Privatizing the old Convention Center

Observer, February 3, 1995

When the City's privatization efforts began, one of the first decisions was to recommend placing the "old Convention Center" for sale. An appraisal was obtained, and the committee recommended selling the asset to the highest bidder (around $14 million less demolition costs). The City Council "initially" agreed. As bidders came forward for this one square city block of land,  the City Council began looking at placing some "strings" on the project.

In essence, the City Council had a law passed that allowed it to sell a piece of property to someone in a "closed sale" (meaning no competitive bidding) at an "agreed-upon price" - a VERY BAD IDEA FOR GOVERNMENT. 

As you might imagine, the Council debated and debated what strings to place on the property, what it should be used for and took offers that were NOT in the best interests of the taxpayers. Instead of allowing the "market" to determine the price, the City Council determined to "decide" who should be allowed to buy it and what should go on it. While government has control over "zoning", the issue here was government trying to micromanage in detail the specific's of the development down to and including whether it had a "movie theatre" or other specifics that the developer might not believe were financially viable.

When the offers came forward, they were "pie in the sky" proposals that had little hard cash behind them.

Even though the following article is from February 1995 it shows that 6 years later, the City Council SILL can't get its act together and STILL can't bring itself to return the property to the tax rolls. 

This is by "design". The City never really wanted to "privatize" any City assets (the arena is another good example. Some officials such as Mayor Vinroot did but the Council was generally unwilling to give up its "socialist" tendencies. The City's politico's are generally elected with money from a select group of uptown "power brokers". The did not want the project sold because they had plans for it (at the taxpayers expense). In fact, some (but not all) wanted an "aquarium" on the site a huge government expense. Others wanted the site "reserved" for 10 years or so until NationsBank could purchase it for a office-condo tower.

This is a good example of the failure of privatization. A solid asset (a full City block), and 7 years later it still sits fallow and un-used because of political considerations and undue influence.