Wasn't thinking about the government so much as the private interests like Nationwide and the Dispatch which have a lot to lose with an empty arena and diminished real estate values that surround it. Again, this is most likely a hypothetical as I don't think it ever gets to this point. In the meantime, no use worrying about it - the whole situation will take years to play out in the courts.
Nationwide Arena/CBJ Finances Discussion II
- Thread starter Fro
- Start date
Wasn't thinking about the government so much as the private interests like Nationwide and the Dispatch which have a lot to lose with an empty arena and diminished real estate values that surround it. Again, this is most likely a hypothetical as I don't think it ever gets to this point. In the meantime, no use worrying about it - the whole situation will take years to play out in the courts.
Same argument as was made at the time of the deal. Yet, they still ended up with a public/private solution.
CapnCornelius
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2006
- 10,986
- 0
I'll tell you what might justify more organization by Jackets fans (capitalized or not, neon green shirts or not) and it is the matter at hand.
We have a bunch of yahoos, I'll call them the "Coalition of Anarchists," who simply do not understand the consequences of their proposed actions. The fact that this is even being considered for the ballot is troubling to me. We have checks and balances in our republic and I'd hope that similar checks and balances would be in place with respect to initiatives but this seems to expose that they do not exist.
Let's boil it down to what this initiative is--an attempt to cause a public body to void a valid and binding contract. Not only that, it is an attempt to breach a contract which is connected to a public debt obligation (i.e. the bonds issued in connection with the Arena deal). This precedent would wreak havoc on any and all deals between a public body in Ohio and a private party.
If they were somehow successful and if for some reason the funds were withheld, there would be a breach of the contract and litigation would proceed. The damages in the breach of contract action would be pretty easy to establish here since we're talking about a payment stream. So, the Coalition of Anarchists could cost the city millions of dollars in legal costs and the City might end up paying their contract parties the value of the payment stream in the end anyhow PLUS the potential for consequential damages for other losses.
But wait, there's more! If the payment stream was shut off even temporarily, as a result of the Coalition of Anarchist's two-part ballot initiative process, the issuer of the bonds, which need the payments from the City in order to meet their obligations, could have a payment default on the bonds (unless there is some backup source of funds or a reserve) which could result in a downgrade of the credit of the issuer! That, in turn, could result in the issuer having additional costs on future bond issues.
Not to mention the fact, that the entire state of Ohio and its municipal and other governmental bodies would now have the uncertainty that other contracts could be undone by public initiative. As a result, they might find that their credit ratings are also effected by this action. Think about it. If the Coalition of Anarchists can achieve their goal, then what would stop a group from undoing any other contract between a governmental body in Ohio and a third party, such as OSU's contract with Urban Meyer, the City's payments to contractors, bond obligations, etc., etc.
And this all leaves aside the effects on the Arena District, the Jackets, etc.
If the Coalition of Anarchists didn't like the Arena deal, perhaps they should have stopped it prior to it becoming final instead of now suggesting that the City breach its obligations with all of the possible associated consequences. I don't believe that the Arena deal is perfect. Far from it. And you can go back and look at my personal objections and reservations. But this is not the right time or method to try and accomplish a better deal.
Fans of this team really need to think about whether they are going to let these guys control the public discourse on this issue or if they are going to get out in front of it. For that matter, where is Nationwide and team ownership? They rallied to fight the casino and, to me, this is a much bigger threat than that ever was. There is a tendency lately to underestimate these sorts of groups only to have them succeed and wreak havoc and then we all get stuck dealing with the consequences. Those who truly favor responsible government need to stand up to these guys or the City is going to waste millions of dollars on this fool's errand.
We have a bunch of yahoos, I'll call them the "Coalition of Anarchists," who simply do not understand the consequences of their proposed actions. The fact that this is even being considered for the ballot is troubling to me. We have checks and balances in our republic and I'd hope that similar checks and balances would be in place with respect to initiatives but this seems to expose that they do not exist.
Let's boil it down to what this initiative is--an attempt to cause a public body to void a valid and binding contract. Not only that, it is an attempt to breach a contract which is connected to a public debt obligation (i.e. the bonds issued in connection with the Arena deal). This precedent would wreak havoc on any and all deals between a public body in Ohio and a private party.
