OpEd: Public/Private Partnership for Fair Park Needs a Big Fat Dose of Accountability
Share News:
When it comes to preserving the historical buildings at Fair Park, I could not agree more with our Suzanne Felber.
We have the largest collection of art deco buildings in the world, says our mayor. WFAA’s Brett Shipp reports that, under the Humann public/private partnership proposal, $240 million will be spent on those buildings, some for buildings only used during the State Fair of Texas.
Don Williams, chief critic to the Humann plan, agrees. But he also recalls real estate 101: never fix up an empty building. Translation: he does not mean NEVER fix them up, he means retrofit is costly. Figure out a building’s use before you start ripping out walls and slapping on paint. $240 million is a lot of money in a city starved for basic services that I call the “three p’s” police, potholes, and protection. Great to say “build it and they will come”, but not with taxpayers’ money. (We are sick and tired and have had enough.) Frankly, I also think Walt Humann is the right man for the job, as long as we get the right contract. We need to use our resources wisely. Find the use, sign up the tenants, then repair and maintain the buildings. At least two of our more thoughtful fiscal watchdogs on the Dallas City Council have responded:
Yesterday, City Councilwoman Jennifer Gates sent a memo to her constituents asking them to attend Monday’s city council meeting — we certainly will be there, hope you will, too. She said:
District 13 residents have reached out to our office with questions about the Fair Park proposed management agreement. There will be a public hearing on Monday August 29th on the Fair Park Texas Foundation proposed management agreement at City Hall at 1:00 PM. I encourage all interested to attend this meeting or watch it online at dallascityhall.com.
To see the Agenda for this public hearing click here: Special Called City Council Meeting
To see the briefing that will be presented to council click here: Briefing
For any questions please contact the District 13 office at 214-670-3816 or [email protected].
Here is how City Councilman Philip Kingston responded to his constituents who were using a form letter provided by the Friends of Fair Park:
I’ve been receiving a smattering of e-mails from some of you purporting to support the Humann privatization plan for Fair Park. In responding to those emails, it has become clear that at least some of you are confused about what you signed your name to. The emails were generated from a form published by the Friends of Fair Park. Let’s clarify the Humann plan, and then let’s talk about “Friends” of Fair Park.
Here’s the web form (strongly recommend you not use it):
http://www.fairpark.org/updates/20160826.html
And here’s the email text it generates:
“Dear Council Member Philip Kingston,
I support the Fair Park Texas Foundation and urge you to vote in favor of this public, private partnership. We cannot waste the potential of this 277-acre Dallas treasure. I want to see more green space, year-round use and positive connections to the surrounding neighborhood. We need Foundation management and adequate funding. It is a time for Dallas to come together in support of action for Fair Park after years of disrepair.”
Here’s what I’ve been sending back:
“Thanks for writing, but I will be opposing the proposal unless there are substantial improvements. Like any other contract with the city, we need an RFP to see if we can get a more credible proposal. This proposal is too expensive, has too little oversight, and has very few obligations of the foundation. In fact, the things you list as reasons to support the foundation aren’t required by the proposal.”
I’m not sure if I think that the web form is deceptive, but the email it generates definitely doesn’t describe the contractual obligations the Humann plan proposes. See Ellen Williams’s excellent analysis here:
http://www.dallasnews.com/…/20160825-will-fair-park-leaders…
And below read a little about just one of the many, many times that the “Friends” of Fair Park have failed the park.
In the recommendations of the mayor’s FP task force from 2014 that are the genesis of the Humann plan, there was a virtual certainty that the FoFP would cease to exist. The proposed non-profit from that effort led by Linda Evans was to have beaten the bushes for philanthropic support for the private management of the park. It would have been impossible for a competing organization like the FoFP to have continued to develop any donations in that environment, and its very existence would have been rendered superfluous. In fact, the task force members took pains to contrast their expectations for the efficacy and transparency of the new non-profit manager with the wasteful and failed efforts of decades of FoFP.
