Guarino

Robbie Perkins Watch: "Slick"

Life is full of ironies.

Mr. Perkins was one of the chief architects of the ill-fated swim center proposal, which turned out to be horribly dishonest.  One council member floated the idea of a new bond referendum to address the monetary shortfall, instead of the creative financing approved by the old council.

Here is Robbie's response:

“It is a great strategy for someone who doesn’t believe in the project and wants to kill it,” Perkins said. “If I were trying to kill a project, it would be one of the ways I would do it. It’s pretty slick.”

And thus we create the illusion of victimization.  We create the illusion that the only righteous route is to approve the creative financing-- and any other approach would be less than righteous, and would somehow breach faith with the interest groups who want this facility so severely.  Never mind how we got to this point.

That's pretty slick if you ask me.

Update: Tony has more:

Could he have made any bolder statement that the taxpayers of Greensboro did not want the financing option on the table? Yet he continues to be head cheerleader for a project he does not believe the citizens would vote for.

Robbie Perkins Watch: The last council meeting

Ryan Shell reported Robbie Perkins' comments regarding the last city council meeting:

“The Ceremonial Meeting was very disappointing.  We have a lot of work to do at the retreat to undo the damage and restore mutual trust among members of Council...

“The meeting was supposed to be a celebration and it turned political.  I was hoping we could make it to the retreat before swords were drawn.”

These were fascinating quotes, coming from one of the men who engineered the aquatic center boondoggle, and the questionable means employed to advance it.  It seems this person is hardly in a position to speak about trust.

All the bitter recriminations have been over a simple motion offered in a measured tone by a new council member-- Danny Thompson.  It was a motion intended to serve all the taxpaying citizens, instead of just a couple of anointed interest groups. 

Interestingly, even the News and Record seemed pleased that the new city council tackled this issue on Tuesday night.  People who harbor a wide range of ideological perspectives understood that some things were severely amiss with respect to the actions of the previous city council on this issue.

Robbie's anticipated campaign for mayor in 2011, which we have reason to believe is forthcoming, does little to heighten the level of trust to which he claims to aspire, especially since the work of the new city council has hardly even begun.

Meanwhile, over at Tony Wilkins' blog, we learn that Robbie confronted Tony Tuesday night-- because Tony had characterized Robbie as a RINO.  There was no immediate word as to whether "swords were drawn." 

Robbie Perkins Watch: The Aquatic Center

Several readers have requested that I reactivate the Robbie Perkins Watch feature at this blog.  The following kicks off a resumption of that series. 

John Hammer reported this week on the critical role played by Perkins with the recent Aquatic Center fiasco:

When the economy suddenly went south, the council voted not to sell any bonds for a year, in order to keep costs down. However, (Robbie) Perkins convinced the council that it could build the $18 million aquatic center it wanted – with three pools and all the gewgaws and doodads that fancy, state-of-the-art, regional aquatic centers have – for about $12 million because construction costs were so low. The council listened, and although it had agreed not to sell bonds, it did agree to move forward with the aquatic center because of the great deal that the city was going to get.

Guess what? The $18 million aquatic center came in at a little over $18 million. So that left the council in a bind. What the council decided to do was to borrow the money and pass the problem along to the new City Council.

It was around the time Perkins intervened earlier this year that a decision was made to pursue a no-bid contract, presumably because of the imperative need to take advantage of alleged bargain basement costs associated with the recession.  Of course, we know how that worked out.

It is still a bit difficult for me to conceptualize how this particular facility, with certainty, is going to spur greater economic development along the High Point Road corridor.  That is apparently part of the sales pitch with which Perkins assents.

But let us not forget that this proposed facility would cater toward the prerogatives of at least a couple of interest groups, including the local swim community as well as the hospitality industry.  In any case, some observers doubt that the benefits to local hotels will truly materialize to the extent advertised-- and even if they did, why should the taxpayer be subsidizing a boost to one particular industry?

Perkins/ Barber/ Black Officers' Lawsuit

Tony Wilkins points out how Robbie Perkins is attempting to prevent the use of city media facilities by council members with an opposing point of view.  Recall that Mike Barber gave a press conference yesterday during which he called upon the black officers who are suing the city to drop their lawsuit.  Barber also announced in response to questions that he had no plans to run for mayor or any city council office later this year.

