Mobile? Click HERE for m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr 

Thursday, September 2, 2010 |  Madison, WI: 74.0° F  
The Paper
 

NEWS

Edgewater developer on hot seat
Concerns raised over firm's 'unorthodox, behind-the-scenes methods'



Article Tools: Read moreRead more News items
Email this articleEmail this article
Print this articlePrint This Article
Email the authorEmail the author
Recommend This ArticleLike This Article Add to DiggShare this item

Bob Dunn is not easily deterred. Despite a series of disruptive controversies, he remains upbeat about his company's chances of undertaking a $109 million renovation of the Edgewater Hotel.

"I'd say generally we feel as though we've made significant strides forward," says Dunn, president of Madison-based Hammes Sports and Entertainment. "We've had a tremendous amount of support in the community."

Among other things.

Madison's city attorney, Michael May, has affirmed that Hammes apparently engaged in "violations of the Madison lobbying ordinance." And concerns have been raised about its efforts to drum up Internet posts and a past lawsuit against the city of Miami.

On Aug. 11, former alder Brenda Konkel filed six lobbying complaints with the city clerk, including allegations of falsified registration documents and failure to register and authorize lobbyists.

"I welcome Brenda's complaints," says Ald. Mike Verveer. "In my opinion, this is clearly a great example of why the [lobbying] ordinance is important and helpful to people, particularly given the unorthodox, behind-the-scenes methods in which Hammes has proceeded these many months."

Hammes has until Aug. 29 to respond before the City Attorney's Office decides what actions to take. It could seek up to $79,000 in fines and a suspension of lobbying privileges. In the past, the office has issued warnings and sought compliance rather than impose penalties.

While the redevelopment of the $5.3 million Edgewater Hotel would be done by Hammes Sports and Entertainment, a subsidiary of Brookfield-based Hammes Company, the hotel's owner would be a company named Landmark X.

Landmark X has six registered lobbyists, including Dunn and two other Hammes Sports employees. The company is asking Madison for $16.8 million in tax incremental financing (TIF), one of the largest requests in city history.

Who will get that money? One of the complaints is that Landmark X's composition is unknown. The city requires lobbyists to name partners if their principal is a limited liability company (LLC). Five of the six Edgewater lobbyists, including Dunn, stated in their registrations that Landmark X is not an LLC.

But according to the State Department of Financial Institutions, Landmark X is indeed an LLC, created Feb. 6, 2004. Dunn says that he, personally, is its principal partner. He will not yet name the other partners, but he says he will if required to by the ordinance.

Dunn declines to explain why he claimed Landmark X is not an LLC, the subject of one of Konkel's complaints, or why Landmark X did not report lobbying activities, but says there was no intent to violate the law.

"The ordinance is not terribly clear," he argues. "We're working with the city to clarify issues with the ordinance and better understand what their requirements are. I'm very confident that as we go forward we'll be in full compliance."

Konkel notes that the sole Edgewater lobbyist who correctly identified Landmark X as an LLC is former City Attorney Henry Gempeler. Gempeler, she says, "works with the lobby law and the registration forms and statements on a regular basis, so it's not like they're unfamiliar with the ordinance. This is not rocket science."

The City Clerk's Office offers a text of the ordinance, a training video and guides to lobbying forms on its website (www.cityofmadison.com/clerk), as well as in-person classes.

Moreover, an Isthmus article published July 2 warned that Hammes appeared to be violating the lobbying ordinance by failing to register or file contact and spending reports in 2008, and by registering lobbyists too late in 2009. The company still failed to file 2008 reports before the next deadline, on July 31. These apparent violations are included in Konkel's complaints.

As Isthmus reported, Hammes helped create a neighborhood group that serves as an alternative to Capitol Neighborhoods, which has been critical of the Edgewater plan. It is also heavily focused on public relations with, as Verveer points out, a strong behind-the-scenes component.

On Aug. 5, Hammes community relations director Sarah Carpenter emailed supporters, asking them to monitor and post to specific blogs and forums. Hammes even offered to create text for posts.

"We will notify you each time an article appears in the paper," Carpenter wrote, "and we will assist you by drafting and distributing key message statements so you can tailor your comments for specific audiences."

Asked about the email, Carpenter was initially taken aback: "Where did you get that? It was sent to a very select list of people." She recovered to say, "No comment."

Dunn says there's nothing unusual about orchestrating signs of support. "It's fairly typical on projects," he says. "We work very hard to communicate with a broad range of different interests, oftentimes supporters, making sure that we're speaking about fact, clarifying issues."

Despite these efforts, significant opposition to the project was apparent at a Landmarks Commission hearing on Monday and a neighborhood meeting on Tuesday. At Tuesday's meeting, which drew nearly 300 people, Dunn assured the group, "Our effort has been to work slowly." But according to information distributed by the city and Hammes, the approvals process, which has just begun, could be over as early as Nov. 3, with construction starting in early 2010.

Supporters point to Hammes Sports' many successful projects, but whether those are comparable to the Edgewater is unclear. The firm provides a variety of consulting services, so the definition of a Hammes Sports project varies. For the Kohl Center, for example, the firm provided project management. For Lambeau Field, it offered financial, development, marketing and operations-planning services.

Instead of consulting, are there properties that Hammes Sports/Landmark X developed, owns and operates, as it would with the Edgewater?

"Here in Wisconsin, we have Brookfield Lakes in Milwaukee," says Dunn. "It's a large commercial office park." He says that it's owned by "a variety of different interests within the company."