If they were somehow successful and if for some reason the funds were withheld, there would be a breach of the contract and litigation would proceed. The damages in the breach of contract action would be pretty easy to establish here since we're talking about a payment stream. So, the Coalition of Anarchists could cost the city millions of dollars in legal costs and the City might end up paying their contract parties the value of the payment stream in the end anyhow PLUS the potential for consequential damages for other losses.
But wait, there's more! If the payment stream was shut off even temporarily, as a result of the Coalition of Anarchist's two-part ballot initiative process, the issuer of the bonds, which need the payments from the City in order to meet their obligations, could have a payment default on the bonds (unless there is some backup source of funds or a reserve) which could result in a downgrade of the credit of the issuer! That, in turn, could result in the issuer having additional costs on future bond issues.
Not to mention the fact, that the entire state of Ohio and its municipal and other governmental bodies would now have the uncertainty that other contracts could be undone by public initiative. As a result, they might find that their credit ratings are also effected by this action. Think about it. If the Coalition of Anarchists can achieve their goal, then what would stop a group from undoing any other contract between a governmental body in Ohio and a third party, such as OSU's contract with Urban Meyer, the City's payments to contractors, bond obligations, etc., etc.
And this all leaves aside the effects on the Arena District, the Jackets, etc.
If the Coalition of Anarchists didn't like the Arena deal, perhaps they should have stopped it prior to it becoming final instead of now suggesting that the City breach its obligations with all of the possible associated consequences. I don't believe that the Arena deal is perfect. Far from it. And you can go back and look at my personal objections and reservations. But this is not the right time or method to try and accomplish a better deal.
Fans of this team really need to think about whether they are going to let these guys control the public discourse on this issue or if they are going to get out in front of it. For that matter, where is Nationwide and team ownership? They rallied to fight the casino and, to me, this is a much bigger threat than that ever was. There is a tendency lately to underestimate these sorts of groups only to have them succeed and wreak havoc and then we all get stuck dealing with the consequences. Those who truly favor responsible government need to stand up to these guys or the City is going to waste millions of dollars on this fool's errand.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,085
- 531
Bolded text from me; you KNOW it's important
For years, I've railed against various outsiders (Canadian hockey media, their braindead acolytes, and so on) who have little better to do than take shots at the "non-traditional" among us. I've said that we all need to stick together, whether CBJ or Phoenix or Tampa fans, because the worst thing that could happen is for us to divide and start fighting amongst ourselves.
Yet at the same time, I've ignored our own internal battles here between those who wear green, those who wear scarves, those who wear neither, and those who are unaffiliated but sympathetic to one faction or another. And in my case, I fueled this through pointed jabs. I try to not be hypocritical, but it's impossible to deny that I was on the wrong side of this one by participating in any way. And so I'm going to issue a blanket public apology, and vow not to fuel these flames again. We're all on the same side, and there's no sense in continuing any internal battles, especially when there's a much bigger fight brewing.
I'll take a second to mention that no one's forcing me into this. No PMs, no emails, no anything. And I say this not for a pat on the back or a cookie, but because I cannot help but think of what a great American said in the face of tremendous hostility and adversity. And that was: "If I can change, and you can change, then everyone can change!" And that impromptu idealistic speech from a brain-damaged boxer in a fictional movie ended the Cold War and brought down the Iron Curtain.
None of our internal battles mean a hill of beans if these buffoons have their way. And damn it, this is our hill, and these are our beans. So let's put down the torches and pitchforks, take a deep breath, and realize or remember that we're all on the same side. And as a chronic instigator, I'll (try my best to) set an example by doing so.
For years, I've railed against various outsiders (Canadian hockey media, their braindead acolytes, and so on) who have little better to do than take shots at the "non-traditional" among us. I've said that we all need to stick together, whether CBJ or Phoenix or Tampa fans, because the worst thing that could happen is for us to divide and start fighting amongst ourselves.
Yet at the same time, I've ignored our own internal battles here between those who wear green, those who wear scarves, those who wear neither, and those who are unaffiliated but sympathetic to one faction or another. And in my case, I fueled this through pointed jabs. I try to not be hypocritical, but it's impossible to deny that I was on the wrong side of this one by participating in any way. And so I'm going to issue a blanket public apology, and vow not to fuel these flames again. We're all on the same side, and there's no sense in continuing any internal battles, especially when there's a much bigger fight brewing.
