The mayor had a public relations piece in the April 26th Renton Reporter about our marvelous new asset, HIS new office building--the new City Hall. People who were sucked in by his upbeat appraisal need to be re-educated regarding the shameful means by which the city obtained this facility. Before you read further, it would be well to refresh yourself regarding the content of the mayor's article which I call his Marvelous Asset speech.

The unethical aspects of the history of the new city hall began when we voters said no to a new public safety building not once, but twice in 1995. As the mayor indicated in his article, the second time it failed by an even larger margin than the first, even though the cost was less. The people who think the new city hall is such a great idea either did not live here then OR they have forgotten some very important facts. If voters did not want a new jail for $14 million, why would they want a new city hall for $18 million or more?

However, the two no-votes from the people did not deter the mayor or city council. The council members, under the tutelage of Mayor Tanner, set their sights upon a new city hall, not just a new jail. And they justified their actions on the basis that the citizens had voted no to new construction but they hadn't voted no to using an existing building--this is a great example of how leaders interpret (or purposefully misinterpret) the facts to get what they want--something akin to what happened with the stadium when voters said no. The mayor and city council couldn't take a chance on putting their plans before the people for a third time, so they needed a way to fund the project which did not require voter approval. How ethical was this I ask?

In a series of paragraphs of carefully worded double-speak, the mayor wrote that after the two levies were turned down,"The city heard Renton residents loud and clear." Obviously they didn't hear the voters loud and clear because what did they do? They supposedly "surveyed the community" about space needs only to discover that voters had said no to a new jail (aka public safety building) because they really wanted an entirely new city hall, including a new jail. How ethical was this I ask? And then to further convince us of his pure intent, the mayor wrote "I decided against asking the City Council to try for an excess property levy again. Instead, we decided to try to purchase an existing building . . . " We are to believe that city leaders were following the will of the majority who elected them and that they were taking the most economical course in doing so. And to garner further sympathy and support, the mayor wrote that "city employees were scattered in five different locations in sub-standard and crowded conditions." It was a pitiful situation alright, with the bulk of city employees working in a beautiful office building on the edge of a river across from a public park.

But just how did the mayor and city council come up with the money for the new city hall? The money allocated to cover the monthly debt service was funnelled to the city hall project as debts were paid off; and they also used councilmanic bonds (and notice the mayor didn't elaborate on councilmanic bonds). But it really doesn't matter whether citizens pay via increased property taxes, or redirecting existing funds, or issuing councilmanic bonds. Regardless of what the definition of the word "is" is, the bottom line IS that the taxpayer is the one who ultimately pays! As custodians of the taxpayers' money, the mayor and city council should have asked the voters if they wanted to pay for a new city hall. But city leaders didn't do this, because they wanted a new building regardless of what the voters said. How ethical was this I ask?

I personally would have liked some of the "extra funds" to have paid for a new no-frills Henry Moses Pool. There is no reason other than misplaced priorities for that pool property to be sitting idle and in disrepair; however, this property will soon be diverted to other uses never more to be the "local swimming hole" on happy summer days. When I drive by the new City Hall, any feelings of civic pride are overriden by the thought that this money could have been used for a second "Coulon Park" at Port Quendall where a Paul Allen office complex will soon exist--and that is another interesting story of double-dealing, motivated not by what will improve the quality of life for Renton residents but what will put more money into city coffers. You may drive down Third Avenue and think the apartments and parks are great but we could use more parking. Well, we'll be getting more parking, along with 90 more apartments. Did you know that, for 30 years, every unit will be given a free countywide transit pass? That's how government leaders handle traffic problems caused by overdevelopment--just given 'em bus passes. Is our government out of control or what? And here's another Dally fact regarding 53 more apartments to be built downtown.

