“If you’ve been to our website recently (and seen the new feature on our main page), you’ve probably seen that we’re really going to be focusing on the gas tax increase for the next couple months during the 90-day legislative session. Specifically, we’ll be doing our best to inform the electorate about how unnecessary this tax increase truly is, and on some better ways to plug the holes in our infrastructure budget.

To this end, we’ll be sending emails out specifically pertaining to the gas tax increase whenever we publish new content on the subject. Today, we begin with a brief list of myths and realities.”

If you are not a fan of the proposed gas tax then you probably should keep up with the Maryland Public Policy Institute.

If our gas taxes actually went to funding public transportation (heavy rail subway lines in Baltimore) then we probably would not have the vacant property problem we have in the city. A few weeks ago Mike Subelsky compiled a list of major Baltimore vacant property owners. The city of Baltimore is by far the biggest owner of vacant properties in Baltimore.  It is a shame that they did not liquidate their portfolio back in 2005 (like I recommended) when housing was extremely overvalued. Most of the portfolio is now worthless.

One of these days I want to search through all the private owners and find out if any gave political contributions to our local leaders.

Mike’s lists:

Three years ago in this article I warned all of you that a 7% sales tax was very possible in the future. It appears we are getting very close to the future. There are two paths we can take, we can either cut spending and have state workers, people dependent on the state, and state pensioners “suffer” or we can continue to spend and waste and the tax payers can keep paying for it with new fees and tax increases. No matter what, the longer we wait to address the real issues (government spending and waste)the bigger the crash will be when things finally do blow up in our faces.

This endorsement definitely hurts Carl Stokes and has other major ramifications on the 12th district race. Let us take a closer demographic look at this race.

Carl Stokes is the Black incumbent, Odette Ramos is the popular and solidly funded Latino challenger, Jason Curtis is the gay White candidate with all the signs near Mount Vernon, and De’Von Brown is basically the number four guy.  An endorsement of the number four guy does not make him the favorite in such a close race. The endorsement takes away black votes from Stokes (who as the incumbent was basically the favorite).  If the incumbent/favorite loses a bunch of votes then who benefits the most?  I think the answer to that questions is the number one contender who I think is Odette Ramos. The winner of this race could theoretically get less than 25% of the total votes!

The following video was uploaded on June 29, 2011:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Landers wants to win and he does not want to be known as a one issue candidate. He has launched a campaign web site and he has posted numerous Youtube videos.

At the 47 second mark on the main video at his campaign web site he says the following:
“We need new leadership in this city not just a continuation of the same old policies and politics as usual”

Landers is not new and he has helped entrench “The same old policies and politics as usual“.

Click here to view the embedded video.

At the 47 second mark he says:

“We need new leadership in this city not just a continuation of the same old policies and politics as usual”

You can read what Baltileaks has to say here and here.

It is very odd for a young person to contribute thousands of dollars to local political campaigns. It is also not uncommon for wealthy people to give money to other people to give to political campaigns so they can get around campaign finance law mandated maximum donations.  Baltileaks is definitely on to something. People need to talk about this and spread the word. We need to know what is really going on here.

Have a great Passover.

In order to make the new state center development viable (no matter what happens with the lawsuit and the new office buildings and garage) they will have to demolish McCulloh Homes.  McCulloh Homes is an outdated drug infested housing project that no logical resident, business, or investor would want to be located next to.  It is odd how this flawed aspect of the project (keeping McCulloh Homes is part of the plan) is never talked about. McCulloh Homes is not going to improve just because you build shiny new buildings across the street from it.

The contract shows that ECB judge Gary M. Brooks is paid $50 an hour and can not work more than 600 hours in a year. That’s $30,000 a year. Not bad.

I decided to look for the political contributions that Mr. Brooks has made over the years. I posted them here. I noticed that Mr. Brooks happens to live next door to Sheila Dixon on Winans Way.  The campaign finance database does not show any Sheila Dixon contributions coming from Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks did give Martin O’Malley’s campaign $330 in the early part of the 2000′s while O’Malley was mayor of Baltimore.

It also should be pointed out that the other ECB judge Patricia Welch is married to Martin Welch who is the chief judge of the circuit court. The circuit court is the court that hears appeals from the ECB.

Here is a previous story that I wrote about the Baltimore ECB.

“Downtown Baltimore City Property Owners Sue

To Stop No-Bid, $1.5 Billion State Center Project

That Circumvents Maryland’s Procurement Laws

A group of prominent downtown Baltimore commercial property owners, supported by the analysis of a highly regarded economist, filed suit today in Baltimore City Circuit Court to halt the heavily taxpayer-subsidized $1.5 billion State Center project on the grounds that competitive bidding laws have been ignored or circumvented.

The project improperly diverts business from the downtown area, with a devastating impact to the City, downtown commercial property owners, retailers and the taxpaying public.

First conceived during the Ehrlich Administration, the State Center redevelopment has evolved into a mammoth mixed-use construction and leasing project a mile north of the City’s downtown business center.  It now envisions over 1.5 million square feet of commercial office and retail space intended primarily for State use but that also will compete with downtown rental and retail businesses.

According to the lawsuit, the State Center project – one of the largest taxpayer-supported developments in City history – will siphon business away from Baltimore’s Central Business District (CBD), leaving the City’s core office and commercial area “blighted and decaying.”

