In a lawsuit filed Friday, the Coalition for a Livable City says Burlington misrepresented how $21.8 million in TIF bonding would be paid back. The November 8 ballot question implied that all properties within the Waterfront TIF district would pay off the debt, when in reality only three properties within the district would make payments, the suit alleges.
The phrasing, according to the suit, therefore undersold the financial risk to voters, who are on the hook for the cost of the bond if the project falls through.
“This type of misrepresentation of resources should sound familiar,” Burlington attorney John Franco said in a news release Monday announcing the suit. “It is similar to the claim by Citibank N.A. that the city had misrepresented the amount of city resources available to support the Burlington Telecom project. Citibank’s suit was later settled for almost $11 million.”
Using TIF, a municipality takes out a loan for infrastructure improvements in a designated area on the promise that new property taxes from future development will pay back the debt.
The $21.8 million TIF bond would pay for public amenities — wider sidewalks, public art, better lighting, granite curbs, benches and a street construction project — in the eight blocks impacted by the makeover of the Burlington Town Center.
The ballot item passed, 59 to 41 percent.
Another question on the ballot, which asked voters to approve a new zoning district around the mall property, passed 54 to 46 percent. That will allow Sinex to build up to 14 stories tall.
Both items were hotly contested by the Coalition for a Livable City, which is a plaintiff in the suit, along with three individual group members: Steve Goodkind, Michael Long and Lynn Martin.
Mayor Miro Weinberger and several city councilors spent weeks campaigning to get the ballot items passed. Supporters of the measures spent more than $30,000 during the campaign.
Sinex’s company, BTC Mall Associates, along with the city of Burlington, are named as defendants in the lawsuit.
Weinberger said in a statement Monday that the city was aware of the complaint but had yet to be formally served.
“The complaint appears to be based on a basic misunderstanding of tax increment financing law,” Weinberger said. “I fully expect the city will dispute this complaint.”
A representative for Sinex did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“Chief among the problems with this is that there was no determination prior to the TIF vote that the public improvements listed in the ballot question can even qualify for TIF funding at all,” Franco said in a statement. “The TIF statute requires that to be eligible for TIF financing, the improvement cannot be for the benefit of the city generally, and must be for the benefit of the project.”
The suit also asks for the city to release an unredacted economic feasibility study on the project. The city released a document with certain monetary figures and estimates removed. Goodkind appealed the redactions under the Freedom of Information Act. Weinberger rejected the appeal in October.
“The ability to independently assess the viability of BTC Mall’s project is essential to voter approval of tax increment financing,” the suit contends.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
We love democracy! Until our side loses at the ballot box. Then we sue.
This is the very definition of sore losers. D’ya think the pathetic communist wannabes at CLC would be embracing and defending the results of this very same vote if they had won it? If they had won it, this would be declared the fairest vote in Burlington history.
I’m curious why “knowyourassumptions” doesn’t use his or her real name. If that was required, the author might be less inclined to use tired ad hominem phrases like “pathetic communist wannabes.”
This is a group that is clearly anti-change, period. It’s the same people who protest the improvements to city Hall park, who blanket protested PlanBTV South End by holding up signs that said “I don’t believe you” directed at the City’s planning dept. and Mayor at the Plan BTV South End release event at Arts Riot last year, and the same group that held a mock funeral for the re-development of the Burlington College property into much needed housing. The Burlington you moved to in the 70’s is adapting to the lifestyles and needs of a modern population. Please stop jamming up the works and throwing off years of process for projects that the majority wants!
Doug, ask your fellow traveler, Mt. Philo, who calls Hillary and Miro, “disgusting people,” to use her real name. Thanks.
I don’t use my real name because I didn’t sign up through facebook. I don’t use facebook. When I signed up I was asked for a screen name and pretty much every other site uses a made up name for screen names. I wasn’t aware people wold be interested in my real name at the time I signed up. My real name is Charles Kenyon. I do think Hillary is disgusting and I think Miro is greedy and cut from the same political cloth as Hillary but not nearly as vile as she.
Way to take responsibility for your own actions, knowyourassumptions. This isn’t the schoolyard at recess and I don’t care if Johnny did it too. Doug asked you a direct questions and you try to deflect it. Meanwhile, Mt. Philo stepped up even though he wasn’t a part of the conversation.
Only in rare cases do newspapers publish unsigned letters. Tony Redington.
I too have asked knowyourassumptions to use his real name, or at least reveal it. He gave me the same answer he gave Doug. I am glad Mt Philo has divulged his identity. Maybe now knowyourassumptions will stop calling him “her” which has troubled me. Does knowyourassumptions believe only women share a distaste for Hillary and Miro?
$250 million mall redevelopment? Much criticism arose over the frequent use of this general description of the project which required rezoning of the town center property. Critics claimed the label was not technically accurate. If it were used in a ballot question, it could have invalidated the question.
