CITY TO JUDGE: LETTER DOESN'T EXIST, L.A.W. TO PUBLIC: HERE IT IS!

On January 13, 2001, Assistant City Attorney Catherine Mish submitted an affidavit to Judge James Redford of the Kent County Circuit Court in the matter of Tingley and Tingley v. City of Grand Rapids, the Freedom of Information Act complaint my brother and I filed against the City.  In the affidavit Mish swore that the City could not produce one of the public records we were asking for, because she made a thorough search for it but couldn't find it.  In short, she told the court that the record didn't exist.

Thanks to one of our readers, we know otherwise.  The record that Mish says doesn't exist is a letter from developer Thomas Beckering to Assistant City Manager Eric DeLong dated February 27, 2001, in which he stated that his group had invested more than $31 million into the redevelopment of the Berkey & Gay furniture factory as the Boardwalk residential-commercial complex.  (This is the same development embroiled in the hazardous waste dumping scandal.)  The three pages of the letter are reproduced below.

So why is this letter that Mish says doesn't exist important?  At the bottom of the second page of Beckering's letter, he states: "Our investment of over $31,000,000 has been justifed and for this we are most grateful."  (This statement is underlined in red below.)  In making this statement Beckering affirmed to the Grand Rapids City Manager's office the value of the completed Boardwalk project.  In fact two weeks later, Beckering's development group closed two loans and historic tax credit financing for the project totaling $31.5 million.  Beckering's financiers were Old Kent Bank (now Fifth Third Bank of Michigan) and National City Community Development Coropration, and they recorded their loans with the Kent County Register of Deeds and otherwise identified in the the operating agreement for the Boardwalk project.  There is no question that "over $31,000,000" figure is true.

Yet, within a year the Grand Rapids City Assessor's office had assessed the value of the completed Boardwalk project at less than $20 million.  According to internal City communications, Glen Beekman of that office says there was a subsequent letter from Beckering's group, this time claiming that only $20 million had been invested in the project.  That second statement about the Boardwalk's value, if made, is patently false in light of the public records.  Despite our FOIA requests and lawsuit, the Grand Rapids City Attorney's office has refused to release this second letter to us, although they do not deny its existence.

What is true is that the City Assessor's office discounted the value of the Boardwalk by more than $11 million (and maybe much more in light of the recent sale of the property which was listed at $38 million) and gave the owners a huge de facto tax break.  I certainly don't get breaks like that.  Do you?  Take a look at who was copied Beckering's letter (underlined in red below), and you'll get an idea of who was in a position to make this rotten deal happen:  John Logie and Dick Wendt.

Boss Logie was up to his elbows in trying to get the Boardwalk's owners a tax subsidy by hook or by crook.  Little wonder.  The biggest client of Logie's law firm is Fifth Third, one of the owners of the Boardwalk project.  On March 6, 2001, Logie denied to the Grand Rapids City Commission that his relationship with Fifth Third (at the time Old Kent) had anything to do with his decisions regarding the Boardwalk project.  Mish's colleague, Assistant City Attorney Daniel Ophoff, shredded the minutes of this session to prevent their public disclosure.

Then there's River Rat Wendt, copied as "City of Grand Rapids Attorney".  He is also identified as a lawyer for the firm Dickinson Wright.  While Dickinson Wright was representing the City of Grand Rapids in negotiating a tax break for the Boardwalk project, it was also representing the developers of the Boardwalk, their lead contractor Pioneer Incorporated, and Pioneer's owner Beckering!

Of course, no one taking a check from the City for his or her services was watching out for you, folks.  The taxpayers and residents of the City of Grand Rapids were to play the role of the sucker once again.  And that's still the case today.  What else explains why Mish and Ophoff have fought so hard to prevent you from learning the facts of this rotten backroom deal that gave the business clients of two City officials, Logie and Wendt, a huge break in property taxes?

 

Comments

[larry]

well, the way the city of gr came up with a av was thru the income approach rather than investment amount. keep up the good readings, g`day

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Larry.

That may be the case, although the purpose of using any particular approach is to determine the market value. The Boardwalk's recent sale while listed at $38 million would suggest that the income approach was woefully off the mark.

Indeed, as I have seen the Assessor's Office do on other property, it probably used the income approach not to find the market value but as a rationalization for the predetermined target for the assessed value.

I'll know better once the court orders the City to release the records on the Boardwalk.

Thanks again for your comments.

Regards,
Bill