Presently, there are over 2 million square feet of vacant space in the core CBD.  As the lawsuit states, adding “an enormous, commercially unsupportable supply of office space” outside of the core CBD, with favorable taxpayer-supported financing, will cause “long-term commercial vacancies, blight and business flight” from the CBD.

In addition, the state currently leases over 700,000 square feet in the CBD which, according to the Developer’s consultant would need to be largely diverted to State Center for the project to be viable – thus further draining the downtown commercial district.

The suit alleges that the project will have “an immediate, devastating financial impact on the CBD and Commercial Property Owners” who are private entrepreneurs operating without taxpayer support. The result “will be catastrophic, immediate and will impact negatively the CBD for decades” – and will damage the city’s tax base.

According to the lawsuit, “the CBD cannot remain viable under these circumstances.”

The General Assembly’s own Department of Legislative Services, in a May 2009 analysis, noted “high commercial office vacancy rates and a high inventory of housing in Baltimore City raise questions about the viability of this undertaking.”

Indeed, DLS found “there is no compelling reason why the State agencies need to be grouped together at State Center” given the over-abundance of far less expensive, comparable office space downtown.

“The current State Center proposal is not in the best interest of the State,” DLS concluded.

The commercial property owners maintain the entire State Center project is legally flawed because of its failure to comply with State competitive bidding laws and procedures.

According to the lawsuit, the State’s procurement laws, “intended to protect taxpayers,” and prevent “government giveaways” have been “ignored and violated.”

The lawsuit alleges the development and the lease-back deal with the private Developer – selected without competitive bidding – “circumvent[s] the State’s mandatory procurement laws,” providing the Developer and other private parties with “windfalls” worth hundreds of millions – if not billions – of dollars.

At its inception in 2005, the original Developer was given the Project, including exclusive negotiating rights, without competitive bidding.  Thereafter, on multiple occasions, State agencies have altered the scope of the Project without competitive bidding.

On July 28, 2010, State agencies submitted the First Amendment to the Master Development Agreement. This document extensively changed terms and conditions of the original contract;  substituted new individuals in the Developer group; reassigned multi-million dollar obligations from the Developer to the State, and set in motion up to $314 million in City taxpayer subsidies, known as a Tax Increment Financing plan (“TIF”).  All of this was done without competitive bidding.

Under the proposed TIF, City taxpayers will forego up to $314 million in future property taxes on the office and residential buildings – $10 to $20 million in Phase One alone – funds that are badly needed to support vital City services.

In addition, the State agreed to sign long-term leases with the Developer, thus filling most of the project’s commercial space at prices “substantially above” market rates for “similar” commercial space presently vacant in the CBD.

In the First Amendment to the Master Development Agreement, the State also agreed to assume the Developer’s initial obligation to construct a parking garage at State Center – saddling taxpayers with an additional $28 million debt obligation on a structure the Developer deemed too financially risky to build. On Dec. 15, 2010, the Board of Public Works authorized an increase in the amount of taxpayer-funded, MEDCO garage bonds to $33 million.

According to Dr. Anirban Basu, a noted economist with the Sage Policy Group, Inc., “adding almost a million and a half square feet of new commercial space outside the City’s Central Business District will likely have irreversible, adverse consequences, including blight and commercial flight from the downtown area and an increased tax burden on City businesses and residents.”

David E. Johnson, senior vice president of Lexington Charles Limited Partnership, which is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said, “Commercial property owners have invested tens of millions in revitalizing downtown buildings as part of the vision of Baltimore’s renaissance. It is sad to see there’s so little regard for the future of the Central Business District.

“Those promoting the State Center project don’t understand the devastating impact this will have on the City of Baltimore and its downtown commercial hub, which already is struggling. No city can thrive without a vibrant Central Business District. And it’s not just the property owners who will be devastated. It’s also the downtown shops and restaurants that depend on a high concentration of office workers.”

The downtown commercial property owners are asking the Circuit Court to find this deal “was entered into in violation of State procurement laws” and thus must be declared invalid.

“The State’s procurement laws are intended to protect taxpayers by ensuring that government projects are competitively bid – that’s especially important when taxpayer funds are used to lease and construct State facilities,” said Alan M. Rifkin, lead counsel.

“It is regrettable that we are at this juncture,” Rifkin said. “Compliance with the competitive bidding laws is not optional or discretionary.”

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the following downtown properties: St. Paul Plaza Office Tower, LLC;  Lexington Charles Limited Partnership; 301 Charles Street, LLC; Park Charles Apartments Associates, LLC; Park Charles Office Associates, LLC; 501 St. Paul Street, LLC; St. Paul & Franklin, LLC; RoboPark, LLC; Charles Plaza, LLC; 39 W. Lexington, LLC; Baltimore Condo 2-8, LLC; Fayette Garage, LLC; Charles Towers, LLC; The Marlboro Classic, LP; and Redwood Square Apartments, LP.

Alan Rifkin is the managing partner of Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, which has extensive experience in state contract and procurement matters. One of his partners, Scott Livingston, is the author of “Contracting with the State of Maryland” as well as many legal articles and a monthly newsletter on the state’s competitive bidding statutes.

For information about the legal aspects of the lawsuit, contact Alan Rifkin, 410-269-5066. “