Actually, Brookfield Lakes Corporate Center was a project of the parent firm, Hammes Company, which sold it in 2006 for $80 million to Core Realty Holdings of Newport Beach, Calif. It remains the corporate home of Hammes Company, which manages it. According to news accounts, after a 15-year divestment it was the last commercial real estate property the company owned.

A Hammes Sports project that did not go well was the Orange Bowl. After a redevelopment deal soured, the company brought a compensatory lawsuit against the city of Miami for more than $2 million. Miami had wanted to hire the parent firm, not a Florida LLC created by Hammes Sports.

Officials felt they "were tricked into a contract with a company that would be less liable for mistakes and mismanagement," wrote Miami SunPost reporter Ryan Brown. The city settled in 2006 for $750,000. Former city manager Joe Arriola complained, "They are getting away with murder."

"I gotta tell you, I think the situation in Miami is real cut and dry," says Dunn. His version of events is that the Hammes Sports contract was awarded through an emergency bidding process put in place after hurricane damage. "The city of Miami came under tremendous internal scrutiny from their audit department over their contracting practices," he says. "They tried to void our contract, at which point we filed a claim against the city. We prevailed completely in the claim. It's real simple. It was entirely politically motivated."

Madison is also a very political city, especially when it comes to development, but Dunn insists there are absolutely no lessons to be drawn from Miami. "I think our relationship with the city of Madison is very good," he says.

Still, Konkel remains concerned about the larger picture. "This isn't just a tiny project that's going to build 32 units downtown," she says. "This is a $100 million project, with a substantial amount of TIF money being put in."

Comments (6)

From Amanda Jones on 08/27/09 at 9:07 am

I have been following all stories because I have been very concerned, I was at the neighborhood meeting, following articles and news. I usually do not make any comments but a few things that I have to comment about though are...

Lawsuits on major projects happen. It sucks- but there is probably not one developer who has not filed one or had one filed against them. Unfortunately this is just part of the business.

As for the lobbying reports. Hasn't Brenda Konkel filed numerous compaints agains many companies. According to the state journal- 624 in 2004! I think there must be real issues with this ordinance. On the same token- she really seems to have a lot of time to look at all this- good thing there are no low income families and renters that need the help of the Tenant Resource Group while she is digging up anything she can. You state in the article that "We're working with the city to clarify issues with the ordinance and better understand what their requirements are. I'm very confident that as we go forward we'll be in full compliance." I'm satisfied right there.

Media relations happens- I do think that most companies, developers and corporations monitor and advise about a project that is in the news. Let's be honest- there are a lot of lies being told out there and the more I learn, observe and read- it is not from the developer.

And let's be 100% honest again, of course they have to get support- THIS IS IN CNI TERRITORY. You cannot for one second tell me that CNI was not "lobbying" behinds the scenes. And there would be no chance of forming another neighborhood group if CNI was not the way they were.

Sorry- but as I follow this it really does look more like a smear article than unbiased reporting. I want accurate reports about this project- not rambling.

 

 

From Tom Farley on 08/27/09 at 11:36 am

What hot seat?  The presentation Bob Dunn & Hammes gave this week was exceptional in the depth of research behind it, and in the clarity and openness which is was given.  The project was outlined thoroughly and without any hint of it being a sales pitch. 

Clearly seeking to paint Dunn & Hammes as dishonest and crooked, this article makes negative assumptions based on three things;

1. Attributing a statement to the City Attorney saying that, "APPARENTLY there SEEMS to be violations" of the lobby ordinance.  That's how it reads, not how it is quoted.  The City Attorney would probably say this is beyond misleading.

2. Concerns over internet posts:  Well, at least in Madison, internet posts are a highly utilized and primary means for citizens to be heard on important issues.  That's OK - inability to comprehend the basics of Web 2.0 has caused fear & panic in more than one newspaper or journalist.

3. A past lawsuit: Not against Hammes, but one brought on by Hammes.  That puts Hammes on the hot seat - how?  

It sure seemed like the "real" general impression from the meeting was that most people in Madison strongly desire this renovation of what was once a cultural gem in our city.  Report on the pro/cons or try to get a pulse of the people on big issues.  But stop attempting to incite chants of Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!  Madison deserves better.

From Stu Levitan on 08/27/09 at 1:30 pm

"Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!" -- Huh??

From Tom Farley on 08/27/09 at 1:45 pm

A simple Google search would probably be less embarrassing, than having to ask what "Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! means in a forum post.  As the most Isthmus readers already know; that is referring to the audience chant of Jerry Springer's show-usually to incite or prolong an emotional outburst or fist-fight.

From Jay Rath on 08/27/09 at 11:25 pm

In the interest of full disclosure, Tom Farley serves on the Quality of Life Committee of Downtown Madison Inc., which has endorsed the Hammes Sports/Landmark X proposed redevelopment of the Edgewater. The board chair of Downtown Madison Inc., Allen Arntsen, recused himself from voting on the endorsement because (as confirmed by the mayor's office) he was retained by National Guardian Life Insurance, onto whose land the Edgewater will expand, to create the Mansion Hill Neighborhood Coalition. It has been reported in the daily press that Hammes Sports and Entertainment helped create the coalition to provide support for its proposal.

From Jay Rath on 08/28/09 at 9:51 am

Tom Farley wrote: "Attributing a statement to the City Attorney saying that, "APPARENTLY there SEEMS to be violations" of the lobby ordinance.  That's how it reads, not how it is quoted.  The City Attorney would probably say this is beyond misleading."

I don't know what text you're working from, but City Attorney Michael May's letter to Robert Dunn of Landmark X, LLC, reads: "The complaint and attachments do appear to show violations of the Madison lobbying ordinance."

Log in or register to comment

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater
PluggedcommentsViewedForum
Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs RSS
Collapse Photo Bar