So why is FoFP the loudest voice in favor of the Humann plan? Not for any legitimate reason, I’d wager.
http://www.dallasnews.com/…/20110504-editorial-friends-of-f…
Summary of Proposed Changes by Joanna England on Scribd
Management Agreement Proposed Changes – Management Agreement Proposed Changes by Joanna England on Scribd
7 Comments
Leave a Comment
I will disagree on one thing…yes, sometimes you do fix up buildings before you have a tenant. You fix things that are deteriorating which will ultimately cost more to repair later (roof leaks, foundations, etc.). You MAY also choose to fix things for specific tenants or give them a break on the rent if they do the work. BUT I guarantee if the landlord does the work for the tenant, they will get more rent than the discounted rent the landlord would charge plus the renovation costs (that’s margin). For example, if it costs the landlord $1,000 in paint to get rent of $2,000 per month OR $1,900 per month if the tenant paints, then any lease longer than 10 months benefits the tenant, not the landlord. The landlord should paint.
One of the epiphanies I encountered at your public forum (for which I give many thanks) is that there are two competing ways to analyze what is going on. One is to look at this as though it were a contract to manage a real estate asset that has been mistreated by its owner and undervalued by everyone. The other is to look at this as though it were a chance to revitalize a whole neighborhood, a whole community that has been mistreated by its governing body and undervalued by everyone. The Park Board (and Walt Humann) use the first method. I, and many other citizens whose tax dollars are at stake here, use the second method.
Jon – well said! Letting these historical buildings fall into ruin because there isn’t a specific tenant terrifies me. As the owner of what I have been told is the 2nd oldest functioning pool in Dallas and an early 1940’s flat roofed building, I can tell you that the maintenance issues never end. But if I’m not diligent about maintenance it’s game over.
Bob- wish I could have met you and spoken to you directly at the Candy’sDirt forum. I think if you were given the facts and had the opportunity to speak with people directly involved with the existing community you might have a different feeling about the second method. As someone who lives in Oak Cliff and is watching my property taxes skyrocket without any improvements being made, I’m scared for the people who are fortunate to own their own home in the areas around Fair Park. If property values skyrocket, so will property taxes. These are people who are barely holding on to what they have – the city may benefit but at what cost?
Suzanne–I agree that the “specific tenant” argument for delaying maintenance and restoration is ridiculous. Treating Fair Park as a typical real estate deal is just silly. As for your suggestion that I might change my mind if I only knew the facts about the surrounding neighborhoods, I would point out that for twenty years, ending in 2004, I lived about a mile east of Fair Park, south of I-30. One of my closest friends lives even closer, and has lived there even longer. I know firsthand how my former neighbors have been treated in the past and can be expected to be treated in the future, unless steps are taken to protect their interests. A major concern about the management agreement is that it ignores that community in any specific way–it’s only about the real estate within the walls. A more comprehensive plan for Fair Park would take these issues into consideration, so that the neighborhoods could be improved without displacing the residents either physically or financially. Since you were at the forum, you heard these ideas expressed. If you think that these people need to be protected (as I do), then you must throw out this proposed agreement and start over with a new set of fundamentals.
Bob I’m thinking we might be best friends at the end of this. We may be coming at this different ways, but are hoping for the same results. I would LOVE to talk to your former neighbors – I seriously looked at moving into the South Dallas neighborhood myself – fell in love with a former fire station and opted for a falling apart printing factory in Oak Cliff instead. I live south of I-30 in an area my parents questioned. Things need to change – which is exactly why the City of Dallas is looking at privatizing Fair Park. As far as I know (and heard) at the Thursday night meeting Walt Humann is the only one with a plan. Would you be willing to work together to see what is best for this community?
Things need to change, yes, but with a little more thought. Certainly on a project this big, one would want to have more than one option. As to why FOFP might be in favor — check the leadership of FOFP — also deeply enmeshed in the Trinity debacle. Same people — will lead to the same result.
A word to the wise: If Don Williams has a problem with a concept, I suggest that you think long and hard before
climbing onto the band wagon supporting that concept.
There are scenarios in which the City of Dallas putting significant resources into the renovation of Fair Park would make sense, but given the management situation that Dallas finds itself in now, it would be a disaster unless outside private, philanthropic and corporate funding could be put into place for at least 95% of the project cost prior to the first dollar being spend by the City.
I will even suggest that use that might lead to the highest long term return for the DFW Region: creating a performing arts village with both practice lofts and very low cost residential units for qualified performing artists.
Businesses have been taking over practice space used by performing arts companies in NYC for years with the result that there is a dire shortage of adequate practice space for arts companies. Businesses are willing to pay five times the amount of rent that arts companies are able to pay.
Fair Park is an option, but let’s not pour a ton of city money into making it happen.