The Invisible Hand(out) of the (Taxpayer Financed) Market

The war between cities and regions to attract business development generated the handouts known as 'incentives', 'tax increment financing', 'abatements', and more - a virtual cottage industry in how to funnel taxpayer funds to well connected developers.  There are more noble goals in play at the same time, like, hoping for a catalyst to spur private sector investment.  But the subsidies don't seem to ever end.

We have seen this cottage industry begin to morph from incentives to entitlements - industries that are begging for land upon which to develop, still expect hefty abatements to "level the playing field" and they no longer even try to tie job gains with those tax benefits.

Now, quietly yet out in the open, there is another transformation happening - the perpetual enrichment of favored landowner through taxpayer funded inducements for development upon leased real estate.

The North of South/City Way investment of about $100 M of taxpayer money involved development of the housing/retail/hotel/fake tech park built on top of land leased from Eli Lilly.  How much cash flow that provides Lilly is - well - none of your damn business, Ms. Taxpayer.

While the land lease model worked out in City Way, it does not always go so smoothly.  The airport has been trying to lease prime real estate where its old terminal used to be.  It has prominent frontage along I-465 and enviable access, not to mention an already existing parking garage.  Plus the old building has been torn down and hauled away.  Height restrictions do play a role here, but there is also the ingredient of who would want to lease the land upon which to construct a building.  Even a fifty year lease will find a day when the tenant must either re-up the lease or move on -- and at what cost?  The only offer they have noted in public has been a casino complex - which I personally root for, but the point here is the paucity of interest.

Last night the City-County Council voted to float $75 M in TIF bonds for the 16 Tech project.  Roughly $55 M would go to move water lines, power lines, and gas lines, and build a bridge and a park - all of which will make the land owned by IU Foundation, IU, Beurt R & Corena J  Servaas, the Benjamin Franklin Literary Medical Society, Health & Hospitals Corp. of Marion County, and Methodist Hospital much more valuable.  Yet, this land will be leased to eventual developers, not sold for the development.  But, it gets even better for these entities - 16 Tech Community Corp has been set up and will be funded by the rest of the bonds to the tune of just over half a million a year (with salaries ranging from $30,000 to $200,000) and their job will be to market the property to developers - so that these not-for-profits don't have to lift a finger or pay a single salary in order to cash in on the taxpayers' largess.

All that said, this one kind of amuses me.  I like the area in question getting a leg up and I like trying to promote biotech for the long run.  I do wonder, though, how viable the land-leasing model will be. In worst case, Mass Ave and Union Station and Circle Center Mall and the rest of the consolidated downtown TIF can all contribute to paying off the bonds.

I've wandered off the point of this post.  What we now have are the taxpayers being expected to fund a quarter to a third of all downtown development AND sustain abatements that need not include increased employment ALL THE WHILE our investments are quietly generating a perpetual revenue stream to well connected landowners.

City Council Postpones Prop 148 - Waiting for Outcome of Airport Board Vote

This Friday, the Airport Authority Board will vote on whether to terminate the lawsuit they filed to stop off airport parking in Ameriplex.  Prop 148, a Council Resolution that urges them to do so, was postponed at last night's Council meeting, waiting to see exactly what Friday's decision is.

As I noted in my last entry, Prop 148 was initiated by Councillor Adamson and co-sponsored by the two district Councillors, Lutz and Holliday, as well as 10 other Councillors in a bipartisan show of support for Decatur Township.

In offering the motion to postpone, Adamson had a few thoughts to share, and I, for one, am glad he shared them.  I particularly thought it an important idea, that the Airport should consider reimbursing Mid-West Logistics, the owner of the ground in  Ameriplex where the Fast Park facility would be built, the $215,000 they spent fighting this frivolous lawsuit.

Here are Adamson's comments from the WTCY video of last night's meeting.

Is it Most Sincerely Dead ? Airport Chief Says Lawsuit Over Fast Park To Be Withdrawn

In an exclusive this afternoon, Jon Murray, IndyStar reporter, quoted Indianapolis Airport Director, Bob Duncan, as saying the Airport's two year battle to stop a Fast Park facility from locating in Ameriplex, will end.  Murray relays the following:

Authority Board President Mike Wells discussed the issue with other board members and found consensus in support of airport officials’ plans to drop the lawsuit, Duncan said this afternoon.

Coincidence or final straw, this comes as the Council readies for Prop 148 on Monday night.  This Council Resolution chides the airport for continuing to engage in the lawsuit filed to overturn the land use changes, granted by the Metropolitan Development Commission, that would allow a Fast Park & Relax facility to be built on 31 acres just off Ameriplex Parkway.

In keeping with the long strange trip this has been, Murray quotes Councillor Bob Lutz, whose district includes the northern half of the Indianapolis Airport, and who aptly put it :

 “I am so happy and so furious all at the same time!” he wrote in an email to The Star. “All of the wasted effort and taxpayer dollars. Plus the time, energy and money Ameriplex and Chavez had to spend and what was accomplished? Nothing!”

Lutz was the key driver of the Council's decision last fall, to dock the Airport budget by $100,000; the expected cost of the lawsuit in outside attorneys.  He also got 13 Councillors to vote against the entire Airport budget when it came before the full Council.

IBJ reporter, Kathleen McLaughlin, reports that Prop 148 may be withdrawn if the termination of the Airport's lawsuit can be directly verified.

At-large City-County Councilor Zach Adamson, a Democrat, said he would not pull his resolution from Monday night's agenda until Midwest Logistics confirms that the airport will withdraw its appeal. "They had two and a half years to do the right thing, and they refused to do it," he said of the airport authority. "It's criminal what they've done to this business."

Adamson initiated Prop 148 and has been a steadfast opponent of the lawsuit.

Can this day have finally arrived?  I looked on the Airport's website and cannot find any press release.  But, Murray has Bob Duncan's comments and I am hearing of email verifications coming from the Mayor's office and from Mike Wells, President of the Airport Authority Board, as well.

So, just maybe the wicked witch is not only dead, but most sincerely dead !

Council To Take Up Prop 148 - Asking Airport to Drop it Lawsuit

This Monday night, May 13, the City County Council will take up Prop 148, among other things.  In an unusual move, this Proposal is scheduled for both introduction AND a vote Monday.

Prop 148, initiated by Councillor Zach Adamson, and co-sponsored by 12 others, including District Councillors Jason Holliday and Bob Lutz, announces Council support for the Fast Park zoning decision of the MDC and asks the Airport to terminate its lawsuit.

This is so very important for my neck of the woods, and I am very excited to see this development.

The co-sponsors are a bipartisan group - Adamson, Holliday and Lutz are joined by Councillors Talley, Hickman, Mansfield, Mascari, Moriarty Adams, Evans, Freeman, Pfisterer, Sandlin, and Scales.

There are a baker's dozen Whereas clauses, with the penultimate being:

WHEREAS, the opposition of the Indianapolis Airport Authority, acting and using its powers as municipal corporation for purely competitive reasons is improper and runs contrary to the history and tradition of public-private collaboration and cooperation in Indianapolis, which has been fostered by mayors and councilors of both major political parties, and which is a hallmark of the city's business culture to be generally conducive and friendly to private sector job growth and economic development;

The Proposal would affirm the Council's support for the zoning decision of the MDC, asks the Airport Authority to terminate its lawsuit, leaves the Mayor the option of signing on to the Special Resolution (like that's going to happen), and would have the Clerk of the Council send a copy of the Resolution to each Airport Authority Board member.

