Since I covered the PN&C letter about Lowell Baughan, written by Jay Dedman, a couple of weeks back, it’s fair that I should take a look at the responses that appeared in last week’s paper. First, there is a letter written by Baughan about his role with the EDA, and a couple of letters of support, including one from Baughan’s son. A second item to take a look at is the PN&C editorial this week, which encouraged the Page County Board of Supervisors to invest in people and education.
For a third item related to this topic, I also received news about an updated series of arguments regarding the Project Clover deal, which are contained in a letter to the Board of Supervisors. So my plan is to have a sort of “EDA Action Spectacular” series of posts this week – doing what I can to cover these items. It’s my opinion that EDA and Baughan have probably brought this criticism upon themselves since their identity has become so closely tied to Project Clover – a project I have opposed since first learning about it.
Baughan’s letter, which was headlined “EDA operates only with the approval of supervisors,” argues that the Authority is an arm of County government. He says that the organization develops projects that must be approved by the supervisors, as opposed to taking rogue actions on its own. He proceeds to categorize the actions the EDA took under his chairmanship as full and open, and even specified in the 2004 and 2007 strategic development plans (I have been calling the 2007 plan the “2008 update” on the blog).
I’ve reviewed these documents before and published summaries here. I recall that after reading them I was confused at how these plans can be considered a road map to a speculative* real estate venture such as Project Clover has turned out to be. In 2004, there was an emphasis on six guiding principles:
• Business attraction
• Existing business retention/growth
• Community infrastructure
• Education and workforce development
• Government economic development programs and services
• Transportation
In the update to the plan, published in 2008, there is a note in the executive summary that says, “…the County needs ready-to-go sites complemented with the ability to process permits, licenses, etc. within short turnaround times” in order to attract companies that fit in with the rural character of the County and diversify the economic base.
As I wrote at the time, it’s my opinion that:
‘To me, this is “cart-before-horsing” – among other things, the previous version of the plan called for an assessment to determine what kinds of businesses to target. Was there follow-up on these objectives and initiatives? Without them, I don’t think it’s prudent to land bank this property, betting it is a panacea to future economic development requirements; squirreling it away in a quasi-government EDA that may not have followed up on its own previous goals and objectives is another thing.’
As the letters of support that accompanied Baughan’s letter demonstrate, he has provided valuable service to the County in the past; however, I’d like to learn more about his role as an advocate for the Project Clover purchase – business that, according to him, was conducted in broad daylight with unanimous board approval. How did the board come to the decision that a price of almost $36,000 per acre for Page County farmland was a fair deal for the citizens? Why weren’t the other objectives in the 2004 plan and 2008 update given any attention or priority, when they have been completed at very low costs and would have provided the board with the necessary insight to decide whether Project Clover would be successful. These questions are even more urgent, since Baughan’s letter discloses that the EDA was given authority to spend as much as $9-million on the deal, another $1.5-million over and above the reported purchase price.
Unfortunately, Baughan’s letter does get personal in one section, where he claims that EDA has been “unfairly maligned in various blogs and letters generated by the uninformed.” Dedman’s letter was pretty direct with the questions and criticism, but still, I was surprised by the personal nature of Baughan’s comment, because he serves the taxpayers of this County in a responsible role. The opportunity to serve is a privilege, not a bully pulpit for name calling – the questions and comments he refers to are simply the taxpayers asking for more information so that they can evaluate whether or not to support the EDA.
Here on Hawksbill Cabin, I seek to publish a logical, intelligent and informed discussion about the county lifestyle, framed by my own 30 years of experience in business. But I’m not going to shy away from giving an opinion here and there too. I don’t question Baughan’s integrity, but I do question his judgment and his failure to execute those strategic plans as they were written and approved.
As far as the two letters of support that are included here, they speak to Baughan’s accomplishments as a private citizen. One is written by his son, who lives in Charlotte, NC, and another, by a parishioner at his church. They both reinforce the claim that Baughan is motivated to do the right thing, as exhibited in his commitment to charity and civic organizations. These have an important role in the community, but none of them has the potential to obligate each man, woman, and child member or participant to a $2,100 debt obligation, as Baughan has championed in his role as EDA Chairman.
* speculative – relating to an act of speculation, assuming unusual business risks in hopes of obtaining commensurate gains.
No comments:
Post a Comment