Ralph Nader
Robert Weissman
P.O. Box 19312
Washington, DC 20036
July 13, 2007
Attorney General Linda Singer
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 409
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Attorney General Singer,
We were surprised by the announcement that the District Council passed "emergency" legislation to enable sale of the West End properties containing a library and fire station to a private developer, Eastbanc, Inc. Our brief initial review of the legislation leads us to be profoundly concerned about the process by which it was passed and the substantive nature of the deal it proposes.
We are writing to inquire if the Office of the Attorney General has issued or prepared any formal or informal opinions on the procedural legality of the West End deal.
If not, we are requesting that you undertake such a review, including an examination of the following questions:
· What is the basis for authorizing the land sale under "emergency" legislation? Were procedural requirements met for designating the legislation an "emergency?" Are there requirements for public notice and public hearing in case of emergency, and were they met? Given the nature of the development project contemplated, it is very hard to conceive of how the legislation could satisfy a test for emergency, justifying a waiver of normal public hearing processes. If you conclude that the "emergency" provisions of the DC charter and laws were satisfied, do you believe that these should be altered to prevent future unwarranted legislative designations?
· Were all requirements for conveyance of a public property to a private party satisfied?
· The legislation declares that the land is no longer needed for a public purpose. Yet it envisions the very same land as serving the same public purposes it does now -- housing a library and fire station. The apparent effort to resolve this obvious conflict is the reservation of "air rights" to build a new library and fire station. Does this satisfy DC law? Do you believe it respects the spirit of the law?
· The legislation designates that the property is to be transferred to a named developer, bypassing any open bidding process. Does this satisfy District contracting rules? If such a sole-source, no-bid arrangement does satisfy District rules, do you agree that such process is ill advised on the merits? Will you recommend the mayor veto the legislation on these grounds? Will you recommend measures to preclude such sole-source and no-bid contracting arrangements in the future?
· The legislation suggests certain public benefits from the deal: a new library; a new fire station; affordable housing for, perhaps, 30 percent of residential units built; and fair market value to be paid for the land (minus deductions for expenses constructing the library and fire house, and for the "public benefits" conferred by affordable housing). But given that the legislation requires and sets the terms of the sale, there is a remarkable lack of specificity about these provisions.
What exactly does the legislation obligate the developer to do? Apparently this is left to the mayor. The legislation requires that the mayor present a land disposition agreement for consideration, but specifies that it shall be deemed approved if the council does not act affirmatively or negatively within 45 days. Does this process comport with DC rules for property transfer, and law-making? If it does, and given the enormous uncertainty over terms of the transfer, do you agree that this is an ill-advised approach that should not be replicated?
We look forward to your timely reply.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader & Robert Weissman
LIBRARY
DYNAMOS