It is no secret that I cannot understand why we have to fight our own government because it is trying to create a monopoly by fiat and lawsuit, for a business commonly conducted by the private sector.  It is heartening that another branch of our local government will come to our aide in our fight.

Thanks to all the co-sponsors and an 'in-advance' thank you to all the Councillors who vote in support of Prop 148 !

Indianapolis Airport Doesn't Care About the Law

For those interested in the growing power of the Mayor's office, you might want to keep an eye on the alarming autonomy being handed to the Airport Authority.

A recent ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals held that Airport Authorities do not have autonomy over the zoning on their property, but rather must go through the local municipality's zoning process.

That was last fall.  The Indianapolis Airport didn't care what the law was.  They did not file a land use petition with the City of Indianapolis for the new solar park on which City officials gathered to break ground last month.  No, they just did what they always do - what they damn well please.

HB 1045, introduced to pull military airports located in Indiana, into the State's airport systems plan if an airport is also used for civilian air traffic, has been totally transformed to give the Airport Authority unfettered access to do whatever they want.

As it now stands, HB 1045 has passed the House, the Senate, and is returned to the House to okay amendments.  It no longer contains the joint military/civilian airports at all.  Now it allows Airports to legally do what they already have been doing - using their land for any purpose they want without public review and without regard to local zoning laws.  Additionally, they will be able to enter into leases greater than 15 years for more than just the land, extending to 40 years the lease of buildings as well.  They can also use building funds to assist in interstate transportation, not just for intrastate benefits.

For anyone who has to live near the airport, the fact that this bill will let the Indianapolis Airport to run rough shot over uses on private land is disturbing.

Look at the airport perimeter - one billboard after another, showing how little regard the Airport gives to local laws and the public aesthetic behind those laws.

All those private businesses who have to compete on an unfair playing field because of the Airport's tax free status will continue to suffer.  Add on top of that the Airport's complete disregard of the effect of allowing incompatible uses on land it owns abutting private property, as long as they can make a buck in the process, and you have a recipe for degradation of land values next to the Airport.

I have been waiting for the City to follow the law and insist that the Airport run its zoning through the local public process - as determined by the Courts.

But, I guess they were all in on this hijacking of the Legislative Session to pull this fast one on an unsuspecting public.

Airport City - A Scam On Taxpayers and Free Markets

Tomorrow when the Airport announces its multi-county effort to create an "airport city", I will be traveling.  I'll not be able to address for another week, their claims of being an economic development engine that we should all get behind.

However, I do know a lot about this airport city, as they have been moving it along a high speed track for a couple of years now.  I do have some things to say that will undoubtedly stand up to whatever outrageous claims they make tomorrow.

The basis of the airport city is that the Indianapolis Airport owns thousands of acres of land that they do not need for either aviation or security purposes.  The old terminal and old parking lot space along I-465 will be familiar to most folks in Indy.  The acreage has either outlived its utility for aviation, or was purchased with federal dollars through a noise abatement program.  The community has always been told these parcels would be bundled and returned to the tax rolls.  Now the Airport wants to keep them off the tax rolls, so that the Airport can get its fat cut.

I do hope they are asked how many acres are actually involved - specifically for each county.  I'd hazard a guess from maps that it is hundreds of acres in Marion County, approaching one thousand, if not reaching it.  And there are a thousand or two combined in Hendricks and Morgan Counties.

There are three reasons for all residents of our area to oppose this plan.

1) it keeps significant swaths of land off the tax rolls that could be contributing property taxes.  This would help reduce the average tax burden of current property owners AND, simultaneously, add much needed additional revenue to pay for basic services - schools, libraries, police and fire, to name a few.

2) the excess land is being kept so that the Airport can charge companies a 'lease payment' for the land upon which they would build.  This is why the Airport wants to do this airport city - to make tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars a year - without having to dirty their image by asking for a cut of property taxes.

3) it is very likely, if not guaranteed, that the lease payment will be less than a company would have to pay in property taxes on that land, had it been returned to the tax rolls.  This gives an unfair advantage to companies locating on airport property.  The Airport would also demand other tax incentives, undoubted, to lure tenants.  All taken together, the Airport would become a competitor to neighboring industrial parks who are trying to make it the American way - through the free enterprise system.

The Airport does not go through the regular zoning process, although the Courts have decided that they must.  They have no standards and really don't care what eyesores they create next to privately owned property.  Take for example, the travails of Dee Wilson.  Wilson owns property abutting the north east corner of the Airport, right near Washington Street.  He had interest in his parcel until the Airport let rust buckets of shipping/semi containers be stored next to his property.  All interest is gone and the Airport has offered less than 50 cents on the dollar.  Wilson has declined their 'offer'.

The Airport is currently offering buyers of the United Maintenance Facility bonds 10 cents on the dollar.  Even though the Airport made $75 million in cash profit last year, they have no conscience in low balling folks who thought they were trustworthy.

The Airport is trying to expand the footprint and role of local government, to create a local fiefdom - and taxpayers and the free enterprise system will pay the price.

Russ McQuaid Reports : "Neighbors Claim Airport is a "Bully" with Deep Pockets

Fox 59 investigative reporter, Russ McQuaid filed this yesterday:

Muni Corps Committee Trims Airport Budget

As I mentioned in my last blog entry, this phase of the budget season is usually dry and boring.  What with split government this year, we are seeing an attempt by the Democrats to change Mayor Ballard's introduced budget in significant ways.  But, still I was expecting the Muni Corps committee meeting to be dry and perfunctory.  Figuring I'd save myself a needless trip and parking fee, I emailed Chairman Monroe Gray and asked if there were going to be any amendments introduced.  Yes, he thought Councillor Lutz would be putting forth something.

Councillor Bob Lutz is a Republican, so what's up?  Could he be fiddling with the Airport's budget?  The airport got an earful from the public and a polite note of disagreement from the Councillors when they presented their budget in committee last week.  A key spark was the fact that the Airport Board had just decided to begin an appeal of Judge Keele's ruling against them in their lawsuit that tried to stop a Fast Park facility from being built in Ameriplex.

Well, they got more than that this time.

Lutz offered an amendment to cut their budget by $100,000; the cost of the appeal.  In a $161 million budget, they won't be left wounded or anything.   Through this cut, the Council would be sending a message that the continuation of this lawsuit is frowned upon.

Lutz and Councillor Jason Holliday share the airport in their districts.  Lutz on the Wayne side and Holliday on the Decatur.

Between them they laid out some of the history of the airport/Ameriplex/Fast Park story that I had not heard discussed in public before.  And it is telling.  Both the developer and Ameriplex approached the airport as soon as they thought there might be a good match in locating a Fast Park facility within the industrial park.  They wouldn't go any further if the airport had a problem with it.  The airport didn't have a problem.  The Mayor's office didn't have a problem.

Fast forward to  when plans were coming to fruition.  Indy Park Ride & Fly - an off airport parking facility that moved out of Marion County and into Plainfield when the new terminal opened - had hired an attorney who went door to door in the abutting neighborhood.  That attorney is now representing the airport in its lawsuit.

