Plan to Privatize Fair Park: Differing Opinions in the “New” City Attorney’s Office?

Share News:

Fair Park doc

Dallas has a new city attorney. His name is Larry Castro, and he started Monday. Sources tell me he is cleaning house somewhat as in at least one attorney was packing bags Monday.* But Castro may also be taking a long, hard look at the legal opinion his department delivered on the Humann Plan to privatize Fair Park.

As you know, we are not against the privatization concept. That the city of Dallas has 277 acres available for — well, the sky is really the limit — is amazing. We think the current plan has holes and is too expensive, has too little oversight, is asking nothing of the State Fair of Texas, and ultimately has very few checks and balances to protect Dallas taxpayers.

And we thought from the very beginning that it was weird, very weird, there was no bidding, which state law mandates so cities always look for “the best value for the municipality.” We are told it’s because Mayor Rawlings said no one told him he had to. And he thinks Walt Humann can work the impossible on negotiating with the State Fair of Texas. Indeed, at the League of Women Voters – sponsored debate in North Dallas last week (which we attended and hope to post soon), Walt Humann indicated that if we try to mess with the SFOT’s agreement with the city, the State Fair will “torpedo” us. In other words, sue the city of Dallas with full guns ahead.

It was scary enough to actually make me think for one second, oh yeah, I get why the Mayor is doing this. Walt Humann is the best guy to negotiate with the Big Bully.

But back to the City Attorney’s office.

We learned at the City Council briefing that under Chris Bowers, the CA’s thought they found a way around the law that requires these bids:

Interim city attorney Chris Bowers said, “We believe the city does not have to competitively bid this as a matter of law.” He then pointed to the provision in state law that says the city doesn’t have to bid out projects when considering “management services provided by a nonprofit organization to a municipal museum, park, zoo, or other facility to which the organization has provided significant financial or other benefits.”

In other words, those 500 to 700 hours of Walt Humann’s time and expertise (noted in the graphic above) create those “management services provided”, and are a substitute for cash.

There is now internal dissent in the CA’s office over this legal interpretation. Which means a different legal opinion may be forthcoming.

Humann’s foundation hasn’t actually provided anything concrete or tangible yet. Not sure if his Foundation even has met. Seems some attorneys want to test the legal waters: they believe that even if their interpretation was wrong on Sec. 252.001, the court will still find in their favor.

But how long would that take? When Rawlings said, at the briefing, that this was the last chance for Fair Park, I doubt he meant get the case tied up in court for 3 to 5 years.

Now I am hearing there may be a real chance to put the privatization plan up for bids. And as for painting the SFOT as the big bad bully, City Councilman Philip Kingston says he does not believe that is the case at all, not any longer:

“I have had some very positive meetings with their board,” he told me, “and I don’t think their first choice at all would be to sue the City.”

And if it is, bring it, baby.

Kingston said that he, unlike the Mayor, sees this as a great opportunity to re-work the city’s agreement with the SFOT, work for concessions that will be good for Fair Park.

And good for the city.

Like we have said, this is a real estate story at heart: 277 acres and a long term lease that could really use some adjustments.

(*Unrelated to the Fair Park proposal.)

 

Posted in

Candy Evans, founder and publisher of CandysDirt.com, is one of the nation’s leading real estate reporters.

3 Comments

  1. CJ who on October 5, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    I wonder if the D10 rep. will be so smug going forward. The real issue is ’17 Bond fund allocation. The stories circulating about less than $2 million a district being flagged for FP is a deal breaker.

    This deal need to be put out for RFPs.

    • Candy Evans on October 6, 2016 at 1:08 am

      Do you mean $2 mm per district in the 2017 bond? (We agree on the RFPs.)

  2. Chris Andrew on October 7, 2016 at 5:01 pm

    Keep up the good work on reporting these Fair Park developments. IMO 500-700 hours of Mr. Humann’s time is not an acceptable substitute for cash. In my view opening up RFPs is what’s best for the City. But the work doesn’t stop there, the watchdogs must stay on the lookout. The Fair Park community will need more than management services to make it a place of pride for our City. There is no substitute for putting one’s money where his/her mouth is. So lets take our time and get this right by inviting other proposals.

Leave a Comment