53 beers on tap

A New Year's shortie

Well, I promised an announcement about this blog before the New Year, and here it is!

I've been having a lot of fun doing this blog over the past several months.  I feel it provides a service; I'd love it if more people read it (at least posted to it), but who doesn't???  And I do need to improve a little bit.  I guess I should become more known to the local blog "community."  I've missed all the local bloggers' get togethers that Jessie Newburn promotes (I was going to the last one, but I got pulled into family activities at the last minute) and I won't make that a habit in 2009.  Similarly, I need to make more of habit of reading to and posting to other local blogs.  They are, as a whole, quite good.

As 2009 draws near (and when the New Year's fireworks appear over Sydney harbor, dammit, that means 2009 is on!) I do want to let people know about a change I'm making in content.  This blog will start to look more outside of Howard County.  I do feel that the majority of posts will continue to be immediately local.  However, there are too many important decisions, and happenings, going on in the immediate region, as well as with state government, etc. that deserve review and comment.

The limiting factor will be things that have an effect upon Howard County.  So, this won't turn into a gossip column ("Hey, about that Palin family and their crazy family names?  Are those people insane or what???") because such things don't affect Howard County.  I think the lowest point of this blog came earlier this year, when in response to a post I put up about an anti-choice demonstration in Howard County, a couple of anti-choice advocates from out of state decided to use the blog as their soapbox for a while.  I appreciated the traffic but the original post was NOT about choice or abortion!  Because that is not a Howard County issue per se.

We'll see how this goes.  As with all things, it'll be a work in progress, I'm sure.

OK, I promised a short post today, and I'm dangerously close to lying!  Happy New Year to all!

Whither the reformer?

Several years ago, in the light of the second CA Governance Committee, the issue of governance was at the forefront of CA's landscape.  Specifically, there was great interest in the relationships between the CA board and the village boards.  Villages had a more than healthy skepticism about the CA board's intentions and attitudes regarding the villages; there had been rumors that CA was interested in selling off the community centers, that CA was going to let each village operate as an independent business, no longer reliant upon CA for funding, and other things.

One of my fellow village board chairs who was most openly critical of the CA board was the Wilde Lake board chair at the time, Phil Kirsch.  Phil was very critical of the closed and closed-minded ways in which the CA board did business, and in how they made decisions.  Phil was very much a champion for openness and full disclosure on the part of the CA board-- within legal limits, of course, but certainly, in his view (and mine), nothing regarding the future of the villages should be decided without the villages' being at the table.

This was at a time when the CA Board chair was from Wilde Lake, and Phil, in the village board chairs' meetings with the CA Board, was unafraid to take him on.  He was very vocal in taking on the CA board members at our joint meetings, even to the point of advocating stronger views in favor of the villages on governance matters than we as a board chairs group had decided to advance.  Even among our group, he was quite the maverick (I think it's OK to use that term again after the election) and so, when he was elected to the CA board over a year and a half ago, it was reasonable to assume that he would work to make the board more open, that he would work to pull back the curtain and show citizens what their lien dollars are paying for.

Such has hardly been the case.  I've attended several meetings since Phil has been elected to the CA Board and while early on, he always seemed to be the one asking the most questions, he seemed to be the one wondering the most aloud regarding CA's business practices-- this year he has been much more the company guy.  He seems to have become comfortable in the role of telling residents what their role is, what the CA board's role is, and most troubling, he has adopted the same unapologetic attitude for the CA Board's operating procedures that stains the service of so many other board members.

Alan Klein wrote a few days ago about some comments that Phil made and wondered if my change in my views toward Phil were based in that example.  No-- I've been observing this for quite some time, because my hopes for Phil were high.  My hopes for Phil's service on the CA board serve as a parable for the service of anyone who may want to serve on the CA board, in order to change the way things are done by Columbia's governing organization.  And absent any known changes in views in Phil's own mind (which, I admit I have not asked him about, but rest assured, I will), serving on that board changed his views.  So much so that the reformer who ran for the board two years ago is now invisible.  So much so that he sits at his seat in the board room and criticizes CA's own advisory committees for having thoughts that challenge CA board orthodoxy.  So much so that he has gone from reformer to cheerleader, gleefully reviewing powerpoints of the board's structure, and pointing out how well everything works in CA, especially where communications between the CA staff and board are concerned.