Lets face it, this lawsuit doesn't have merit.  Never did.  The airport is simply using its deep pockets to make it too expensive and too prolonged for Fast Park and Ameriplex to continue.  They want to drive a legitimate business out of Decatur Township.  They don't want the competition.  This governmental entity wants to kill off competitors in a free market.

Long story short,  the committee voted 4-3 to amend the airport's budget by $100,000.  Voting with the Decatur community were Councillors Lutz, Holiday, Cardwell, and Mahern.  Voting against were Councillors Gray, Talley, and Osili.

They also voted to send it to the full Council with a do-pass recommendation.  I could see Gray vote no, but could not tell who else may have joined him.

This is an important vote for Decatur Township.  We overwhelmingly want the Fast Park to be built.  It is not your granddad's parking facility; rather it is so green that it can teach the airport a thing or two about being environmentally responsible.  It would be located outside the TIF and bring much needed tax dollars to our schools and help move us toward a more balanced tax base.  It will spark the development of much need commercial property that will benefit the community at large and help Ameriplex attract more high salary tenants to the Purdue Research Park.

I want to thank Councillors Bob Lutz, Jason Holliday, Jeff Cardwell, and Brian Mahern for standing up with us and standing up for us.  Your support means a lot to us.

For those who are interested, I've embedded that part of the committee meeting from the WCTY archives below - it runs almost half an hour:



Judge's Ruling Clears Way for Fast Park Facility in Ameriplex

On August 29, Superior Court Judge Michael Keele ruled against the Indianapolis Airport Authority's lawsuit that claimed the Metropolitan Development Commission lacked the authority to modify the land use plan for Ameriplex.  This ruling was unequivocal, ceding no iota of the IAA's arguments as holding legal water.

I uploaded the opinions to Google Docs (here and here)

By ruling against the Airport, Judge Keele has cleared the way for the construction (FINALLY) of the Fast Park facility that was the basis of the MDC's decision way back in February (see "Yesterday's Zoning Case - Its About Far More Than a Parking Facility").

The Fast Park has seen it's entry into the Indianapolis market greeted with legal maneuvers against it by Airport parking facilities who simple did not want Fast Park's competition.  First, Indy Park Ride & Fly over in Plainfield, hired attorney Brian Tuohy to try to shut down Ameriplex's land use petitions filed with the MDC.  The MDC's approval, by an overwhelming vote of 6-2, should have been the end of it.  But, by this time Tuohy had landed a client with even deeper pockets - the Indianapolis Airport.  They filed this lawsuit in March and we finally have a decision, reaffirming the February decision of the MDC and its authority to render that decision.

This is great news for Decatur Township.  I outlined in a five part series how the Fast Park facility will provide us with property taxes outside of the TIF district that consumes most of Ameriplex and will divert tax revenues until at least 2023.  (see "The 800 Pound Gorilla - Indianapolis Airport", "Decatur Township", "Ameriplex", and "Fast Park Project")

It is also great news for those who think the Airport should not use its unlimited resource of other people's money to squelch competition.  Its not even like it's hurting for money and needs the parking revenues from its own operations (see "Mike Wells, Indy Airport Board President, Misled Press and Public on Airport Finances").

Ultimately, it is great news for central Indiana residents who can use another option when deciding where to park their cars when on a flight out of town.  Yelp reviews of the Fast Park operation, in other cities where it is located, give it an average of 4.5 stars out of 5 for 652 reviews.

And last but not least, it must be noted that the Fast Park & Relax facility will be green - with canopies over every parking spot to protect the cars as well as reduce the heat island effect and for solar panels to be affixed to the top.  They capture and use rain water for irrigating their landscaping.  They will have electric charging stations for folks with those kinds of cars.  And, they will help show the way for local businesses to adopt a green approach while still building a business that works.  For, if a parking facility can do it, everyone can.

Its been a long road to reach this victory.  But, we have.  Now, time to celebrate !!!

Huber Cashes Out of One Government Job to Another

IndyStar reporter Jon Murray is reporting that Deputy Mayor Michael Huber is leaving his post with the City and taking a spot at the Airport that pays a whopping $190,000 a year.  Deron Kintner, currently Director of the Bond Bank, is being supported by Mayor Ballard to step into Huber's old post.

So, Huber is moving from selling taxpayer assets, creating TIFs, and spending excess TIF funds on the projects of favored developers --- to -- keeping hundreds, if not thousands of acres of land OFF the tax rolls so that the airport can make $65 million more a year in clear profit.  This is the airport city concept I have mentioned before, that is a shell game swapping private property taxes paid by private entities on private land ---  for ----  airport profits from land leases of government owned property for private businesses that have no need to be located at an airport, nor which assist the airport in its mission of providing air transportation functions.

Its a double dip that keeps taxpayers digging deeper into their pockets, while favorite local developers become accustomed to large handouts and forgiven taxes.

Edited to add: I guess they didn't clear those folks out of the airport in order to save money after all.  The $200,000 'saved' is just about Huber's salary.

Public Access Counselor Sides With Airport on Open Door Law Complaint

Yesterday the Indiana Public Access Counselor issued his opinion on my complaint that the Indianapolis Airport Board violated the Open Door Law in initiating a lawsuit without a meeting to take a vote and without an established policy giving the Board President the authority to unilaterally make this decision.  I spoke with Joe Hoage, the PAC, today, to try and get some clarification of the opinion.
I have uploaded the opinion to Google Docs, as I don't see it posted on the PAC website yet.

A little background on what has happened at the Airport since I filed the complaint and since they were notified by Hoage of that complaint on May 10, 2012.  (See "Airport Board Did Not Authorize Lawsuit On Fast Park Zoning" for information about the complaint itself.)

Since receiving word of the complaint, the Airport Chief Legal Office, Joseph Heerens, signed an engagement letter with Doninger Tuohy & Bailey LLP to file and litigate the lawsuit on May 11.  Then, on May 17, both Heerens and Airport Authority Executive Director, Bob Duncan, signed an amended letter of engagement setting a $70,000 limit on the professional services contract.  On May 25, the Airport Board voted unanimously to support the lawsuit.  The posted agenda for that meeting did not, however, contain mention of this vote so that interested parties could attend and make their opinions known.

The crux of the PAC opinion is that as a general rule, the law does not mandate that any Board hold a meeting in order to initiate a lawsuit.  In fact there is a chilling court decision that says that decisions can be made in executive sessions; the same executive sessions were taking a vote is illegal.  It is his opinion, as well, that there is a policy allowing the Executive Director of the IAA to enter into personal services contracts for less than $150,000 without prior Board approval and that allowed the engagement of the law firm. He also puts value on the late board vote saying:

I would note that to clear up an impropriety, or perceived impropriety; the Board conducted a vote on May 25, 2012 in an open, properly noticed public meeting where the Board unanimously ratified the initiation of the legal action.

Heerens comments omitted  the fact that the May 25 meeting agenda does not mention the issue coming before the Board for a vote.  So, that action does not really meet any standard for proper notice and does not embrace any openness with respect to the public.  And I would have to disagree strenuously with the PAC that it clears up any impropriety.  The impropriety is not that the Board would have voted unanimously before the lawsuit was filed, the impropriety is that it did not vote and thus blocked the public from having input before the decision was final. 