Truthful ballot language is a legal issue that is adjudicated in court. It is not a popularity contest. All voters should be glad that CLC is willing to fight for our right to be told the truth on the ballot. Flyers and newspaper ads can lie, there’s no law against that. But ballot language is prescribed by law, and the voter’s right to a truthful presentation is protected.
I support the request for knowyourassumptions to identify him or herself. The poster has attacked me repeatedly in these comments, to the point that I have had to report the violation of Seven Days’ guidelines. Since this person claims to be an authority on topics discussed on these pages, and those who are doing the discussing, it is a fair question. If you’re going to attack people by name, then please disclose yours. Annette Smith
Hi folks,
Just to remind you, we do not require commenters to register with their names. We do, however, ask that you be respectful of other commenters, stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. This goes for everyone.
You can read our full comment guidelines here: 7dvt.co/commentguidelines
Thanks, all, for helping us to keep the discussion in our comments section civil and constructive.
Andrea, we understand the rules. It’s a shame that one individual is allowed to call people names and comment nastily on everything his foes write, claiming expertise in a number of areas, and gives no one a chance to know who he really is. It may be within the rules, but just barely.
Barbara, I know exactly what you mean! I share your outrage that anonymous posters like Vermonter22, VermontPolicyAnalyst, FreedomToThink, Egmatic, GreenMountainBoy, and a host of others are allowed to post nasty left wing posts under assumed names! Keep up the even-handed vigilance!
Maybe she meant one of them. Then again, maybe the Carly Simon song is about you.
Mt Philo, I meant our mutual foe.
Knowyourassumptions: Your last posting was humorous. It is strictly because of postings like yours that many people feel compelled to remain anonymous. Just as you do, too. The relentless personal attacks on Annette Smith come to mind. Yet she has courageously continued to post important, respectful information regarding Big Wind, and the environmental and health impacts of large towers and turbines.
And do try to recognize that categorizing people into a political camp simply because they voice their opinion on an issue is foolhardy. Most Vermonters don’t fit neatly into a political faction, and are issue-oriented. You even seem to categorize me this way, even though you know nothing about my political leanings.
This last election showed this clearly, as many left-leaning individuals voted for Scott because of his stance on Big Wind, and their overall unhappiness with the lack of democratic process in the current Administration.
Until SevenDays decides to moderate all postings, many individuals feel they must remain anonymous. And for valid reasons…as your postings clearly show.
VtPolicyAnalyst,
I have no problem with you attacking people and insisting on remaining anonymous. The rules of this site allow it. But the hypocrisy must stop. You and your friends can’t savage people anonymously, and then attack me for criticizing you anonymously.
And the insinuation that you must remain anonymous because of me is completely laughable. You and your allies were here hurling your anonymous attacks long before I came and called the anonymous left wing hit squad to task.
The question is not whether wind is right or wrong. I tend to agree with you that ridgeline wind in zero-carbon Vt is not the answer. But that doesn’t give you the right to pronounce (anonymously!) that everyone who sees it differently on wind in VT is evil, corrupt, stupid, and/or immoral.
You are ANONYMOUS. Stop complaining about OTHER posters’ anonymity. There is no justified anonymity vs. unjustified anonymity. Period. Full stop. End of story.
Thank you.
Knowyourassumptions: I have never said the things you allude to, nor do I attack people. And I am perfectly fine with you remaining anonymous.
You spread lies and misinformation at will. And you do so repeatedly, and often nastily, in almost every posting. Your most recent posting is a perfect example. Repeated, incessant, unrelenting untruths, misinformation, attacks, and rants. It is clearly pathological. I earnestly suggest you consider getting some professional mental heath assistance.
SevenDays should ban you. You scare people.
“I have never said the things you allude to, nor do I attack people.”
Really?
Your very first comment on this blog was a nasty attack on the people of Harbor Place (the shelter for homeless people) in Shelburne, and its supporters.
Next was an attack on the morals of the VT Land trust and the Burlington College board.
Next was an attack on Paul Burns of VPIRG because of his support for wind power development; and accusing wind supporters of being liars; and accusing VT Gas of lying; and accusing David Blittersdorf of being a liar; and accusing a wind developer of being a liar and the regulators of being corrupt.
Then there are your personal attacks on the morality of everyone whos involved in the VT Rail project in Shelburne.
Then you accused Mayor Weinberger of being a liar about student housing.
Next you attacked the motives and ethics of housing advocates.
Next you accused Mayor Weinberger and various Burlington officials of corruption because they support the mall redevelopment, and attacked the ethics of Joan Shannon.
You attacked the personal integrity of Sue Minter.
You attacked the supporters of the Burlington Air Show.
You insinuated that a Vermont Air National Guard pilot is somehow corrupt because he lives in an expensive home.
And this does not even count all of your endorsements and cheerleading and “I agree’s” and “hear, hear’s” when Annette Smith personally attacks the morals of wind power developers, the Governor, Chris Recchia, and the members of the Public Service Board.