I have made no secret of the fact that I don't care for the current system of governance in Columbia, but as a corporate board member, (which I have been in other organizations than my village, thank you) you have an obligation to advance the organization, not simply caretake it.  That Phil Kirsch's membership on the CA board advances the cause of the board to be more open or friendly towards the villages or towards individual residents is not apparent.  How responsibility for that is apportioned between him, other board members, or the corporate culture of CA itself, is a matter for further observation.

Latest on the CA Presidential search

I attended the CA Board meeting last night, along with several other members of the citizens advisory committee for the CA Presidential search.  Our committee's chair, Judge Neil Axel, gave a terrific presentation on the committee's views regarding the holding of a public forum for the final candidates.  As has been reported, our committee recommended against holding such a forum.  The board ultimately voted 7-2 to keep the forum in the timeline for the search; however, the questions posed by the CA Board members clearly showed that they did not understand the reasons why our committee decided to recommend against having the forum.  For what it's worth, let me explain in my own terms here.

I did not attend the public forum that occurred during the last search; however, several of the committee members reported that it was not a positive experience.  There were reports of cheering for certain candidates over others, of a "beauty pageant"-type of atmosphere, and of it being a forum for Columbia-based advocacy groups, who already have their voices heard in every other conceivable place, to square off and take their shots at the candidates.  It was further reported that the forum was such an experience that candidates removed themselves from consideration because of it.

This view was repudiated by a couple of CA Board members who said that they felt the last forum was indeed, very productive.  Further, they said that candidates didn't withdraw from consideration because of the forum, but because of "stupid things we (the board) did after the forum", as Hickory Ridge Board member Miles Coffman reported.  For Columbia's sake, I hope that's accurate.  I hope the board recognizes that they made mistakes in the process and can correct them.

The other main reason for our opposition to the forum is one that the board can't so easily correct with statements and feelings of contrition.  Our concern was for the confidentiality of candidates.  In other words, holding a public forum for the finalists would mean that a candidate who doesn't want their current employer to know of their interest, would have to decide to either come forward to their employer, or withdraw from consideration.  CA Board members last night made the point that the CA President's position is a public position, and so candidates should have no problem going public.  Maybe.  However, this position is a high-level executive position, and in the executive world, candidates don't always like to be so forthcoming with their intentions.  It was our view, then, that the forum would limit the field of candidates.  The CA Board took the alternative view.

My understanding is that our committee will soon receive resumes of candidates to review.  It is still undecided as to whether or not our committee will actually interview candidates.  We would like to; the CA board wants us to simply review resumes.  This issue was not discussed last night, though some board members, such as Evan Coren of Kings Contrivance, who voted in favor of the public forum did support the notion that our committee should participate in interviews.  My view is that our participation in the interview process is essential.  We can't advise the board properly simply by looking at resumes.  We'll see how this develops.

I will say that as a member of this committee, I am happy overall with the level of cooperation between the CA board and the committee.  One board member, Phil Kirsch of Wilde Lake, has been a disappointment, but then again, his entire term as a CA Board member has been a disappointment.  Why, you ask?  Tune in on Friday.

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah to all!

Oh Noes! GGP on the edge!

http://baltimore.citybizlist.com/yourcitybiznews/detail.aspx?id=1141

Article provided below

Default for Rouse Company Parent General Growth Imminent

Fitch: Default Imminent for General Growth Properties; IDR Lowered to 'C'

Fitch Ratings-New York-09 December 2008: With General Growth Properties (NYSE: GGP) recently receiving short-term extensions of the maturity dates on both corporate and non-recourse debt obligations, default of some kind appears imminent, according to Fitch Ratings, which has downgraded the Issuer Default Ratings (IDRs) and outstanding debt ratings of General Growth Properties (NYSE: GGP) and its subsidiaries as follows:

General Growth Properties, Inc.

