CityNorth
investment questionedBy
Michael Clancy The
Arizona Republic 10.01.09
The
Arizona Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the CityNorth
case Wednesday, with justices questioning whether
Phoenix
will get enough in return for its $97.4 million commitment to
the project.
"We're
struggling with where the line is," Chief Justice Rebecca
Berch said, referring to benefits to the city and benefits to
the developer.
The
courtroom was packed with lawyers, developers and other
interested parties who could be affected by the outcome.
Timothy
Berg, who argued on behalf of the city and the developer, the
Klutznick Co., said the justices need to take into
consideration not just the quantifiable benefits of increased
sales tax and parking garage revenue, but also the intangible
benefits of reduced traffic, decreased air pollution and
additional jobs.
Berg
also argued that such decisions should rest with the City
Council, not with the courts - unless the city's judgment
clearly is flawed.
Under
the agreement, approved in March 2007, Phoenix agreed to pay
back to the developer half the sales taxes collected for 11
years, 3 months, or until the total reaches $97.4 million.
The
developer agreed to erect 1.2 million square feet of
tax-generating retail space and parking garages that would
hold more than 3,000 vehicles, setting aside several hundred
for city use as a park-and-ride lot. No money has been
exchanged yet.
CityNorth,
on the north side of
Loop
101 at
56th Street
, has opened one phase, but additional work has been delayed
because of the economy.
"The
court was trying to determine whether there was a genuine quid
pro quo," said Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute,
which sued to block the agreement on behalf of six small
businesses.
Berg
said that besides the parking garages, which are scheduled to
be built in Phase 2 of the project, and the sales taxes,
Klutznick agreed to build CityNorth in a way that would
maximize return to the city.
Bolick
said the developer is committed to the project, even without
the agreement. The parking-garage argument, he said, "is
a sham" because the city and the anchor tenants already
required parking.
He
said the money for CityNorth clearly is for private purpose,
benefiting a profit-making developer, despite the tax benefits
for the city.
Grady
Gammage, whose law firm is retained by CityNorth, said that if
the agreement is upheld, the project will move forward as soon
as financially feasible.
He
added: "This case will determine if the project proceeds
as originally envisioned."
If
the agreement is deemed unconstitutional, he said, the project
would have to be revised and likely delayed.
"It
will be more like a standard mall," he said.
John
Klutznick of the Klutznick Co. did not take questions. But in
a statement e-mailed to reporters later, he said a loss in the
case would "threaten economic development throughout
Arizona
."
A
decision could come before the end of year, court spokeswoman
Cari Gerchick said.
For more
information about Lillian Wong & Associates and our services, please visit
my website at LillianWong.net or email me at
Lillian@LillianWong.com.
If
you would like to unsubscribe to this mailing list, please
click on this 'REMOVE'
link and follow the instructions shown on the automated
'Opt-Out Service'.