The fact that they gave me 5 minutes to comment AFTER the lawsuit was filed seems to mean a lot to Heerens.  It is a sad day for public input into the affairs of government when those in power don't get the idea that input is only valuable when it has a non-zero chance of affecting the outcome of a decision.
Heerens is not unique at the Airport.  We often see this detachment from any respect for the public's opinion and the true meaning of transparancy.  He just was the one who wrote it up.  Here is his take on how all this AFTER decision posing elevates the IAA Board above all reasonable expectations:

Not only did the IAA board act in a manner consistent with the above-referenced Advisory Opinion 08-FC-136, it went above and beyond by taking several additional steps in order to ensure that this matter was handled in a fully transparent manner and that the general public was informed and made aware of the litigation in question.

Just days after the Petitions were filed, President Wells took the opportunity to publicly announce and report, at an IAA public board meeting, that the IAA had filed this litigation challenging the MDC Approval.  At the conclusion of his public comments, Mr. Wells also announce that Complainant had requested, and was being granted, five (5) minutes to address the IAA board on this particular subject.  In her public comments, Complainant indicated that the Decatur Township Civic Council was opposed to the Petitions and requested that the IAA withdraw or dismiss them.  Complainant, along with several of her colleagues, also provided certain documents to the IAA board for its consideration.  No on else offered public comments or asked to be heard.

Again I must reiterate that the Airport Board is granted by State Law the right to sue and be sued.  They have not delegated that authority, through establishment of a policy, to the sitting President of the Board.  Thus, they must make that decision through a vote at an open meeting.  I am not deterred in this interpretation.  I am staggered that a Board of such importance does not have a policy establishing a mechanism for Board decisions between Board meetings.  Every non-profit on whose Board I have served has just such a mechanism. 

As for that chilling court opinion that decisions may be made in executive session, even though there may be no vote taken - the minutes of the Airport Board's executive sessions pretty much show no decision was made regarding this lawsuit in that venue either.  In November and December's Executive sessions, yes the Board did discuss allowable matters under IC 5-14-1.5-6.1 (b)(2)(B)

(2) For discussion of strategy with respect to any of the following:
...
(B) Initiation of litigation or litigation that is either pending or has been threatened specifically in writing

In the January 20 and February 17 meetings, no such discussion was noted in the minutes.  The MDC hearing was held on February 15.  The March 23 meeting, after the filing of the lawsuit, again notes IC 5-14-1.5-6.1 (b)(2)(B) - discussion of strategy regarding litigation.  So, no discussion of lawsuits took place in the time frame most interesting for this lawsuit.  Heerens, in his comments, carefully avoids saying that they did.  He gets very general on this saying only:

While the IAA has not historically secured the vote of its board before initiating litigation, IAA board members have regular opportunities to be advised on, and to discuss, recommended proceedings, threatened and pending litigation, and the strategy about on in connection therewith.  These discussions occur frequently in executive sessions throughout the year, as permitted by the ODL.  See, Indiana Code 5-14-1.5-6.1(b)(2)(B).  For example, at this time there are nine (9) pending lawsuits involving IAA, and these matters are discussed, from time to time, in executive session.

In our conversation, the PAC noted that it is not in his purview to opine on whether the Airport Authority Board was required to hold a meeting to decide if this lawsuit should be filed.  Given that big caveat, I cannot fault him from arriving at the position he did.  But, that is the crux of my argument that the Board violated the open door law - because they have the sole authority to sue and they did not delegate it to any Board President, nor did they make such a decision in an executive session without taking a vote.  The very fact that AFTER the airport was apprised of my complaint they even saw the first draft of a letter of agreement with the outside lawfirm handling the lawsuit, and a week later got a version signed by the Executive Director, and the very fact that AFTER the airport was apprised of my complaint they took a vote in a public meeting - all speaks to the fact that they did not do things right the first time and were bailing themselves out as best they could.  And, it looks like it worked.

Is This How The Professionals Do It?

It would make me extremely nervous to hire a lawyer and let him work for me for two months before having a written agreement as to his billing rate.

Maybe that's just me.  The Indianapolis International Airport hired a whole firm to represent them and went two and a half months before finalizing the terms of their arrangement.

From an open records request, I received four iterations of a letter of engagement of Doninger Tuohy & Bailey, LLP, by the airport.  This is the law firm the airport hired to file and support its lawsuit against the MDC, trying to kill off a Fast Park facility on a prime location within Ameriplex.

According to Brian Tuohy in an email to airport Chief Legal Officer, Joseph Heerens, he began doing work for the airport on March 1, 2012, which would be two weeks after the MDC hearing that the airport is now suing over, and two weeks before the lawsuit was filed.  As time passed, Heerens would inquire of Tuohy in multiple emails as to when he would get the letter of engagement.  March came and went.  No letter.  April 23 saw a court hearing before Judge Michael Keele.  No letter.

On May 3, Tuohy emailed a draft engagement letter to Heerens for discussion.  Attorney rates were noted in the text as $150.00 to  $325.00 per hour.

On May 11, an unsigned version of the engagement letter, with a start date of February 17 and an attorney hourly rate of $75.00 to $175.00 was sent by Tuohy to Heerens.

An identical letter of engagement has Heerens' initials and a May 11 date for that signing.

On May 17 a revised engagement letter dated the same day was sent by Tuohy to Heerens.   This was signed by both Heerens and interim IAA Executive Director, Bob Duncan, on May 18.  This version included a start date of March 1 and a limit of $70,000 for fees and expenses.

Well, at least it got done before the airport received an invoice.

Mike Wells, Indy Airport Board President, Misled Press and Public on Airport Finances

On May 14, 2012, almost all local news outlets reported that the Indianapolis International Airport lost $31.3 million in its operating fund in 2011.  Mike Wells, President of the Airport Board, was prominently featured, talking about how the airport must improve its non-airline revenues, most notably through protecting on-airport parking proceeds.  On May 24, the $31.3 million loss figure was repeated when the media reported that three top executives of the Airport had been laid off to save money.

On May 25, [correction: the internal memo was sent on May 15, 2012] Airport CFO Marsha Stone, sent an internal memo to all airport employees, refuting the notion that the airport is in "financial trouble" - instead laying out how the airport actually saw a real net operating profit of $74.9 million in 2011.

Wells got the story aired all over town that the airport is facing financial problems.  By doing so, he misled the press and the public about the true nature of the airport's situation.  But, was his real target for the misinformation Judge Michael Keele, who is considering the Airport's lawsuit against the MDC that aims to derail plans for a Fast Park facility on a prime site in Ameriplex?

Here are links to the news articles (with the exception of those printing AP reports and/or IBJ reporting):  IBJ (Chris O'Malley - May 14 - May 24)  Indy Star (Dan McFeeley - May 24, 25)  WRTV (Norm Cox on May 14 and general story on May 24)  Fox59 (Kjerstin Ramsing May 14 and general story on May 24).

I have uploaded a copy of the internal memo sent by Marsha Stone, so you can review it in its entirety.
Stone begins by blaming the media for the misinformation getting published.  She says:

You may have noticed recent news stories referring to supposed "financial trouble" faced by the Indianapolis Airport Authority.  Driving these stories is the format in which our financial reports are required to be presented by various accounting rules and the difficulty the media and others have in analyzing and reporting on them.

