One who intends to leave others better off for his having existed.


From the GPAC Tanger Center MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING to be discussed at tomorrow's Greensboro City Council Work Session

"The Private Donors will provide $35 million for the design and construction of the Tanger Center. Those funds will be secured through a bank financing commitment (the “Donor Loan Commitment”) and cash collections of written pledges and grant awards.

Funds of up to $5 million to pay pre-construction amounts due under the design contracts will be transferred to the City as those contract payments become due, subject to obtaining the Donor Loan Commitment...

...The City will provide $30 million for the land, design and construction of the Tanger Center.

Hasn't the city already provided more than $11 million?

The City will pay its portion of the design and construction costs after the Donor Loan Commitment has been obtained...

...the CFGG on behalf of the Private Donors will have to obtain financing to cover their share of the design and construction costs for the Tanger Center.

If the donors are going to "provide" $35 million with a loan,
with who's money are they going to pay how much interest over 10 years?

It is understood that both the City and the Private Donors may need to use a portion of the Tanger Center as collateral for that financing.

It is agreed that the ownership of the Tanger Center will vest in the City once the financing repayment obligations of the Private Donors are satisfied, which is expected to occur no later than 10 years after the opening of the Tanger Center..."

Who gets how much of what if the “Donor Loan Commitment” defaults?

The city doesn't need to use the center as collateral, 
but the Community Foundation does.


How Margin Maintenance Call Runs Work and What Could Happen to the GPAC financing deal

On the Community Foundation's ability to guarantee $30 million for the GPAC

Community Foundation Administrative Fee Schedule; "Investment expenses are charged to each fund in addition to the costs..."

On GPAC and the Bessemer/Renaissance shopping center deal correlations

Greensboro City Council Members voting on the GPAC are fiduciaries for Greensboro's taxpayers

GPAC Mess from the Rhino and News & Record; Sounds like the Community Foundation actually has $5 of $35 million

The Rino's John Hammer Carrying Roy Carroll's GPAC position, and the local Republican establishment

Greensboro's taxpayers do not know the following GPAC financing information after spending more than $11 million so far

Financially sustainable GPAC financing math and governing structure

The Rhino on GPAC/TPAC Line of Credit; "the term “letter of credit” was used loosely"

David Hagan's return on his $1,000 Robbie Perkins' Contribution; 58,600%, or $586,000

News & Record Letter to the Editor; David Hagan’s commissions don’t serve taxpayers

Answer from the City of Greensboro on the "binding commitments in private contributions for the GPAC."

On US Senator Kay Hagan's Brother in Law David Hagan, Making a Nice Slice off Greensboro's Taxpayers while Sitting on CFGG's Board

The City of Greensboro's GPAC operating loss pro forma that doesn't include debt service

On GPAC; If AMS projected 149 events, why is the City of Greensboro saying 180 with 100% sold premium parking at every show?

Kathy Manning, Randall Kaplan's wife, lobbying for a GPAC and their new hotel

On GPAC and the Community Foundation

Nancy Hoffman's perfectly legal contributions from GPAC task force members, as confirmed by city attorney S. Mujeeb Shah-Khan

Theoretically, the new GPAC proposal could work if...

Two reasons among many that a GPAC with 3,000 seats probably won't work as well as DPAC with 2,700 seats

On the $10 million GPAC bond and parking math

1 comment:

W.E. Heasley said...


“…cash collections of written pledges and grant awards.”

Written pledges many times for a variety of reasons do not come to fruition. For example, the entity pledging, being a firm or individual, runs into financial difficulty or ends operations [bankruptcy regarding firms or individuals pass away with no written statement completing the pledge].

Grant [taxpayer money] awards is merely one political taxing authority awarding taxpayer money to another political taxing authority e.g. state to local. Once again the awarding political taxing authority can run into financial trouble or bankruptcy.

Regarding the “$35 million for the design and construction” and the “The city will provide $30 million for the land, design and construction”, those figures are held forth as hard and fast. When was the last time a politico directed program came under budget? It happens, but it is the outlier. More than likely price over-runs and delays end with the supposed hard and fast figure being obliterated. Odds on that the price ends much higher than advertised.

One needs to consider, reflect and ponder on exactly who benefits? Moreover, who benefits if the music hall succeeds or fails? Who succeeds if the budget is on target or the budget over-runs $10 or 20 million? In all cases, who ever benefits or succeeds, do those who benefit or succeed, the price thereof, fall on what group? If failure ensues, does the same group pay that paid for the benefit or success? Is one looking straight into the face of a zero sum game? If the music hall fails, the sponsoring politicos thereof, do they pay a personal price for the failure? Do politicos ever pay a direct financial price for failed notional propositions?

Finally, government produces nothing. Ever heard that phrase?

The complete phrase is: Government produces nothing that would not have otherwise been produced in the private sector, absent tax. Meaning, the basket of goods, the value thereof, is the same in both instances, merely the composition of the basket of goods changes. Since value does not change, then nothing has been created.

P = V or P -T + G = V