convinced that his hands are completely tied because of the secrecy. Let's assume for a minute that this development will be broadly accepted as a huge victory for the city. Depending on the specific industry or domain of research involved, there could be plenty of preparations that the mayor can start to make now, in anticipation of the new demands that will be placed on our community. For instance, it is possible that his relentless focus on sustainability is related to this opportunity, and without his involvement in the process we would be less prepared.

Thanks for the engaging conversation,

--Steve

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Steve.

You're welcome. In return, we always appreciate thoughtful comments from our readers.

You may be right that Heartwell will act ethically in regards to the secret he is keeping for this unnamed developer. I have no indications that he has done anything improper.

However, I cannot envision anything that Heartwell can legally or ethically do to act upon this information so long as it is secret. Therefore, for the sake of prudence alone, he should have kept himself out of the loop until the developer is ready to properly introduce his plans to the city government and the public.

Regards,
Bill

[larry]

good morning-is google moving in to that site?

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Larry.

For what it's worth, the rumor I had was that it's going to be a pair of residential towers with light commercial surrounding them.

That might explain why the City government is geared up on what would otherwise appear to be a quixotic lawsuit to oust the all-nude strip club across the street from the proposed development.

Just a guess, but if Heartwell and the other city officials who have signed confidentiality agreements are pressing for that lawsuit, they are violating the public trust by using City resources on behalf of a private (and secret) agenda.

Regards,
Bill

[Steve Goulet]

I'm not sure how a pair of residential towers could create 10,000 jobs, unless they are both gigantic brothels ;)

On a more serious note, the GR Press has an editorial harping on the silence from city hall: http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1141832977233090.xml&coll=6

[The Executive Director]

Good point, Steve. I hope that figure pans out. Thanks for the link.

Regards, Bill

[Rick]

I believe this would have to be much more than a couple residential towers. Not even Donald Trump can blow that much money on 2 buildings.

[Drew]

This is a lot of fun to speculate about, my guess would be something to do with Dave VanAndel and IdeaSphere. Since they moved their HQ to New York, they could be considered an out-of-area business. With the consolodation of all their holdings, I'm not sure they can hit the 10000 jobs mark, but with research labs for genetic testing, they could hit the $1 - $2 billion mark.

[The Executive Director]

Hello, Rick & Drew.

Welcome to L.A.W.

You're right that the proposed development is not what I speculated it was. I misunderstood my source. The two residential towers are the buildings that developer Jonathan Rooks wants to construct on the North Lot of the Boardwalk site.

As for what the mystery development is going to be, it's hard to imagine what would bring 10,000 jobs into the downtown G.R. that could not be developed more cheaply and easily on the outskirts of town. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that whatever it is, it is a good deal for G.R. and Heartwell hasn't hung an albatross around the taxpayers' collective neck.

Regards,
Bill Tingley
Executive Director

[Ames]

I don't find it fun at all to speculate what the mayor, and other politicians are doing with my money, and my appointment to their position. They are to serve the people and to be there for their interests; not for personal gain or harm to the community. I am willing to bet that some money or other personal favors has passed hands through this mess. I also believe that "we the people" need to step in and force them to show their hand of cards at this point.

They can repeat over and over again about how "great" this project is going to be for Grand Rapids and its citizens, but ultimately, isn't it up to us to decide that? I am also with Bill on this one. No way is this project bringing "10,000" jobs to Grand Rapids. Unless they are building the new twin towers here, or something similar, I don't see it happening. I bet we'll be lucky to ultimately see 1000 jobs when it's all said and done.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Ames.

I agree with your suspicion about the 10,000 jobs. I'm sure that it is nothing but hype and includes jobs the developer says will be created by the "multiplier effect" -- i.e., for each new job his development creates, the economic effect will be to create ten new jobs elsewhere. That sort of thing. Of course, there is no way to verify such a claim.

Nevertheless, a new large business in downtown G.R. should be a good thing, provided that the taxpayers aren't expected to subsidize it.

Regards,
Bill Tingley
Executive Director