She goes on to explain that the loss is merely a "paper loss".

In our 2011 audited financial statements, the IAA reported $167.8 million in operating expenses - but $106.2 million of that was a "paper loss" that is based on the depreciation, or loss in estimated value, of property.  IAA's annual depreciation expense also includes this charge for property we (IAA) didn't even have to pay for, such as the FedEx sort facility.  Yet when our tenants build such improvements on our property, we must record them as an IAA asset, and annually record their depreciation as an IAA expense.  However, losses attributed to a depreciation involve no change in the Authority's cash levels.

An analogy would be if someone gave you a new car as a gift, then pointed out that you faced an immediate "loss" due to its depreciation.  Even though you spent nothing on the car and saw no loss in cash, you could be said to have suffered from an "operating loss" on the car's annual depreciation.

Stone goes on to note that, outside of on paper, there was no loss - but actually a $74.9 million PROFIT.

Looking at our operating expenses for 2011 excluding depreciation, they totaled $61.6 million.  Comparing that to our operating revenue of $136.5 million, you can see we earned a $74.9 million operating profit excluding depreciation, meaning the IAA generated positive cash flow.  In fact, we recently made a $20 million early payment against our debt principal, which will save us $1 million per year in interest payments.

So, Stone's scapegoat is an uninformed media who do not know how to properly read an annual report.  But that doesn't pass the smell test.  All of the media outlets mentioned above simultaneously talked about the supposed financial woes of the airport all while getting the get-tough message from Mike Wells.  No, Wells got the reporting he wanted.
The question is, who was Wells' real target for his misinformation campaign?  The media?  Well, they bought his story, and published it.  The public?  Well, they read it and absorbed the idea that the airport is navigating a rough patch that requires considerable effort to reverse.  But, there may be one particular individual in the public who was a prime target for the incorrect status of the airport's finances.

The reason I say that is because of how I ended up with this internal memo.  I did not get it from an employee trying to feed me the tip.  I got it as part of the response to an open records request I made for all correspondence between representatives of the airport and representatives of Doninger Tuohy & Bailey, the law firm representing the airport in its lawsuit against the MDC, the lawsuit that hopes to keep the Fast Park facility from being built in Ameriplex.
The airport's Chief Legal Officer, Joseph Heerens, emailed a copy of the internal memo to Brian Tuohy, who is the lead attorney in the lawsuit.  It is possible that the two had an off-topic chat about the news reports of financial woes at the airport and Heerens sent the internal memo to Tuohy for its gossip value.
More troubling and equally plausible is the idea that the news stories were planted so the presiding Judge on the lawsuit would read them in the papers or see them on TV news and come away with the same misimpression of the airport's finances as everyone else.  The email to Tuohy could then have been pertinent to the case as a way to keep Tuohy from verbalizing the erroneous information directly to Judge Keele and thus violating legal ethics.
Whatever the motivation, Mike Wells' credibility, and frankly that of the entire Indianapolis Airport Authority, is shot.  I don't have any idea what information Mayor Ballard has received regarding the airport's profits or losses.  If he has been fed the same lies as the press and the public, then he has no moral recourse but to remove Wells from the Airport Board.  If he knows that Wells is lying to the press and the public, then he has but one political move to correct his image; and that again is to remove Wells from the Board.

The Airport Authority is a municipal corporation of Indianapolis - it is a unit of local government.  The President of the Board, one Mike Wells, who certainly knows his way around real estate depreciation, misled the press and the public about the state of airport finances - happy to let everyone think the airport is losing money hand over fist, when the reality is that it is making money hand over fist.  This is no small error - it is the most cynical manipulation of the press that I have ever seen.

Airport Board Did Not Authorize Lawsuit On Fast Park Zoning

What an ironic twist.  It turns out that the Indianapolis Airport Authority (IAA) Board did not authorize the lawsuit filed on its behalf, contesting the authority of the MDC to approve the Fast Park Ride & Relax project for Stansted Road in Ameriplex (see "Yesterday's Zoning Case - Its About More Than a Parking Facility", and "Indianapolis Aiport Stomps  On Free Enterprise With Court Action").

Since the March filing, I have been requesting documents from the Airport.  They show that there was no vote by the Board authorizing the lawsuit.  The final word I got was that Mike Wells, Board President, unilaterally approved it.

Yesterday I filed a complaint with Indiana's Public Access Counselor alleging that this violates Indiana's Open Door Laws - because final action was taken without a vote of the Board in a duly noticed public meeting.

I've been on a number of Boards; most incorporated non-profits and one set up by State Law.  None gave the President the power of the Board itself.  Not through the incorporation and by-laws or statutes and not through Board policy.

The IAA Board apparently did not have a Board policy allowing any President of the Board generally, nor Wells specifically, to usurp their authority or role in deciding to commence legal action.  The explanation for his power was said to be by 'inherent authority' as 'the executive representative of the board'.

State Law gives the IAA Board the sole authority and power to sue and be sued on behalf of the IAA (IC 8-22-3-11).  That means that all members in attendance at a public meeting, the agenda for which has been published at least 48 hours beforehand for the notification of the public, are the ones who get a vote on whether the IAA will be a litigant in a lawsuit - with the majority vote prevailing.  That did not happen.

How ironic that the lawsuit claiming that the action of the MDC was outside of its legal authority, should be filed on behalf of the IAA Board by an action that was outside of the legal authority of the individual (Wells) to file.

Mayor Removes Airport Director - Curiously Says Its About Economic Development

Anyone who had any reservations accepting the idea that nothing happens at the airport that the Mayor does not want to happen, need only look at the series of events that lead to the 'resignation' of John Clark as the Indianapolis Airport's Executive Director.

I first saw the news that Clark was out over at Gary Welsh's Advance Indiana blog, then the IBJ's news alert started circulating, and this morning I read more about it in the Indy Star.

Here are the dominoes.

December 16 - Michael Stayton, former President of the Airport Authority Board, announces he will step down, even though he still has two years left on his term.

December 31 - Mayor Ballard appoints Mike Wells to fill out the final two years of Stayton's term.

January 20 - Mike Wells elected President of the Airport Board at his first board meeting of this appointment.

March 10 - news reports suddenly appear of another year, more expensive trips abroad for John Clark and his top deputies.  Curiously, Mike Wells keeps using the word "I" instead of "we" or "the Board" in his statements that changes are coming.  For instance, the IBJ quotes him as saying "I'm making major changes to the travel policy".

March 19 - Wells announces immediate departure of Clark as Director.  Mayor Ballard is quoted as saying

"What I’m mostly concerned about out there is the economic development aspect of the airport,” said Mayor Ballard. "I think that’s been slow, much slower than I would have expected.

"It may have been the recession. It may have been all the economic downturn but I want to have more plans for development out there. That’s what I’m mostly focused on."

Those of you who wanted to blame Clark for announcing the cancellation of collective bargaining at the airport, which was delayed for about a month so candidate Ballard could bask in the light of a recent union endorsement - blame Ballard instead.  (see "Is Indy Airport Playing Politics For Ballard?")