--IDR to 'C' from 'B'.
GGP Limited Partnership
--IDR to 'C' from 'B';
--Revolving credit facility to 'CC/RR5' from ' B-/RR5';
--Term loan to 'CC/RR5' from ' B-/RR5';
--Exchangeable senior notes to 'CC/RR5' from ' B-/RR5';
--Perpetual preferred stock (indicative) to 'C/RR6' from 'CCC/RR6'.
The Rouse Company LP
--IDR to 'C' from 'B';
--Senior unsecured notes to 'CC/RR5' from ' B-/RR5'.

The ratings remain on Rating Watch Negative by Fitch.

Fitch's rating action contemplates that either a distressed debt exchange, whereby GGP would be forced to restructure its debt obligations in an effort to avert bankruptcy, or failure to repay debt currently due is likely in the near term. Fitch considers a distressed debt exchange, which includes a material reduction in terms, to be a default.

Fitch believes that even if the company is able to agree to longer-term extensions for its recourse and non-recourse obligations, such extensions may constitute a distressed debt exchange and therefore a default under Fitch's rating criteria, given that a default of these obligations would trigger a cross-default provision in GGP's credit agreement.

Fitch's rating actions also acknowledge that conditions within both the secured and unsecured commercial real estate debt capital markets remain poor for borrowers, and are placing significant pressure on GGP's ability to sell assets, enter into joint ventures or otherwise raise adequate capital to repay 2009 maturing unsecured debt totaling approximately $600 million.

Consistent with Fitch's Oct. 14 press release, resolution of the Negative Rating Watch will be driven by GGP's ability to refinance the terms of its near-term indebtedness to provide the company with additional liquidity and longer-term financial flexibility. Fitch would consider upgrading GGP if the company repaid or refinanced its near-term unsecured and secured debt maturities while maintaining solid fundamentals for its operating properties.

GGP is a Chicago-based real estate investment trust (REIT) engaged in acquiring, developing, renovating and managing regional malls in major and middle markets throughout the United States. GGP also has investments in commercial office buildings and community development projects purchased in connection with the Rouse acquisition in 2004. As of Sept. 30, 2008, GGP owned interests in over 200 million square feet of properties and had $33.7 billion in total undepreciated book assets.

Errata, vol. 2

It's been too long since volume 1, and to be honest, there is no one overwhelming issue facing Howard County right now.

That's right, I said "no one overwhelming issue".  There are some big ones, though:

This business about stopping planning of downtown because of GGP's financial future: bad idea.  What should happen, though, is that the county needs to take leadership in the planning. 

The fact of the matter is, that downtown Columbia is too valuable to the county and to potential developers NOT to be redeveloped.  If GGP isn't around long enough to redevelop it, someone else will.  Whoever does, however, should have to do so under the conditions of a plan largely constructed by the community.  As there is no stomach on the CA level to construct such a plan, that responsibility falls to the county.

So the county needs to do something difficult and tell GGP that it needs to drive the process.  No, that wouldn't make GGP very happy; however, the current economy dictates that the county retain primary control of this process.  Could GGP then go develop its own plan, irrelevant of county support?  It could, but then again, one would have to wish GGP luck in getting county government support.

ZRA 102: A great idea whose time has come.  It is necessary for the community to drive the process of redeveloping the village centers.  The gatekeeper provision has long been outdated.

Howard County local legislation: a hearing was held during Thanksgiving week to discuss local delegation bills that have been submitted in advance of the General Assembly session that begins in January.  Two deserve comment.  Political signwaving is often dangerous, sometimes annoying, sometimes necessary.  It is also an expression of free speech.  It needs to be allowed.  Second, as long as the affected intersections are marked, and the standards for a ticket equate with what currently exists in Montgomery County (which is a ticket for 10 miles over speed limit and over), I am OK with the establishment of speed cameras in Howard County.  Generally, I feel speed cameras and red light cameras are on the borderline of government oversight.

The future of this blog: I've been doing this for almost seven months now and it's been a blast.  By the first of the year, though, I'll have something to say about the future of this blog.  At least I hope I will.  Stay tuned.