I'll take a second to mention that no one's forcing me into this. No PMs, no emails, no anything. And I say this not for a pat on the back or a cookie, but because I cannot help but think of what a great American said in the face of tremendous hostility and adversity. And that was: "If I can change, and you can change, then everyone can change!" And that impromptu idealistic speech from a brain-damaged boxer in a fictional movie ended the Cold War and brought down the Iron Curtain.
None of our internal battles mean a hill of beans if these buffoons have their way. And damn it, this is our hill, and these are our beans. So let's put down the torches and pitchforks, take a deep breath, and realize or remember that we're all on the same side. And as a chronic instigator, I'll (try my best to) set an example by doing so.
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,085
- 531
My questions:
1) Is it even legal for this to end up on the ballot? Two historical examples I can think of, which are a big stretch because they involved criminal offenses instead of civil torts, involved dueling and lynching. The central issue in each involved (dueling) that one could not consent to a crime, and that (lynching) majority decision could not simply override established law, even if that law were drafted and enacted behind closed doors and not at the polls.
2) Let's say that this measure does end up on the ballot, and ends up passing. Would it be possible for another group to provide a series of loans to the city or county for the purpose of continuing the payments so as not to default on the original loans?
3) In the event that this ends up in court, what would the likelihood be of other municipalities to form a coalition specifically designed to eliminate these types of challenges now and into the future? And would this be legal to do, even if it involves another city or county floating money to a legal fund for another city or county?
4) I'd like to believe that this whole thing is completely ridiculous and doesn't have the legal ground to even be brought up in the first place, but Kelo v. City of New London sure did a number on my confidence in the legal system, particularly since that case involved a couple hundred years of legal precedent being overturned.
In the case of the MLB reserve clause arbitration, Peter Seitz rejected MLB's self-serving argument that free agency could destroy competitive balance and damage small-market teams. His ruling was basically that yes, that could be true, but it ultimately wasn't relevant to the case in front of him
What would the likelihood be of a higher court rejecting this proposed referendum, regardless of how it's decided, simply because it could have cataclysmic economic fallout across the country?
fox2usp
Inbred Cat
I am by no means an attorney, but this sounds pretty simple to me. We elect officials to make decisions on how to conduct government business and spend tax dollars. If we don't like the decisions they make, we replace these elected officials at the ballot box. Their replacements are then charged with changing whatever it was we didn't like in the first place. I don't possibly see how this can be changed by the general public by a simple vote. These elected officials didn't do anything illegal. They were simply conducting business in what they thought was the best interest of Franklin County. There are signed contacts in place by the representatives of the general public. It all seems silly to me, but once again, I'm no attorney.
Bolded text from me; you KNOW it's important
For years, I've railed against various outsiders (Canadian hockey media, their braindead acolytes, and so on) who have little better to do than take shots at the "non-traditional" among us. I've said that we all need to stick together, whether CBJ or Phoenix or Tampa fans, because the worst thing that could happen is for us to divide and start fighting amongst ourselves.
Yet at the same time, I've ignored our own internal battles here between those who wear green, those who wear scarves, those who wear neither, and those who are unaffiliated but sympathetic to one faction or another. And in my case, I fueled this through pointed jabs. I try to not be hypocritical, but it's impossible to deny that I was on the wrong side of this one by participating in any way. And so I'm going to issue a blanket public apology, and vow not to fuel these flames again. We're all on the same side, and there's no sense in continuing any internal battles, especially when there's a much bigger fight brewing.
I'll take a second to mention that no one's forcing me into this. No PMs, no emails, no anything. And I say this not for a pat on the back or a cookie, but because I cannot help but think of what a great American said in the face of tremendous hostility and adversity. And that was: "If I can change, and you can change, then everyone can change!" And that impromptu idealistic speech from a brain-damaged boxer in a fictional movie ended the Cold War and brought down the Iron Curtain.
None of our internal battles mean a hill of beans if these buffoons have their way. And damn it, this is our hill, and these are our beans. So let's put down the torches and pitchforks, take a deep breath, and realize or remember that we're all on the same side. And as a chronic instigator, I'll (try my best to) set an example by doing so.
Very "Beeish" post, but I'm ready to charge that hill with you.
