It’s a shame when things don’t go your way. But for those who are supposed to be the bastions of free market competitiveness, there seems to be a lot of dependency on the public sector. And when contracts aren’t awarded, some of these private entities lash out, point fingers, and cry the blues.
This criticism is laughable considering development companies are the ones who continually beat the market drum all the while insisting cities and states fork over millions to help fund their projects. And then if they don’t get their way, and a pile of cash, something is wrong with the process.
The Business Journal article notes:
New Land's criticisms of the city's development department extend beyond the Marcus Center parking structure project: Gokhman says the department has "chronic problems" and "deep dysfunction" that are "stifling development"
This coming from a company that has been awarded similar projects in the past. The company was also involved in foreclosure proceedings in the not-so-distant past. What's that old saying about glass houses? Funny how private developers believe they should be able to dictate what a city’s development department does.
Regarding another often-used development handout, the article details, “Tax incremental financing is a tool local governments can use to pay for new developments that are expected to grow the tax base by using future property taxes those developments generate to help repay the city's investment in those projects.” What they leave out is that this financing was intended to serve blighted areas, not locations where development is already thriving.
The Journal article quotes another developer:
"When you do put out an RFP, you have to be ready, willing and able to make the commitment to help make it successful," said Bob Monnat of Milwaukee development firm Mandel Group Inc. "None of these larger RFP sites have anywhere of a chance of creating the kind of outcome that everyone would like to see unless there's some major participation on the part of the city to help get it over the hump."
Talk about entitlement. Developers seem to believe the City should alleviate all risk from the project, while the private developers get to walk away with all the profits. What a partnership!
Aren’t some of these concepts what the free market is supposed to be all about? Isn’t this part of the conservative mythology we’ve heard over the last many decades about the private sector, job creators, the wise surveyors of the market? So why do they even need the inefficient, mismanaged, inconsistent, misleading, and dysfunctional public sector?
A big problem for New Land’s Gokhman seems to be that the City Development Department took longer than expected. I’m sure that developers never take longer than expected. They’re always on time and everything they propose is seen through to completion. [Sigh. Eye roll.]
Seems odd to have such an issue with not being awarded this site, but then to also state:
New Land supports Johnson’s vision of growing Milwaukee and believes the city's current zoning code and DCD's urban planning team are "one of the best in the country," Gokhman said.
But then Mr. Gokhman continued:
He cites the downtown Fourth and Wisconsin site near the Baird Center and the former Army Reserve site in the city's Bay View neighborhood — which both remain undeveloped after years of discussion — as key examples of failure."No one at DCD loses their job if development doesn’t occur," Gokhman said. "There’s no accountability."
So, unless every city site is maximally developed, by the city, someone has failed? Seems there is a lot of contradictory ideas and sour grapes going on here. Let’s not forget - failure happens. Everything doesn’t work out as planned in life. [As an example, see the above discussion of Mr. Gokhman’s company's foreclosure activities.]
City development is booming. Newer offices, hotels, apartments, retail, etc. have steadily been built over the last few decades. Milwaukee has seen downtown development unlike anything since WWII. But the City should throw more money at private developers because a few sites have yet to be developed? Or should the City allow itself to be bullied by developers attempting to rake them over the coals in the media? I don't think either of these would be policy or process improvements.
These developers' public whining is just a big bushel of bitter, sour grapes.