Tony raises the question as to whether Perkins is attempting to silence fellow council members. 

But I think there is another great question.  Does Perkins agree with Barber that it would be best if the black officers drop their lawsuit? 

And if he does not agree, why not?

Update: Sam Hieb thinks Barber is attempting to look mayoral; and would like to see a race for mayor between Barber and Perkins.

Robbie Perkins Watch, Part 6

I am resuming my Robbie Perkins Watch series.  It has been a while, and a fair number of items have accumulated that are worthy of mention.

First, there have been some debates between Mike Barber and Robbie Perkins. 

At one point in October, Barber wanted to hold a press conference with the Mayor to discuss ways to reduce costs in response to the news of the sinking economy.  Perkins, however, said the city is doing well, and did not see the need.

"I can’t be associated with knee-jerk reactions and poor strategic planning," Perkins said. 

The oncoming combination of rising expenditures and declining revenues was not of overwhelming concern to Perkins, even though Greensboro has some of the highest property taxes in North Carolina.

One week later Barber made the statement that his confidence in Perkins was eroding.  The council was voting on a budget item; and Perkins was taking the position that they had no control over this particular item even though they were voting on it.  Ryan gives an account.

In the News and Record on October 7, an article appeared about the city manager's upcoming job evaluation.  Perkins had the following to say about colleagues on the City Council who have had concerns about the city manager's performance:

"Mitch Johnson is not going to do anything right for the members of council who have come out and said they want to fire him," Councilman Robbie Perkins said.

This, of course, diminishes and minimizes the concerns other council members may have.

Another example of Perkins' disregard for the "legislative minority" materialized a couple of months later.  A discussion occurred about council members having differences on a given issue:

When complaints get loud, some council members ignore them, counting on five votes to squash debates.

"The core of the council is going to have to determine what we do," Perkins said after a particularly contentious discussion, "and just ignore the extraneous stuff."

That is apparently the solution, according to Perkins.  Ignore the extraneous stuff.

A Rhino account documents Perkins' positions on funding the Civil Rights Museum and newspaper boxes:

Perkins brought up the civil rights museum and how that needed to be finished and said that everybody knew what the problem was... There is a big push by Perkins to fund the civil rights museum, and it appears he has the votes to do it but is waiting for an opportune moment.

During the downtown discussion, Perkins, who has big ugly NAI Piedmont Triad commercial real estate signs plastered all over the city, once again brought up the fact that something needed to be done about the unsightly newspaper boxes on downtown sidewalks.

Perkins has had a vision for spending taxpayers' money on a museum they have expressly rejected funding.  He also apparently has a discriminating aesthetic sense.

Finally, the Rhino had an amusing account of when it was decided that the city manager would no longer sit on the dais during council meetings.  Perkins' response?

What was...incredible was the speed with which Councilmember Robbie Perkins moved into Mitch Johnson's old seat next to Mayor Johnson. Perkins was in that seat almost before Mitch Johnson was out of it. That left an empty seat between Perkins and Wells. It will be interesting to see how the whole seating shakes out. 

Robbie Perkins Watch, Part 5

Keith Brown, who has spearheaded the Protest Petitions movement, discusses some comments made by Councilman-at-Large Robbie Perkins at the most recent City Council meeting. 

At one point, Perkins expressed frustration that parties from across town with "no vested interest" could interfere in proceedings in order to delay development-related matters.  Perkins made reference to Brown's attempt to influence the process in Greensboro in spite of the fact that he lives in High Point.

It appears that Perkins' use of the term "vested interest" might have been a Freudian slip on his part.

And Pastor Joel Gillespie, in a recent post, reveals that Robbie Perkins had indicated to him his belief that water runoff does not adversely affect water quality in lakes:

So I was talking to Robbie and he said to me something pretty close to “There is no proof that water runoff into a lake is harmful.”

I remember being quite taken back. My first thought was “I don’t think he really said that.” My second was “This guy went to Duke?” And the third was, “This sounds like a tobacco executive talking.” I knew at that point that further conversation was pointless.