CapnCornelius
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2006
- 10,986
- 0
1. I've only done the slightest of research and this is a difficult area of the law, so none of this constitutes legal advice . With that said, I think tho might make the ballot based on the city charter...but whether it ultimately is binding is up in the air. I point specifically to Section. 159 of the Charter which states that the city cannot fail to appropriate funds for a contract until it is discharged. This would seem to be an impediment to this initiative, but at that point we're squarely in litigation land. Which may raise the issue of who has standing to bring a suit if the city doesn't comply with the ordinance passed by initiative based on Section 159 or otherwise.
2. A couple issues here. I don't think the source of funds is what is at issue. These are casino tax revenues that they simply want the city to NOT USE for the purpose set out. Second, loans to cities require that the formalities of bond procedures be followed generally and this becomes cumbersome.
3. If a decision is made by the trial court, that's when the Ohio Municipal League would probably get involved with amicus briefs. At the trial court level I don't think they'd have standing to intervene. For one thing, the local trial court decision wouldn't be binding precedent outside of the court's jurisdiction.
4. I think a judge will try to decide this on the firmest and most limited grounds possible . That's what makes me think that Section 159 and an ultra vires argument kills this in the end. The public cannot do by initiative what the city couldn't do by ordinance or charter amendment. So, it will be interesting to see how expansive the language of this ballot initiative is. If worst comes to worst, a court will find any reason possible not to enforce this based on the briefs before them.
I want to point out one thing to be clear. I think this is an initiative as opposed to a referendum. Referendums are done shortly after an ordinance is passed for the citizens to prevent it from being enacted. We are beyond that period, unless I 'm. missing something. So, since they failed to act in the time provided by law, this is now an initiative--a new ordinance stating the City shall not appropriate funds for the Arena. So, we have a group that is, to my view, acting outside of the legal oversight already given to citizens by referendum and now acting to upset a legal relationship after enactment . This also raises a question whether Nationwide and other contract parties can bring a suit directly against the Coalition of Anarchists for Tortious Interference with a Contract.
deetman
Registered User
I did a bit of research last night on the guy that runs the "opposition group". He speaks a good game and his ideals can be viewed as being in the right place, but in my opinion he is in all of this for himself and likes to hear himself talk.
His main non-profit, the Columbus Compact Corporation, seems to redevelop/improve lands via local, state, and federal grants. After minimal risk of their own cash, they lease or sell the properties to private tenants or individuals and any profit from that never goes back to the local, state, or federal governments. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this by itself as that is what these grants are for, but to me it seems extremely hypocritical when your organization is receiving "government hand outs" just the same as what they say about the arena deal. (Difference in dollar value and what not, but same principle)
His main non-profit, the Columbus Compact Corporation, seems to redevelop/improve lands via local, state, and federal grants. After minimal risk of their own cash, they lease or sell the properties to private tenants or individuals and any profit from that never goes back to the local, state, or federal governments. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this by itself as that is what these grants are for, but to me it seems extremely hypocritical when your organization is receiving "government hand outs" just the same as what they say about the arena deal. (Difference in dollar value and what not, but same principle)
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
Hypocritical, hell. That immediately brings to mind a hypothetical conspiracy theory in that he hates the public purchase because he figures that the money was going to go to him and his instead.
NOTE: that's pure speculation motivated by bias; if I see anybody quote this as anything other than that without a link to a confirming news story I will set them on fire.
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,085
- 531
Thanks for the first four points in this response.
I do want to touch on this part briefly though. At what point would Nationwide and other parties be able to (attempt to) bring a suit?
If this ends up being initially approved to even be on the ballot, would or could Nationwide or other parties seek an injunction to block it? If it ends up on the ballot, would these parties be able to file a suit for tortious interference at that point, or would it need to be something that ends up on the ballot, then is voted on and passed before being able to do so?
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,085
- 531
Reminds me of the old story, often attributed to Winston Churchill as most humorous stories are. He asks a young lady if she would sleep with him for a million pounds, to which she agrees. He asks if she would sleep with him for ten pounds, to which the now-indignant woman snarls, "What, do you think I'm a harlot?" He responded, "That has been established, now we're just haggling over the price."
CapnCornelius
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2006
- 10,986
- 0
Additionally, Mr. Beard seems to have a history with Nationwide, although it is unclear without reviewing court records the exact circumstances.