Those of you who wanted to blame Clark for removing art from the airport in order to put up a garish electronic advertising screen, remember the timing.  On August 9, the removal is announced.  On August 24, Mayor Ballard swoops in to save the day.  Then, on November 30, right after the election, the art is removed.  Just in time for the 'holiday travel' season and the Super Bowl - where ads just might fetch a pretty penny.

Yes, anything the airport does leads directly back to Mayor Ballard - its a lesson John Clark has learned and its a lesson the public needs to learn.

Ameriplex - (Part 4 - More than a Parking Facility)

Someone with far better business acumen than I should do a case study of Ameriplex.  The folks who run it have come up with some fantastic business models, only some of which have come to fruition.   Here is the view from where I sit.

I already mentioned ("The 800 Pound Gorilla - Indianapolis Airport") how the prime Interstate-70 frontage was taken from the Industrial Park before it even had legs under it, through the forced land swap with the Airport to ensure a 3rd runway for the exclusive use of FedEx.  The Airport would swap prime interstate frontage for land it purchased through its noise abatement program - some land already purchased and some waiting for the property owner to decide it was the right time for him or her to sell to the program.

The first interesting, to my eye, aspect of Ameriplex was its zoning.  How do you zone for a 1200 acre industrial park when you do not know exactly where the Feds will locate a key I-70 interchange that will lead the bulk of traffic to your site, nor the exact parcels that will ultimately be purchased and when they will become available.  For my fellow zoning geeks out there, the choice was a CS, where the first land use map was secured along with a process to move the lines between land uses through an administrative approval.  Land that Ameriplex actually owned was zoned and the expected full built out footprint was assigned conceptual land uses to guide future zonings as those parcels were actually acquired.  Flexibility had to be a component.  Not just the routine flexibility for future uses sought by many petitioners on smaller tracts of land, but the flexibility to move land uses once it was know exactly where key infrastructure would be located.

Ameriplex's first, and lasting, signature attribute was its environmental compatibility model.  The idea was to use native plantings that would require little use of fertilizers and lower ongoing maintenance.  The benefits would be a nice looking property along with lower costs for the land owners within the Park.  This was a bit of a bumpy road for the first few years as perennial wildflower plantings do take some time to overtake other 'native' plants that are considered mere weeds.  Ultimately a mix of native plantings and traditional mowed lawn yards prevailed.  Walking trails, a winding creek that runs through the north end of the Park, and deliberate preservation of existing woods, all help set Ameriplex slightly apart.  For their efforts on this front Ameriplex was awarded the first certification as a Wildlife-Friendly Development from the Indiana Wildlife Federation for "promoting the preservation, enhancement and restoration of wildlife habitat throughout the planning and construction process".

 The most exciting business model postulated by the Ameriplex folks (Chris Wilkes runs the Park and its development here in Indy, but his partners in the overall effort are Doug Hunt and John Phair who oversee their Industrial Parks elsewhere) was 70 West.  It was designed for the area closest to the I-70 / Amerplex Parkway interchange and utilized the I-70 frontage that Ameriplex was able to retain after the land swap with the Airport.  The idea was to locate big players in the 'destination retail' market.  These are retailers, whose customer base is not local rooftops measured in a mile or two radius, but those within a three hour travel time.  This would by the types of retail epitomized by Ikea, Bass Pro-Shop, and Cabela's.   The fit was excellent.  With the airport next door, that three hour travel time need not be by car.  For Decatur, it could attract the retail we need without us having to provide the rooftops.

The project needed State assistance, since the City was not going to help finance the project.  The destination retailers are used to regions vying for their business with incentives.  Ameriplex hoped to get the State to agree to an additional increment of sales tax just within the project to pay for the incentives.  It was not to be.  Decaturites tried to help, but we were not effective enough.  I remember being on the phone with Gordon Hendry, Mayor Peterson's economic development guy, as I headed to the hearing in the Statehouse.  Hendry was pulling the plug and Peterson's support for the project was not going to be expressed before the committee.  That is when Representative Phil Hinkle stepped in to aide our community - for which I am eternally grateful.  He threatened to kill legislation Peterson wanted on abandoned houses.  Peterson let the abandoned housing bill get killed rather than help us.  Just like this year with mass transit, if the local politicians don't pull the wagon, why should Legislators from the rest of the State vote for something exciting in Indy.

Fast forward to a couple of years ago, Purdue Foundation and Ameriplex got together to install a business incubator for cutting edge companies - the Purdue Research Park in Ameriplex.  The idea here was to locate the incubator facility in an area where the successfully incubated companies could spin out to nearby parcels, maintaining their relationships with the incubator staff.  This research lab concept to fully developed product Technology Park is very exciting for all of Indianapolis, but certainly fantastic as a vehicle to provide high tech jobs for Decatur residents.

Next time I'll talk about the proposed Fast Park & Relax facility that was the subject of the recent zoning and the focus of so much drama.  Hopefully the pieces are coming together as to how this project fits with the environmental stewardship efforts of Ameriplex, fills some of the needs for Decatur's taxbase outside of the TIF district and more.

[ Yesterday's Zoning Case - It About Far More Than a ParkingFacility, The 800 Pound Gorilla,

Decatur Township]

Decatur Township - (Part 3 - More than a parking facility)

Like all neighborhoods of Marion County, Decatur Township has a unique blend of opportunities and challenges.  I have spoken to a number of neighborhood leaders throughout Indianapolis over the years, and almost all feel that their neighborhood is last on the City's list to be provided a leg up or assistance or much help dealing with their issues.  I conclude all are right.  If you are not downtown, you ARE last.  Unigov ensured that the resources of the non-downtown communities would be pooled to benefit downtown.  We all cover the cost of their City services, while their property tax revenues are spent on more benefits for downtown and favored developers.

Here is Decatur's profile.

Decatur has about 30,000 people.

Our Township is the smallest geographically; the eastern border follows the White River and not the same north-south dividing line used by other Townships.  The airport takes up at least 10 % of our land (latest info I have is from 1988, but that number would only have grown).  Our infrastructure, roads and sewers, have limited points of entry into our Township, unlike the other 8 Townships in the County.  The White River and the Airport substantially block access, and the areas of Hendricks and Morgan County that abut are largely farmlands with little infrastructure of their own.  There are only two roads over the White River, and no sewer crossings.  So, our development from farming to more intense land uses flows mostly from the north. 

Within I-465 we are pretty well all developed, with older homes, a small strip center, two grocery stores, two pharmacies, and a few fast food joints.  Outside I-465 is older subdivisions generally to the north, spreading to newer subdivisions and a great deal of remaining farmland to the south.  Little to no retail is located outside of I-465.

There is a railroad track running the length of Kentucky Avenue that has a huge impact on  our land use patterns.  Unlike other areas where it makes sense to have commercial nodes surrounded by residential uses, we are more laminar.  The existence of the airport dictates that few residences remain north of Kentucky Avenue outside of I-465.  The existence of the railroad dictates that when retail uses finally come in, they will mostly be located on the south side of Kentucky Avenue.  The remaining land is needed for homes.

Decatur has had a terrible time attracting retail.  This is somewhat due to our low population, but more notably due to the lack of rooftops on so much of Decatur land either occupied by the airport or anywhere near the airport.  This condition runs into Hendricks County as well.  When national chains do their analysis of market potential, they find no more than half the 360 degree view can ever be filled with the homes of customers, much less filled now.