It was not that much longer after that, as I remember, that Mr. Perkins made the local news for his opposition to tree ordinances in residential neighborhoods. He said they would raise the cost of the property and house and diminish demand and in effect depress the housing market. I personally have never met anyone that said they preferred that their new property have no trees, or that they wouldn’t be willing to pay a little more to keep the trees. And tree cover has such an overwhelming benefit to everyone it seemed only a developer could be against a reasonable tree ordinance.

My personal experience of conversations, along with the subsequent issue of the tree ordinance, combined with the more recent obvious conflict of interest regarding the incentives package has led me to think that most developers like Mr. Perkins, though otherwise fine people in every respect, bring a deeply ingrained set of values into these discussions that are formed by their work as developers. In other words, they see the world through a developer’s lens.

I think it is just a very bad idea that developers have such influence upon our local governments. But they do.

You are absolutely right, Pastor Joel.

Addendum: Ryan Shell asked Perkins some pointed questions on the general topic of how the Urban Loop fiasco could have occurred.   Perkins said some things in response, but never really answered the questions.

Robbie Perkins Watch, Part 4: The Budget, Taxes, Mayor's Salary and the Lincoln Financial land deal

The most recent news regarding our Councilman at Large:

1. Even though some members of the Melderec con Simkins majority on the Greensboro City Council did not like it, there was a successful effort to pass a no-tax-increase budget over the last month or so. 

The city manager identified cuts that would need to be made in order to avoid a tax increase.  There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.  We heard that it would be disastrous, for instance, to cut certain landscaping expenses, and to defer street paving.  Robbie Perkins was in the midst of these discussions, and spoke against both economy measures.  He even suggested publicly that taxes be increased so the need to economize could be averted.

There was no overt pretense on the part of Robbie Perkins to try to hold the line on tax increases.

2. We also learned that Perkins was calling for an increase in the salary for the mayor of the City of Greensboro.  While taking that position may be justifiable, observers could not help but notice that Perkins is said to be considering a run for mayor at some point in the future.

3. And then, Perkins was challenged by Mike Barber, who had learned that city staff was discussing an incentives package on behalf of a development project from which Perkins would profit.  Perkins had approached the staff regarding a deal to develop land currently held by Lincoln Financial.  This conflict of interest even earned a rebuke on the editorial page of the News and Record yesterday:

"In North Carolina, politicians often appear to take advantage of their office to further personal or business interests. They should be much more careful to recognize potential conflicts and more willing to sit them out. If that approach is too restrictive, then perhaps they're not cut out for public service."

It would seem unusual for a unit of local government to provide incentives for a primarily residential and/or retail development.  Incentives should only be provided-- if at all-- to employers who will bring lots of good jobs to the area; and who will be paying local property taxes over the long term. 

Recall that a couple of years ago, before he took a sabbatical from the City Council, Perkins favored incentives for the Wal-Mart shopping center on East Cone Boulevard.  The fear was that the development plans would not proceed if incentives were not provided.  That fear turned out to be unfounded.

4. An analysis provided to me suggests that the commercial real estate development firm Perkins leads-- NAI Piedmont Triad-- is the third largest in the entire region.  The Triad Business Journal lists only two firms ahead of Perkins' NAI: Triad Commercial Properties and Brown Investment Properties.

Addendum: Readers should note that I have created a category for the Robbie Perkins Watch series, with a link found in the upper right hand corner of this blog page.  The link will enable review of previous posts in this series.

Robbie Perkins Watch, Part 3: The Development Litmus Test

We have seen a number of interesting local stories over the last several weeks. 

There was an article highlighting a bond issue to appear on the ballot in the fall that would fund local highways.  We saw news accounts regarding the Greenway.  Finally, we learned about the problems associated with "Painter Boulevard".

Our City Councilman At Large, Robbie Perkins, found himself in the midst of all three discussions.

On the matter of highway funding, he argued that it was important to build new roads and highways.  Which did he identify as the most important project?  An extension of Florida Street that would serve a university research park.  It was the one that he perceived had the potential to spur the most development.

What will "make the most difference"?  It is not the impact of road construction on quality of life, or as a reflection of good government, or of reducing wasted fuel and time in traffic.  It is not a business productivity question.  Instead, it all has to do with development.

