Friday, June 15, 2007

Beaumont eviction is reckless and irresponsible

By Clinton Baller, Shelli Weisberg and Christopher Longe

Whether you are for or against the demolition of Barnum School, you should be appalled by the behavior of our City Commission Monday night.

In an astounding and unforgivable display of negligence and incompetence, a majority of commissioners succumbed to political pressure from a small group of neighborhood residents and arrogantly ordered the early eviction of Beaumont Hospital from the building. (See story below.) They failed to perform even a minimal amount of due diligence, and ignored the advice of City Manager Tom Markus and of Commissioner Rackeline Hoff, their own appointee to the Barnum Ad Hoc Design Committee, to reject the committee's recommendation to evict.

They utterly abdicated the fiduciary reponsibility they accepted when they were elected to office.

It's no way to run a city.

Beaumont Hospital pays all maintenance costs currently associated with the building. Upon eviction, the city will either have to cover those costs (estimated at $300,000 to $400,000 per year) or demolish the building. Demolition was the clear choice Monday night. Yet the commission has no idea how much it will cost, how long it will take or what effect it will have on the neighborhood -- and did not bother to ask.

The city has received an informal quote from a contractor who pegged the cost at around $450,000, not including removal of hazardous materials.The Buzz has received an informal estimate that pegged it at $700,000, not including remediation. The commission neither asked for nor received any reports on the demolition process.

The commission did not ask if the building contains asbestos, lead-based paint or any other environmental hazards. Had it asked, it would have found that the second Barnum ad hoc committee considered asbestos removal a "critical open issue," and that an environmental assessment in 2002, while concluding there was no imminent threat of the release of hazardous materials, was inconclusive about hazards that might be uncovered or released in a demolition. The use of asbestos and lead-based paint was common for most of the history of the Barnum building. The commission has no idea how much it will cost to investigate or remove hazards, and didn't ask.

The commission's concern for the finances of the project Monday night was limited to setting a phony cap on bond fund expenditures of $1.5 million for demolition and park development combined, which several commissioners indicated they would lift if necessary.

The Buzz may have performed more due diligence on Barnum than the commission itself. A contractor we asked to estimate the cost of demolition, EDP Demolition president Greg Ogden, pegged it at $700,000, not including environmental remediation. Other estimates obtained by the Buzz pegged the overall cost of demolition and modest park development at between $1.8 million and $2.7 million. Furthermore, the Buzz recently contacted both the Birmingham Area Senior Citizens Coordinating Council and Beaumont Hospital to gauge their interest in Barnum. Both said they had not been asked by the city, but were interested, and BASCC said as much in a letter to the city. The majority of commissioners expressed no interest whatsoever in discussing the matter with either organization.

Unfortunately, due diligence by a community website is no replacement for due diligence by city fathers.

This criticism is not sour grapes. Many believe we are opposed to demolishing the school, and opposed to an expanded park. We are not. We are opposed to bad management, and don't want to see what should be a methodical and responsible process hijacked. Too many decisions on Barnum have been deliberated and decided in private, without public vetting. That may be why so little questioning occurred at Monday night's session.

In January, the commission rejected the same proposal for eviction and demolition that it faced Monday night and, spurred by Hoff and Commissioner Julie Plotnik, reasonably and intelligently decided instead to develop a plan for the park and obtain cost estimates first. In February, the commission appointed the Barnum Ad Hoc Design Committee to assist the city in hiring a park designer. It stacked the committee with residents who favor quick demolition and appear to care little about due diligence. Hoff was appointed the commission's liaison.

During the intervening four months, committee Chairman Jeffrey Van Dorn spent far more time lobbying commissioners and others in favor of early eviction and demolition than he did on helping to hire a designer or performing other due diligence. Before any design effort was begun, Van Dorn was irresponsibly telling commissioners and other influential citizens about his preconceived plan -- backed by two other members of his five-member committee, Carroll DeWeese and William Duffy -- and misrepresenting to others the opinions of those with whom he spoke, making it sound as if support for his idea was more widespread than it was. As Chairman of the Presidents Council of Homeowner's Associations, Van Dorn has been in the company of those for whom misrepresentation is routine.

At committee meetings, Hoff and city staffer Lauren Wood repeatedly tried to rein in the committee without success. Though demolition of the building appeared to be the primary goal of the committee, virtually no discussion of the logisitics of such an undertaking occurred.