This lack of retail is a chicken and egg thing.  Without the amenities of convenient shopping, many potential homeowners look elsewhere to live.  Decatur has only a tiny stock of move-up homes.

Just to round out the issues we face, we have mining at the north end, with Martin-Marietta blasting underground beneath the Southside Landfill that straddles the Wayne/Decatur line, and American Aggregates blasting and strip mining across the White River in Perry Township.  We have had no success engaging Mayor Ballard in the ill effects to our northern neighborhoods from the blasting and constant dust.

We have few sidewalks, few streetlights, a lot of septic tanks and wells.  We have one IndyGo bus route that reaches down as far as Ameriplex and returns to the north.  We are the only Township without a City Park's pool.  We have nothing to entertain the youth of the Township beyond school sponsored activities; no movie theaters, no bowling alleys, no skating rinks.  We have no bookstore, no place to buy a new shirt or new shoes.  We have two sit-down restaurants that bring you a menu; a Denny's and an El Rodeo.  We do have two golf courses, though; Buffer Park on the northeast and Winding River on the southeast.  And, through the combined efforts of our Lions Club and 4-H, we host the State's largest annual Township Fair.

Looking back through the Decatur history that I am aware of, it seems that what we do have are great people who have created the progress that we have enjoyed.  When Goldsmith turned a deaf ear to Hi-Acre Manor over the absolute need for a levee to protect their homes from the White River, the neighbors banded together and built their own.  Once a really bad zoning request had been defeated, the community banded together to raise the money to buy that property and add it to Southwestway Park.  And currently ongoing, the community is banding together yet again, to fund the Goodwin Center that focuses on Head Start and a much needed Senior Center.

Also to be noted in that list of accomplishments by the people who live in Decatur, is the existence of Ameriplex itself.  As I mentioned in the last post ("The 800 Pound Gorilla - Indianapolis Airport"), our Civic leaders hoped to create an industrial park to provide a catalyst for growth throughout Decatur.  It is a point of immense personal pride that I am part of the Decatur Township Civic Council, with its legacy of always trying to move Decatur forward.  Back in 1993, leaders of the Civic Council, including Bob Cockrum, Betty Montgomery, and Ken Bartlett undertook a study of the effects of an industrial park, the United deal, a third runway, and the TIF district on our Township's development and its taxbase.   They were not successful in staving off the ill effects of the Airport/United TIF, nor the airport's land grab to ensure a future 3rd runway totally in Decatur for exclusive use by FedEx.  But, they were successful in helping to get an interchange on I-70 and the establishment of Ameriplex itself.

I have lived in the heart of a big city.  And it was great.  I have lived in Decatur Township for the past 25 years now, and I find it equally great.  We have the best of all worlds (outside of access to retail) - the relaxing atmosphere of a semi-rural semi-suburban lifestyle that is 20 minutes from downtown.  And the people of Decatur cannot be beat.

[Yesterday's Zoning Case - It About Far More Than a ParkingFacility, The 800 Pound Gorilla]

The 800 Pound Gorilla - Indianapolis Airport (Part 2 - More than a parking facility)

Central Indiana certainly needs a goodly sized airport.  There are attendant difficulties forced on those in Decatur and Wayne Township, Marion County, that are necessary for an airport to exist.  We understand that, and by and large accept the burden placed on us for the greater good.  However, I have always felt that the burden placed on Wayne, Decatur and parts of Hendricks County, should be limited to only the burden that is absolutely necessary.  In a future entry I will detail how, in recent years, the Airport has moved beyond what is necessary and now wishes to impose unnecessary hardship, not only on our side of town, but to a real extent, all over Marion County.  But, for this entry, I want to focus on the impact of Airport operations on Decatur and Wayne Townships.  I am not familiar with the ins and outs of impacts on neighboring Hendricks County, but assume their story will be similar.  And, of course, I know far more about the details of Decatur's issues than those of Wayne.  Long story short, assume as you read this, that the burden on Wayne Township is quite similar to that on Decatur, but I will have fewer exact details as to where those impacts are located precisely.

The Indianapolis Airport grew over the decades to what we see today - a 7700 acre government run aviation operation that includes land actually used for aviation purposes, banked land for future expansion, and accumulated land not needed for aviation purposes.  In the late '80s, the Airport instituted a residential buyout program for single family homes that fell within certain noise contours of the airport that were deemed by the FAA as imposing too much of a burden on the families that resided there.  The FAA finances these purchases, they do not come out of Indianapolis' operating funds.  The Airport uses actual noise monitor readings and computer projections to establish the noise conture lines.  Those homes within a calculated decibel contour line are automatically able to participate in the guaranteed purchase program.  Nobody is forced to sell, but when they are ready to do so, they have a willing buyer.  I have never heard anyone complain about the purchase price that the airport offered for a home in this program.

Land uses around the Airport and within the noise abatement program areas, may not include single family residential uses.  Any other use is not prohibited, although building height restrictions are imposed, with the height limit dropping as you get closer to the end of a runway.

For a number of years in the late 80's and early to mid-90's, Decatur Township saw its population and total assessed value actually drop due to the purchase of so many of our homes and the property's removal from the tax rolls.  I am trying to locate more recent data, but what I can tell you is that between 1972 and 1988, the Airport grew from 1200 Decatur acres to 2150, consuming over 10% of our Township land area.  And that was just before the big buying spree from the noise abatement program.

Ever since that buyout program, there has been a continual tug of war with the Airport to return land to the tax rolls.  The Airport was stubborn back then, but not totally unyielding - unlike today when I am not sure they give any thought to what is in the best interest of the surrounding community.

The mid 90's saw the now infamous $300 million United Airlines Maintenance Facility built on the north side of the Airport, in Wayne Township.  At the same time, to pay for Indy's portion of the costs ($100 million), extraordinarily large land areas of Decatur and Wayne were established as TIF areas.  I have uploaded a scan of the different areas that comprise the consolidated Airport TIF.  The dashed line running on the north side of TIF area 241 is the Township line dividing Wayne and Decatur Townships.  Thousands upon thousands of acres of Wayne and Decatur Township have been siphoned off to pay for Airport debt for the United deal.  When you hear Airport officials talk about how they do not take property taxes, please remember all of the property taxes being contributed to their TIF to pay for their United debt.

Almost all of the land mass of Ameriplex Industrial Park lies within one or another of these Airport TIFs.  Almost all of the existing buildout of Ameriplex is within the TIF.  After all of these years, we finally have two hotels, one warehouse, and the corner of another that are outside the TIF and contribute taxes to our school district and Township government.  Because we have few businesses outside the TIF, our tax base is skewed to the homeowners of Decatur.

Ameriplex was envisioned by Civic leaders in Decatur in the late 80s and early 90s.   It was hoped that, like Pike Township had done with Park 100, building an industrial park would help our Township grow and prosper.  There were 1100  acres along the south side of I-70 that were then being used for farming.  The frontage would have the type of exposure sought by business headquarters.  But as plans developed for Ameriplex, the Airport and then Mayor Goldsmith forced a land swap.  The prime frontage would have to be sacrificed to the Airport so they could land bank 100s of acres for a future 3rd parallel runway - for the anticipated exclusive use of FedEx.  The Airport would bundle the property it had been buying through the noise abatement program and swap it to form the current Ameriplex outline.