And of course, the Greenway discussion arose  in connection with the primary last month.  Robbie Perkins spoke up in favor.  Why?  Because Greenways are cool, and development tends to coalesce around cool things.  The Greenway, in his mind, is a pro-development project, so it should be promoted-- even if it costs taxpayer money:

“Greensboro needs to dare to be great. The Greenway is an idea will last 100 years and give our community a sense of place. The downtown is the only area where the entire community comes together, and everyone feels that they belong. To unify the downtown and connect it to our close in neighborhoods will create a synergy that will result in significant private investment in our downtown. Developers like cool places and so do the people that purchase or rent from them. One question Allen didn’t ask was how much it will cost Greensboro not to spend the money, to not try to reach beyond traditional bounds, to settle for doing OK. Greensboro has to find ways to get important things done, and the Greenway is one of them.”

But then, we learned last week that Perkins was at the meeting held regarding Painter Boulevard.  He was advocating that city taxpayers pay to repair the damage that had been created. 

So let us understand.  Roads and other public projects are best if they are pro-development.  They are to be viewed through this prism. 

When development interests dutifully capitalize upon the existence of  new roads, and adverse impacts result such as noise, it is the duty of the local taxpayer to pay for the amelioration of those impacts.  Use the taxpayers' money to keep the system churning.

In fact, according to this worldview, there is no higher use of public dollars than the promotion of private real estate development.  That is why we are to support road construction bonds, roads like "Painter Boulevard", and also Greenways.

In all these matters, one must recognize that real estate development is one of the key litmus tests upon which decisions are to be made locally.  Indeed, it is one of the defining factors in our local statecraft.  And if you not aboard, then you are likely adrift.  Robbie knows the better way.

Robbie Perkins Watch, Part II

I had reported on the City Council meeting Tuesday night regarding Robbie Perkins' remarks in response to Mary Rakestraw's motion to remove Mitchell Johnson:

Robbie Perkins predictably attempted to label it as "divisive", "over the edge"; and said it was not statesmanlike.

Brenda Bowers also points out that Perkins had labeled the events Thursday night as "sad"; and that he had initially entered public service to avoid this type of approach.

Of course, Perkins made no attempt to address the merits of whether Johnson should be permitted to continue as City Manager, or whether he should be relieved of his responsibilities.  According to the prevailing local political ethic, that is a matter to be decided upon, in unanimity, in closed session.  And council members ought not disagree.

The technique to be utilized apparently is to express subtle derision toward one's opponents instead of engaging the issue.   Make it appear that they are behaving poorly, and that their duty should be to change the way they approach matters.  Try to stifle their efforts by drumming up social disapproval against them, even though they may be on the right side of the issue.

Later in the meeting, a motion was made to direct Mitchell Johnson to present the City Council with a budget that would not contain a tax increase.  Goldie Wells continued to be adamant in opposition to anything that made sense, indicating that asking this of the City Manager would be "a waste of time".

Perkins then countered by making a motion to fund fully the gang unit in the Police Department, thereby trying to put the budget hawks on the City Council on the defensive by making it appear they were soft on crime if they pinched too many pennies.  Remain mindful that we have not yet had the chance to review the report of the outside consultant reviewing the GPD, because it is not yet completed.  We do not know what will be recommended regarding how crime should be controlled most effectively; and whether the recommendations should be adopted.

The local political norm of annual tax increases, you see, is inevitable, according to the unstated premise Perkins seemed to present.  It is unthinkable that another alternative exists, or that we can fight crime effectively without these tax increases.

There is only one problem.  We have had tax increases on a nearly annual basis for years; and crime conditions in Greensboro are awful.  If tax increases are the answer to crime, then why is Greensboro such a high-crime area?

Robbie Perkins Watch, Part I: A Lindsay-Equivalent?

There has been much talk about the prospects of Councilman Robbie Perkins running for mayor.  It has been discussed in the Rhino, and has also likely been the topic of numerous conversations.  The scuttlebutt is that Yvonne Johnson may only serve one term as mayor, thereby clearing the way for Perkins to make a run for the top spot.

It has been reported previously that Perkins is, at least nominally, a Republican.  It should then follow that fellow Republicans-- and conservatives-- should be excited over the prospects that he might assume the mayoralty.  Right?

Wrong.

