Jeff Ackerman Responds on DA Office Move

George Rebane

I invited Jeff to correct and/or expand on my 'Hanging Chad' post regarding the DA office move.  The following is from Jeff's email that I received this afternoon.
============

George:

Good seeing you today.

No other shoe to drop really. We asked questions that needed to be asked. To be clear (and you may use this in your next post update), here are the questions:

1.       Last August we (and others) were told the building’s use would be “retail (downstairs) and residential (upstairs).” Tintle said at the time that he had some retail businesses, “already lined up,” but did not disclose details. There were no initial plans to have office downstairs and that all of that space would be reserved for retail, generating much needed sales tax monies.

2.       The BOS approved the lease essentially the same week it eliminated 9 positions in the Building Department, amid more concerns of a continued economic downturn. We questioned the timing of that. We also questioned the price, since it did not appear that the owners had a long line of folks waiting for the space. Where are those retailers Tintle had lined up?

3.       We also questioned the relationship between the building’s partners and the elected BOS members who have been openly endorsed and financially supported by the “landlords” of the property they were approving a long-term lease with. Are you really suggesting we should not be asking those questions?

4.       Finally…after having lunch with the DA, we walked down to the building for a tour. I could not help notice how much work had already been done to get the DA’s offices ready to occupy. I have been involved in several multi-million-dollar building projects and can tell you for certain that much of that work had been done BEFORE the BOS voted to approve the lease agreement. Rubber Stamp? It sure makes you wonder, doesn’t it? I always thought you got approval first and then started putting up the walls.

This newspaper NEVER suggested the DA didn’t need better digs, by the way (although we suspect it will be a LONG time before their courthouse offices are occupied). And since Nevada City is so concerned about Real Estate offices downtown, why are government offices different? They don’t generate any more sales tax than a real estate office. Remember that debate?

In any event, hope this clarifies things.   ...

Best,
Jeff

Comments

[Russ]

George,
Some thoughts on Jeff Ackerman's email. Point One. I was against the move and wrote the BOS about the loss of retail space, and was assured that all the retail space was available except for one small ground floor office in the back. All store fronts are available. It is true the grand plan was to have the shop owners live over the store below, like some stores in the 19th Century, but this is the 21st Century. Nevada City who will benefit from the sale tax did not complain, as the retail space remains open and they know the Court House staff spends a lot of lunch money in Nevada City. If the office moved to an industrial park in Grass Valley, that lunch time revenue would be lost. Would residents living above generate more tax revenue for Nevada City than the Court House staff. I have my doubts.

Point Two. What does the elimination of nine positions in the Building department have to do with renting space for the DA. The Building Department is a fee funded department, that grows and shrinks as the demand for building permits waxes and wanes. That is what happens when the government uses fees to extract money from the public. Why should the BOS keep nine employees with no work on the payroll? That would be bad use the tax payer's money. The Union would have a fit, if they found nine employees idle, listening to music, reading magazines, and just sitting around the Rood Center. As for price, it was well with in the local range for a new building, and comparable to what the County charges the LAFCO with offices in the Rood Center. The Union claimed there were alternative, but never presented their case.

Point Three. Yes, it is appropriate that the Union ask questions, but they did not provide any answers. They sullied the reputation of the BOS and highly regarded business men, with no proof of any wrong doing other than they made campaign contributions. This is small community we all know and support one another. Would they have been more comfortable if building had been constructed by a big Democrat developer from Sacramento, rather than a local contractor who I heard may be a Democrat. If there was a back room deal the Union needs stop asking questions in public until they have some proof of some wrong doing.

Point Four. With so many people out of work it would be easy to find a few extra workers to get the stud work done. How many days does it take to put up some steel studs in an open space. Again, asking questions without following up with answers. Where are all those skilled investigative reports the Union is suppose to have. When were the studs bought, when were they delivered, when did the crew start work? How many people were on the crew. How may studs can a crew put up in one day? How many days after the agreement did Jeff take his after lunch tour? The Union jumps all over bloggers that ask questions about Union operations, claiming we lack expertise and credibility and do not have the facts. So, if we were to apply the same criteria, where are the facts.

It is true that Nevada City was worried about store front Real Estate Offices downtown. The DA is not using the store front offices. How come we did not hear any complaints by Nevada City over this move, only the Union. I am waiting for the other shoe. There is more going on here than the Union questioning government, but I do not have any evidence right now to support my political hypothesis, or ask some pointed questions. Stay tuned.

[Jeff Ackerman]

Russ:

For the record, The Union will NEVER stop asking the questions when it comes to local government. But it's good to know they have a mouthpiece (you) to respond with the party line. Hope they put you on the payroll.

Jeff A.

[Mike McDaniel]

I strongly urge each BOS to address this issue. If they have "nothing to hide" then give us an idea of your thinking process. I looked up to retired GV city council member Tassone for his transparency, I think the BOS should follow his lead.

*As hard as it is for me to admit I have been impressed with the general direction of the county. Although revenues and expenses have skyrocketed over the past 10 years the # of public employees (the largest expense to taxpayers) has stayed stable. Kudos on that one.

[Russ]

Jeff, thanks for the reply, and I agree it always good to ask questions. It is even better to have the answer to those questions before asking them. Especially when dealing in small town politics.

You have asked questions and then did not provide any answers. The questions you asked were left hanging and the public continues to wonder. Some wonder if their really was some improper decisions made by the County, and some wonder if the Union has another agenda by asking the questions which suggest some wrong doing on the County BOS part then never providing any answers. So, did the County do some thing wrong or not? The Union claimed there were better options but never show the us what those options were. You suggest a back room deal, but never provide and facts only an opinion. An opinion with out much to support it.

If you right and I am wrong, I will post the results in big letters on the my blog. I will pat you on the back for doing some great investigative reporting, for uncovering rot in our local government. Until then, I will keep asking the question what is the Union's agenda and continue to search for the answer. Stay tuned.

[Jeff Pelline]

I hate to jump in, but I think it's a good idea to go back to the facts. The paper raised the question. Then it ANSWERED, and I quote: "

This is NOT a legal conflict of interest, and we tend to be skeptical about "conspiracy theories" anyway. But is it the right thing to at least MENTION the political contributions during the public discussion to diffuse a perceived bias among citizens with long memories? In this case, we would do so.

In a news story, we also quoted Sue Horne as saying: "Horne said she had no knowledge of the deal until it appeared in the board meeting agenda packet and had no discussion regarding the lease with Robinson, Gary Tintle or county officials. Tintle has endorsed but not contributed to Horne's campaign.

The issue is that: Not a backroom deal but to be TRANSPARENT in discussing what might be PERCEIVED as a conflict of interest.