Van Dorn may have legitimately returned to the commission to ask whether the park is supposed to be designed around a building, or not. Having already decided that no sale of any part of Barnum should occur, and having already decided to rezone the property as public, the commission never actually decided to tear down the building. The last time they deliberated, in January, they left open the option of finding a use for part of the building. And on Monday night, though demolition was clearly the goal, the commission specifically and curiously rejected adding any mention of demolition to its resolution.

Commissioners showed little interest Monday night in the committee's work, or in what a Barnum Park would or should eventually look like. No one -- not a commissioner or committee member -- could or would say what has changed since January to necessitate bringing the question back. Hoff and Plotnik, among the very few involved in the process who maintained a semblance of integrity, continued to urge planning Monday night, but were voted down by a reckless and apparently pandering majority composed of Mayor Tom McDaniel and commissioners Don Carney, Scott Moore, Dianne McKeon and Stuart Sherman.

Inaccurate and unbelievable comments and misrepresentations were accepted without challenge.

Van Dorn made the false assertion that all four Barnum committees favored tearing down the building. He wasn't challenged or corrected -- perhaps because his rewrite of history fits with his and the majority's goal. The truth is that two of the committees concluded the building was a valuable asset worthy of public or private use. Van Dorn also asserted, without basis or challenge, that 9 out of 10 Birmingham residents favor the demolition. He repeatedly made rhetorical reference to the "many years" residents have been "waiting for a park," without regard to the fact that a park already exists on the property, and without regard for a process that, up until just a year ago, considered putting the building to use.

Later in the discussion, a neighborhood resident asserted that early demolition was necessary to eliminate drug dealing, gun play, bonfires and marijuana smoking at the site. The incredible assertion, news even to some commissioners, went unquestioned. Had they asked, they would have found that in May, several youths were found playing with paint ball guns on the property, which resulted arrests and minor damage, and that in June, a single youth was arrested for marijuana possession.

Van Dorn sent an email to Markus Tuesday morning that was either delusional or disingenuous: "thanx for youre help on barnum at the city commission meeting last nite," he wrote.

"I think your thanks are misplaced. ... I have steadfastly been opposed to the demolition," Markus replied.

Van Dorn went on: "i felt like the very few critics of our plan last nite were saying 'you cannot start to dig the hole for your new house until youve picked out the wall paper for the kids bedroom'. im glad the commission saw thru this suggestion."

Actually, the critics are saying, "You should not start to dig the hole for your new house until you have a blueprint for the foundation and some idea of what it's all going to cost." Simple sound management.

The commission not only allowed neighborhood residents to do an end run around the city administration and dictate policy, it allowed them to perform an interesting turnabout on the commission itself. The commission's earlier decisions on Barnum have been contingent on promises of fundraising by the neighborhood group. Monday night, the neighborhood group made fundraising contingent on demolition. No one questioned how the fundraising would proceed, or what else might be required to mount a campaign. If Booth Park fundraising is any lesson, not only a plan for the park, but a plan for recognition, is necessary before a campaign can succeed. Demolition won't be a factor.

Commissioners didn't even question logistics related to the goal of tearing down the school and planting grass and trees.

Van Dorn asserted that demolition in the summer of 2008 would allow planting in the fall of 2008 and use of the park by the spring of 2009. His unrealistic presumptions about timing, on which the commission's decision appeared to be heavily based, were accepted without question.

The earliest Beaumont could be evicted would be July of 2008, leaving little time before fall for removal of hazardous materials, preparation of the building, demolition, backfill and site restoration. The neighbors and their supporters on the commission who so sorely insist on a quick tear-down neither asked nor told about the possible effects of a massive and prolonged summertime demolition on other neighbors who live and breath adjacent to the building.

Had they asked, city officials would have told them the committee hadn't considered logistics, that significant due diligence is necessary, and that a summertime demolition may prove unreasonable.

One commissioner has dismissed our criticism as merely a difference of opinion about "approach." The commissioner was right. Planning and estimating is a reasonable and intelligent approach. Early eviction and demolition is an irresponsible one. Sadly, there is no legal requirement that our city fathers employ common sense and reason when managing millions in taxpayer dollars.

If you're inclined to accept Monday night's decision as simply a matter of good people disagreeing, you'd be wrong, and you'd be accepting a process that utterly lacks integrity.

Monday night's reversal of January's sound decision was based not on good information obtained through reasonable due diligence by right-minded stewards looking out for the common good. It was based on political pressure from paranoid residents brought to bear on well-meaning politicians who know where they want to go, but have no idea how to get there sensibly, responsibly and with integrity.

It's no way to run a city.