In fact, Perkins' ascension to that post would be a problem for Greensboro.  It makes me think of another self-described Republican,  John V. Lindsay, who became mayor of New York when I was a child in 1965.  Of some interest is the fact that William F. Buckley, Jr. opposed him when he first ran for the office that year.

Lindsay was an unmitigated disaster as mayor of New York.

Steven Malanga wrote in City Journal about the former mayor shortly after he died:

Candor compels us to note that the patrician Lindsay’s two terms as mayor of New York were a catastrophe from which the city, and even the nation, have still not entirely recovered. The pure embodiment of the elite orthodoxy of his day, Lindsay helped transform the debate on race in America with an agenda that provoked white flight from cities, welcomed militant black separatists into the mainstream, and introduced a vision of social welfare that encouraged dependency among the poor and nearly destroyed New York’s economy.

There is little reason to believe, at least at this time, that Perkins would pursue a massive expansion of entitlement programs as mayor of Greensboro in a manner akin to Lindsay.  But many of the other ingredients are there.

Perkins is not averse to voting in favor of tax increases; and in fact our City Council does this nearly every year.  He  pursues and obtains the endorsement of the Simkins PAC without appearing to give it a second thought.  And, of course, his politics qualifies him for that endorsement.

I had written a couple of months ago about city documents that revealed how Perkins had repeatedly been Michael King's point man on the matter of Project Homestead.

When Mary Rakestraw was planning to ask for a vote to remove the City Manager over matters related to the non-disclosure of public documents regarding the GPD fiasco, Perkins was Mitchell Johnson's most vociferous defender.

This is a matter of some interest.  Why?  Because back last summer, I circulated a questionnaire to City Council candidates asking them what they would do to clean up the GPD.  Perkins' response?

i) Fully disclose the nature of the problems to regain public trust.

ii) Assign responsibility of clean-up to the City Manager along with a timetable and reporting schedule, and hold him responsible for the job.

Does anyone detect a hint of irony?  His questionnaire response, which I posted back in August, is found here.

And of course, only last week Perkins voted and spoke against exploring the matter of the White Street Landfill.  He also tried to oppose the appointment of Bill Knight to a City Council budget committee.

A trend emerges when one views Perkins' actions on Mitchell Johnson, the GPD fiasco, the White Street Landfill, Project Homestead and the Simkins endorsement.  Some of us would argue that this approach, which entails appealing to identity group politics, is harmful to the city.

But wait a minute.  Hasn't Perkins' trademark been development-related issues?  And is not his position on development emblematic of Republicanism?

Well, yes and no.  Certainly, Republicans are supposed to favor free markets and property rights.  Those positions would naturally tend to align with development interests.  But "Perkinsism", and Greensboro's approach to development issues, present a twist that is a bit different.  What we have here is a hierarchy of requirements that is fairly stringent in order to maintain a certain vision of quality (and in the past, also to accommodate the development of suburbs-within-the-city). 

And developers here pay to play.  They give to the right candidates, hire the right attorneys, and thereby gain access and clout to find the necessary compromises to get their projects approved.  In the past, they have almost always been successful.

An interesting discussion took place at the last council meeting with respect to annexations.  Ordinarily, conservatives would tend to be very circumspect about annexations.  Not Robbie Perkins.  He stated last week unabashedly that any neighborhood receiving city water and sewer should be annexed.  Period.

Of course, this suits development needs.  The city runs water and sewer to enable development; then annexes the neighborhood later; then asks for bonds to provide more local infrastructure for the annexed community; then raises taxes to pay for the bonds; and then is able to run more water and sewer to foster more development.  It keeps the wheels turning, tax revenues rising, and developers happy.

It has been the opinion of some observers that elected officials representing development interests tend to find common cause with the Simkins PAC.  Wendell Sawyer coined the "Melderec" term to describe this phenomenon.  The most obvious Melderec-con-Simkins members of the City Council at this time are Robbie Perkins, Yvonne Johnson, Sandra Anderson Groat and Zack Matheny.

I hope to make Perkins Watch an occasional feature at this blog in anticipation of the day Robbie Perkins might run for mayor.  He cuts the right profile, and does many of the things that are needed to win in Greensboro.   It is a shame that, all too often, these also happen to be precisely the wrong things to do.

Just like Mayor Lindsay in 1965.