Case No. 2000 CVI 038960 was brought by J & N Investments, Inc., but Nationwide is also listed on the record.
Apparently Mr. Beard and his co-defendant failed to pay the amount of the judgment against them and a garnishment was levied against them.
It is the same Mr. Beard--same address as listed on a 2012 initiative petition.
I think this raises a question as to whether Mr. Beard has a personal vendetta against Nationwide.
Mr. Beard's business interests include a local independent newspaper. As such, he clearly has business interests which conflict with those of another CBJ owner--the Wolfe family. http://columbusfreepress.com/article/now-more-ever
In case there is some thought that this is a libertarian-leaning group, consider the fact that one of the leaders is Robert Fitrakis, who was a Green Party gubernatorial candidate and Congressional candidate.
CapnCornelius
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2006
- 10,986
- 0
I don't think they'd be able to bring a suit unless/until it won at the ballot, unless there is some novel legal theory out there that I'm not thinking of, which is entirely possible. Again, this is a complex issue and you could easily have an associate at a law firm spend hours researching it…and someone likely is. But, I think the most likely point at which an injunction would be sought is if the ballot initiative was successful because at that point you have an action which would cause a breach of the contract. You're going to have to have a breach to get either a direct contract claim against the City or a claim against a third party such as the Coalition of Anarchists for tortious interference.
To many folks it seems like a bailout for Nationwide, Dispatch families, etc. That is the issue is most folks in this town don't want to pay for Arena because they don't use it.
CapnCornelius
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2006
- 10,986
- 0
Most in Columbus don't have occasion to use the Fire Department either. They don't get to opt out of paying for it.
In all sincerity, I get objections to the deal. I hardly love it myself. What I object to is a group that fails to timely mobilize a referendum to prevent the enactment of the deal now acting after the fact with significant legal and financial ramifications to their act of defiance which they either don't understand or don't care about which may worsen the situation for their fellow citizens.
Double-Shift Lasse
Just post better
Also a notorious attention ***** and no fan of the Dispatch/Wolfe enterprise. FWIW.
Agree.
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
I can already hear the objections of some of my Tennessee-resident friends... but now we're getting into libertarian ideology, and that's probably too far offtopic.
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,085
- 531
The state of Ohio takes at least $350,000,000 of annual tax income and funnels it to Ohio State, which I've never used in any manner and am hostile toward.
In addition, we come back to the fact that Value City Arena was to be built with the conditions that it have no luxury seating and host no non-NCAA or OHSAA events. The fact that both of those provisions were ignored and caused a 10-year war with Nationwide on bidding for events, with losses at Nationwide being pushed onto the CBJ and losses at Value City being pushed onto the taxpayers of the state of Ohio....
http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...-columbus-eased-way-for-ballot-petitions.html
That's a hell of a claim. Any actual proof?
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,085
- 531
Everyone who voted on whether Huntington Park should be built, go ahead and raise your hands. Seems to me that that was a case of circumventing the will of the people, with nary a peep.
Prepare the petitions and pitchforks...it'll be back to Cooper Stadium before long!
Prepare the petitions and pitchforks...it'll be back to Cooper Stadium before long!
SuperGenius
For Duty & Humanity!
- Mar 18, 2008
- 4,639
- 200
It seems to me the contract he refers to is likely for the management of the arena, not the purchase.
CapnCornelius
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2006
- 10,986
- 0
There are scenarios where public bodies do structure contracts this way because of their limited authority with respect to appropriations, but as this deal was financed (or at least that was my understanding) I have a hard time seeing how a deal with such a provision could get long-term financing. Again, I haven't reviewed the documents in question. I'd sure love to take a look though.
It is just mind-boggling to me that a guy who is the head of an organization whose mission is "The Columbus Compact Corporation is a catalyst for positive change, and an agent for the growth and development of central city Columbus neighborhoods and business districts," wants to kill a project which has accomplished those missions better than pretty much any other project in Columbus' history.
Perhaps an initiatives should be started to terminate all City, County and State contracts with the Columbus Compact Corporation. It would seem that fair is fair.
Ad
Latest posts
-
Post-Series Talk: Boston Bruins Defeat Toronto Maple Leafs (win 4-3)- Latest: TheGroceryStick
-
-
-
-