So, withing a 10 year period, Decatur lost population and property to the Airport through the noise abatement program, was hobbled by the establishment of the Airport/United TIF that utilized Township services but did not contribute property taxes to cover the costs, and forced to accede to a land swap that simultaneously guaranteed further future intrusion by a 3rd runway and a downgrade to the prime real estate location for Ameriplex.

Planned for some years, a new midfield terminal opened in 2008 on the west end of the Airport proper, within Decatur Township.  The facility is reported to be 1.2 million square feet and cost almost $1 billion to build.  The public was told, prior to the decision to build the new terminal, that airline landing and docking fees would cover the debt service on the bonds.  The Airport Authority is backing down from that promise so that they can charge the airlines lower fees. 

Meanwhile, the old terminal, parking lots and car rental lots on the east end of the Airport, stand idle and unkempt.  The Airport is not planning on turning any of these hundreds of acres back to the tax rolls, where they would do Wayne Township some good.  Instead, the Airport has grandiose plans to help itself to revenue from that property, even though it is no longer useful for aviation or aviation support.  This should be recieving far more scrutiny by the public and government officials than it has.  I will elaborate on this issue in the near future.

[part 1 - http://hadenoughindy.blogspot.com/2012/02/yesterdays-zoning-case-its-about-far.html]

Yesterday's Zoning Case - Its About Far More Than a Parking Facility

Quite candidly, I have not been blogging for the past week because of the pending zoning hearing that was held yesterday for 2.5 - 3 hours.  It was all I wanted to talk about, but I did not want to jeopardize the ultimate outcome by posting.  That outcome was too important to my community.  But, now that it is over, I will lay out all of the strangeness that latched on to what should have been a dull and routine rezoning of 15 acres of land.  Readers of this blog will recognize that the themes that permeate this rezoning spectacle are exactly the themes I bring up all the time - TIF districts, taxes, government overreach, and public input into the decisions made by government.  I think once you hear the full extent of what culminated in yesterday's hearing, you will agree that liberal or conservative, there are things we can all agree are appropriate actions of government and things we can all agree are inappropriate.

I am going to break this up over several blog entries, as I do not want to rush through the important pieces of the puzzle, nor to I want to impose on my readers a thesis length single blog entry trying to cover it all.  For today, I will hit the peaks, then tomorrow and after I'll look at each mountain.

First of all, here are some links to excellent reporting by Mary Milz of Channel 13 and Anthony Schoettle of the IBJ.  I will also add a link to the WCTY, government channel, archive of yesterday's hearing once it is posted.

Second, I want to thank the Commissioners for siding with the community by a vote of 6-2.  I want to thank Councillors Jason Holiday (our district Councillor), Bob Lutz (whose district takes in the north side of the airport), and Zach Adamson (one of our At-Large Councillors) for taking the time to come downtown and speak out in support.  A thanks also goes to Councillors Steve Talley and Jeff Cardwell for sending in letters of support.  Last but not least, a stout and hardy thank you goes out to all of my fellow Decaturites and other supporters who attended the hearing.  Our butts may have become numb during the hours of the prolonged hearing, but the impact of visible community support cannot be overestimated.

So, here's the overview.

Ameriplex is a 1200 acre industrial park here in Decatur.  The airport and I-70 abut it to the north.  It extends in places to Kentucky Avenue with carve-outs of several abutting neighborhoods.  There are also hundreds of acres south of I-70 held by the airport for a future runway that make the outline of Ameriplex strangely angled on the northern perimeter as well. (I uploaded a land use map of the park to Google docs - click here).  The vast majority of the park and the vast majority of the current development is in the TIF district set up for the long gone United Maintenance deal at the airport.  This TIF district continues to be problematic for the Decatur community.

Ameriplex wanted to locate a park and fly facility on a 30 acre block within Ameriplex that was convenient to the traveling public at the first stoplight south of the I-70/Ameriplex Parkway interchange.  This area is also outside of the TIF district and there would be no tax abatement sought for the project.  Now, everyone I have talked to had the same reaction I did upon hearing this news.  "Oh, really?  I don't like that one bit".  But, once you listened to what was being proposed, you changed your mind (or 90% of the people did).

This was to be a Fast Park & Relax facility.  This is a family business with off-airport parking at a dozen airports around the Country.  They are not typical of this genre.  They are environmentally progressive - with canopies over every parking spot; lights hanging from the under side and solar panels atop.  They capture rainwater and reuse it on site.  They insist on ample landscaping and screening.  Their shuttles run on alternative energy.  This green approach is instructive in that it demonstrates that when something is important to you, not only can you make it work, you can build a thriving business at the same time.

The block chosen was of mixed zoning uses - half would allow the Fast Park and half would not.  So, Ameriplex sought the zoning change.

Enter the Plainfield Park Fly & Ride off-airport facility, otherwise called the "Indy Park Fly & Ride".  This is part of a network of 50 off-airport parking facilities around the Country.  They hired a lawyer to derail the zoning.

At the eleventh hour who enters but the 800 pound gorilla known as the Indianapolis International Airport, who decides that it does not like having another competitor for the parking business it runs.  Mayor Ballard agrees and joins them in their opposition.

All Marion County residents should be alarmed at what the Indy Airport is up to.  I have blogged on it before and I'll go into it again later, but the Airport, which touts itself as an economic engine, has morphed into a tax-free business entity whose business model will bring much harm to legitimate private sector development and competition.  In an ironic twist, by trying to kill off zoning for a private, reasonably located business enterprise on private property, they may have helped illuminate just what they really are now all about.

The hearing yesterday should have been about land use for 15 acres of a 1200 acre industrial park on the southwest corner of Marion County.  While that was noted, the hearing was really about whether or not a private company and a governmental unit should be allowed to keep out another private competitor simply because the did not want that competition eating into their bottom line.

The meeting was run quite well by Chairman Tim Ping.  Although he did not vote with us, he did allow all of the points to be thrown out onto the table.  The information did not flow in a linear fashion, but I do believe it all got out.

On the side trying to kill the project was the Airport, represented by Bob Duncan, former Attorney for the Airport as well as its former Executive Director, the Mayor's Office, represented by Mike Huber, Deputy Director for Economic Development (quite the misnomer yesterday), and Indy (really Plainfield) Park Ride & Fly, represented by attorney Brian Tuohy.  About a dozen Decatur residents  attended, who represent the 10% of the nearby homeowners opposed to the project.

On our side we had Ameriplex and Fast Park, represented by attorney Murray Clark, and the huge support of 5 Councillors (Holiday, Lutz, Adamson, Talley, and Cardwell) who provided an important counter balance to the weight of the Airport and Mayor's Office.  I'd guess about 45 or more Decaturites who support the project attended.  At least half were residents of the nearest neighborhood and they represented the 90% who live in the area and support the project.  Not insignificant to me, we had the support of the Decatur Township Civic Council and the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations.

The vote of the Commission was 6 - 2 to approve the rezoning.  That was a resounding affirmation that the Airport should not be able to limit private enterprise simply because the Airport would prefer not to have competition.  It was a fair result and an important result for Decatur Township.

More on the individual pieces of this story as the days go on.