Back to the subject at hand--the shameful saga of the new city hall. Now that the mayor and city council had devised a way to pay for a new city hall, they needed property. The building they wanted happened to be for sale for $10 million. The city had it appraised for $5-1/2 million. When the owner refused to sell at this price, they condemned the property. The owner was forced, at his own expense, to seek legal counsel in order to obtain a fair price of $9.2 million. How ethical was this I ask? The situation wasn't made any more ethical by the mayor's statement that "only after failing to agree on a reasonable price did we institute condemnation procedures." Do you think $5-1/2 million was a reasonable price for property worth $10 million? Do you think the number "$5-1/2 million" may have had more to do with councilmanic bonds than the real value of the property? This sad commentary was further compounded by the mayor's assertion that condemnation was done to prevent price gouging . Who do you think was doing the price gouging? The mayor indicated that condemnation procedures are provided to public entities to leave "the determination of fair market price to a judge." In his article, the mayor said "If this happears to be strong-arm tactics . . . then so bit it." What arrogance! and how ethical was this I ask? I hope the people who praised the new city hall are paying close attention to events, because there is more . . . much more to the shameful saga of the new city hall.

The city's basis for declaring "eminent domain" was that it needed "additional public safety space," in other words, a new jail. But the jail in the new city hall actually has less capacity than the old jail. The need for more jail space was just a flimsy excuse to legally justify condeming the property of private citizen when he wouldn't sell at the city's price. How ethical was this I ask? Mayor Tanner wrote that "we agreed on a price prior to going to court." If city leaders really thought that the property owner was price gouging to ask $10 million for his property, they wouldn't have paid $9.2 million for the property--they would have proceeded to court to get a lower price. You don't have to be a judge to see that the city used strong-arm tactics and was blatant about it besides. Thank goodness the property owner prevailed, but at what cost? Knowing the circumstances, don't you think the unjust legal expenses incurred by the property owner should have been paid by the city? I do. And the citizens who believed that the mayor and city council were acting in good faith to fulfill a legitimate need for more jail space ought to be very angry to discover they were duped. And how ethical was this I ask? But there is more . . .

During discussions at one of the early city council meetings, a spreadsheet was shown that estimated the cost of the new city hall at $18 million ($4 million more, I might add, than what the voters had already nixed). This estimate was to cover all costs involved: property, offsets for renting the current city hall and renting a portion of the new city hall, revisions to the new building, equipment, etc.. But some months ago, one of the city's top-level managers told me that this cost was probably upwards of $28 million, not including the elaborate stairway which was added later for a cool $2.6 million (to serve 35 cars and however many people might arrive by bus or on foot). If voters said no when the project was estimated at $14 million, why would anyone, including the mayor or city council, think that voters would have approved a project costing $18 million or $28 million or $30 million and counting? All this money was spent (and is still being spent) without voter approval. How ethical is this I ask?

If you remember the "Burnett Street Bus Debackle," then you know how visibly irritated the mayor becomes when people ask sticky questions or disagree with him. I doubt that we voters could get a complete and honest accounting of all costs associated with the new city hall, including costs associated with decommissioning the old city hall. The figure of $19.7 million quoted by the mayor in his Marvelous Asset speech is not a full accounting. Any cost which would not have been incurred had they stayed in the old city hall should have been included, but it was not. How ethical was this I ask? And when did any bureaucratic governmental agency, never mind the City of Renton, finish a project only 9% over the original estimate? The original estimate for the stairway was $1.65 million, a mere 58% understatement. I think voters should be given a full accounting of costs associated with the new city hall and the old city hall. As I recall, the city had to retrofit the old city hall before it could be rented because it did not meet building code. This was not anticipated in the original estimate of $18 million; and construction is still continuing on the site. The mayor's accounting should include revenues lost when both the new and old city halls were not rented as soon as anticipated--it is just as bad to lose money unwisely as it is to spend it unwisely. The mayor's accounting should include other expenses directly related to the new city hall, such as improvements to the intersection and the cost of the city's questionnable appraisal of the property. Take another look at the mayor's list--was he selective in reporting costs? I think so; and how ethical was this I ask?

In the "Marvelous Asset speech" there are two other items which deserve comment: