SettleTalk.com

It’s a good question, and one that Caddo Commissioner Lyndon B Johnson (LBJ) refused to answer on Monday after the Commission work session.

LBJ has been the driving force on the Commission to have the monument removed, stating frequently that “history belongs in a museum, not on the Caddo Courthouse lawn.”

The citizen advisory committee, appointed by the Commission, had recommended on August 10 that the monument be left in place and be supplemented by 2 additional monuments honoring the Reconstruction Era and Civil Rights Movement.

On September 5 the Commission’s Long Range Planning and Special Projects Committee voted 4-3 to remove the monument. Caddo Commission President Stephen Jackson added LBJ to that committee after August 10 report was tendered to the Committee. LBJ’s vote to remove was the deciding vote on removal.

At the Monday work session (Sept 18) the Commission considered a resolution by LBJ to remove the monument and voted to place it on the Commission’s regular meeting agenda for October 19. The resolution could have been considered on October 5.

So…why the delay in the vote on the most decisive issue the Commission has considered this year, if not this decade?

The Commissioners have been hearing speakers, both pro and con, on the monument removal for the last several months. Most of these have been speaking at each work session and regular meeting. No doubt they will speak again in the 2 work sessions, the October 5 and October 19 regular meeting.

The primary election to fill the unexpired term of former Commissioner Ken Epperson (District 12) will be held on October 14—the Saturday before the scheduled Thursday vote on removal. Louis Johnson (Johnson) was appointed by the Commission as the interim commissioner in January of this year and he is a candidate in the primary.

At the work session Monday Johnson gave a long rambling statement about the upcoming vote to remove the monument, after he had voted to place the resolution on the October 19 agenda. Johnson’s monologue was long on verbiage but short on substance. He did not tip his hand on how he would vote. Johnson did say he was listening to his constituents, keeping their texts, calls and emails. He indicated he would follow the lead of the majority of those that contacted him.

Johnson is one of six candidates on the October 14 ballot; five including Johnson are black. The racial breakdown in the district is 56% black, 40% white, and 4% other. The voter turnout for the primary is expected to be less than 10 % and many believe the majority of those that vote will be white. Thus, Johnson’s official position on the Confederate monument could have a significant impact on his vote total on October 14.

Some politicos speculate that the LBJ’s motive in delaying the monument removal vote until after the primary was to assist Johnson (they are not related). A possible glitch in that theory is that one of the candidates, Fred Moss IV, is a fraternity brother of LBJ. One theory circulating around government plaza is that LBJ wants Johnson to be in a runoff with Moss.

All of this maneuvering may be for naught after a District 12 candidate forum on Sept 19. Johnson was hard pressed , as the sitting Commissioner, how he would vote on the monument if he was still on the Commission. Johnson said he would vote to remove the confederate monument.

If the white voters in District 12 are concerned about the monument, then Johnson’s position – prior to the October 19 commission vote – – may be a factor in the October 14 primary. How all this plays out for Johnson, Moss and the other candidates will never really be known. Johnson’s removal vote will be the subject of much speculation both before and after the primary, and maybe in a runoff election as well.

Shreveport City Councilman Willie Bradford wanted Independence Bowl Executive Director Missy Setters to appear at the Shreveport City Council last week to answer questions about the 2017 Bowl , specifically did the Bowl have a corporate title sponsor and would the Bowl be played this year? Setters advised Council clerk Art Thompson that she had a calendar conflict–and no title sponsor yet for the Bowl.

Setters should be subpoenaed to the next Council meeting to answer questions in person. The Bowl is funded $100,000 by the City of Shreveport and it has a sweetheart lease with the City of Independence Stadium. Additionally the City is funding improvements to the stadium including the scoreboard .

The required payoff for the Bowl is $1.5 million. The hotel motel tax generates less than $600.000 for the Bowl. How the balance of funds for the Bowl payoff is a question that needs to be answered in front of the City Council…like at its next meeting on September 26. And whether or not the Bowl will be played this year.

The City Council’s vote on Tuesday to defeat a proposal by Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler to hire, at no cost to the city, bond counsel for the issuance of $30 million in revenue bonds to underwrite the construction of a sports complex on Cross Bayou took most of the packed house in the Council chambers by surprise. 

The Tyler Administration had been confident that the proposal would  would pass on a 4-3 vote. Instead, all six Council members present voted “No”. Once it became clear that the proposal would fail, Council Jerry Bowman left the chambers before the actual vote was cast.

Tyler introduced the sports complex and mixed-use development project at the August 22 council meeting with handouts, a Power Point presentation presented by Chief Administrative Officer Brian Crawford and City Attorney William Bradford. She followed up with a parade of individuals who gave glowing testimonies to the value of the entire project. 

This “dog and pony” show was then followed by a slick presentation by the owner and staff of Capitol Realty, a private development firm from Birmingham Alabama. When it was done, many in the council chambers expected the streets around Government Plaza to have been miraculously paved in gold during the meeting.

Shreveport had been promised a $30 million dollar sports complex, at no cost to the city, and a private mixed-used development of at least $150 million dollars that would magically transform a 10 acre scrap yard and surrounding property at the north end of McNeil Street into a “sports ecosystem” complete with thriving retail/restaurant tenants, 200 plus apartments, a hotel and many other amenities that would instantly become the focal point of downtown Shreveport and a major economic catalyst that would restore the City’s coffers to over following. And that was just for starters.

But, lo and behold, despite continued hoopla from the Mayor’s office– complete with the customary endorsements from the Committee of 100, the Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce and the African American Chamber of Commerce–the wheels started squeaking on this “economic train to prosperity” as citizens and elected officials took the time to look under the covers of the PR blitz at the basic economics of the complex and mixed-used development project as well as the city coffers. 

And suddenly, many realized that this project resembled the parade of the naked emperor—it only being a matter of who would call out the truth and be ready for the heat. 

Thankfully first term council members James Flurry, Willie Bradford and Stephanie Lynch quickly announced their opposition to the entire project.  It was then an open guessing game on how the remaining Council members, three of which are termed out next year, would vote.

Many questions were asked about the total project by council members and citizens after the initial announcement, and some where answered. Several important inquires were still unanswered on Tuesday before the vote.  

From day one, the Tyler Administration and the developer, Corporate Reality, took  the attitude of a long-respected institution that was not to be questioned–sort of a “trust me but no questions” position. 

Inquiries like how to handle a heavily polluted scrapyard and, just as important, where to move the 10 acre beast, were brushed with homilies like “none of these are matters can not be resolved.” Or that only issue be decided is whether to hire bond counsel, not to design/build the project.

The three muskateers who said “no go” from the virtual get-go were just as concerned, if not more so, by the reality that the projected revenue from the complex would not be sufficient to pay the bond payments after the complex had been open for several years.

Crawford, the chief administrative officer, stated that $1.9 million dollars would be annual subsidy that would be needed for bond payments during construction of the complex and until the revenue stream would become sufficient for bond payments at some undetermined date after the facility was opened. The source of the money would be gaming revenues from the Riverfront Fund. 

The only problems with that funding source were that it had  been decreasing annually, and that these moneys were being to subsidize the operating budget of the City. Payments on the revenue bonds would thus necessitate unidentified cuts in other city funding.

Other questions about the entire project that were  practical, such as the impact on downtown of the half-mile distance of the proposed location from the center of downtown (the Caddo courthouse) and the challenges of the Red River District which is much closer. 

Additionally, the decline in retailing downtown was seemingly contrary to the promises of 90 percent occupancy of the retail space by Corporate Reality as well as the projected number of events that would be scheduled at the sports complex. 

And mundane matters such as the traffic patterns in and out of the McNeil Street location as well as the advisability of spreading out, rather than concentrating development in the downtown business core, troubled many who evaluated the project.   And at virtually the last  minute Corporate Realty downsized its grandiose plans, announcing that the first phase would be only $39 million for retail and restaurants with housing and hotel to come later. 

The Monday work session was heavily attended and the Tuesday Council meeting had a standing-room-only crowd. The majority of citizens at both meetings favored the project. Many obviously had been recruited and prepped in their comments, which in many instances were based on faulty facts. Citizens speaking in opposition generally hammered the themes of “wants” versus “needs”, citing crime concerns, financial stability of the city and continuing infrastructure challenges.

There was no doubt that the Cross Bayou development project, and specifically the proposed $30 million bond issue, was “cussed and discussed” both in and out of the council chambers more than any other issue that has ever been considered by the city council since the institution of the mayor-council form of government in 1978. 

The relative ease of communication with cell phones and email, along with social media, is  one reason for the “ease” of citizen involvement in government. More important, opponents ignored comments that they were “scared”, racially prejudiced,  or that they just  had “stinking thinking”. They  focused on the details, rather than the glamour, of the total project . They then took the time and energy to interact with the elected officials and showing up during the work day to actually participate in the process of government.

Whether one supported the Cross Bayou bond resolution or not, all must agree that this exercise was democracy at its best and that the City of Shreveport is all the better for the process.  Hopefully this high level of citizen involvement will continue.
 

Who knows?

Missy Setters, the long time executive director of the bowl, has refused to answer a public records request concerning the bowl emailed on August 28. The public records request was very basic:

    “ Missy
        1. What is required payout for both teams for bowl this year
        2. Does the bowl have a name sponsor to pay the big bucks
            If so, who and what amount
        3. If no sponsor, can the game be played-in sense of payouts
        4. If no sponsor, what is deadline to get sponsor
        5. Is ESPN still on board?
    Thanks
    John”

No response from Missy, and a second email was sent on September 4 enclosing the August 28 request: 

    “Missy
    Can I get a response to this email
    I will write a story-with or without
    Thanks
    John”

Again, no response by Missy to the E-mail.

Two calls to the I Bowl office were answered by an answering machine recording; the requests for a return call from Ms. Seeters were non productive.

An August 23 email to a local sports writer concerning the Bowl and its lack of a major corporate sponsor was answered as follows:

“Just spoke with Missy Seeters. The bowl folks continue in a title sponsor    search but plans to have a bowl this December.”

The Independence Bowl, which was founded in 1976, has now had 7 corporate sponsors: Poulan (1990-97), Sanford (1998-2000), Mainstay Suites (2001-2003), Petro Sun (2006-2008), Advocare (2009-2013), Duck Commander (2014), and Company World (2015-16). 
The required payoff for the I Bowl was raised to $1.2 million in 2015; that is the required amount for this years game. The I Bowl website does not list any 2017 corporate partners. The 2016 partners included the City of Shreveport, The Caddo Parish Commission, The Louisiana Office of Tourism, Willis-Knighton Health System, The Greater Bossier Economic Development Foundation, Suddenlink and Mattress Firm. The sponsorships for the 2017 Bowl are not listed on the website.

At the city council meeting on September 12 the clerk of council Art Thompson related his conversation with Missy Setters, the executive director of the Independence Bowl. Ms. Setters advised that, as of that date, the Independence Bowl did not have corporate title sponsor.

How the bowl can make its required payment without a corporate title sponsor is a question left to be answered. Those who are not wearing rose tinted glasses believe the I Bowl is now history. The bowl world has changed substantially since the bowl was started, and like rotary phones, it is a victim of progress.  And if a primary goal of the board was to put Shreveport “on the map”, then it has achieved that goal.  
 

It’s a good question,–and one that the Port Commissioners as well as the Shreveport voters are asking. The general public plus several Commissioners were surprised, no shocked, to read in the September 6 edition of the Shreveport Times that Executive Port Director Eric England was one of thirteen people who attended a public briefing and “said they funded the website and belong to the Shreveport for Pelicans support group.” The endorsement by England reportedly angered several of the Port Commissioners.

Eric England is one of the highest, if not the highest, paid public employee in Northwest Louisiana. Presumably he reports to the 9 Port Commissioners who are appointed by Bossier City, Bossier Parish, Caddo Parish and the city of Shreveport. The minutes of the Port Board meeting do not reflect that the Port Board has endorsed the sports complex at Cross Bayou nor authorized England in his capacity of Executive Director to appear on behalf of the Port as was reported in the Times article.

In response to a public records request, the Port advised that no Port moneys were expended for the PR campaign. Two of the 9 Board Commissioners are long time financial supporters of Shreveport Mayor Tyler: Secretary-treasurer Roy Griggs and President Sam Gregorio. Griggs was also of the supporters at the Slam Dunk press conference and he is named sponsor in a recent fundraiser for Tyler.

In all the continuing hubbub over the pros and cons of issuing bonds for a sports complex on Cross Bayou the stark reality that Shreveport’s general obligation bond rating was recently lowered by Moody’s Investors Service should not be overlooked. Although the downgrade was only from A2 to A3, the credit opinion offered limited optimism for the City’s current economy while addressing significant credit issues.

Moody’s, which is the bond industry benchmark rating service, assigned a “negative outlook” due to weakness in the energy sector, the lack of economic development, and increased operational costs including the funding of substantial pension contribution shortfalls. In a press release Mayor Tyler attempted a positive spin on the downgrade, saying that it “will not affect the City’s ability to continue infrastructure improvements”; she failed to note that the City can expect a higher interest rate on future bond issuances as well as the current bonded debt of over $175 million dollars.  

Another “elephant in the room” that should not be ignored during all the sports arena hype is the pressing needs of Shreveport for future infrastructure improvements of over $1 billion dollars plus. The mid-year report of the city engineer outlined major challenges to the continuing (and growing) responsibility to fix, replace and upgrade sewers, streets, roads and the water supply system.  

The most sobering findings noted that the city’s sole water treatment plant operates, at peak, below its original capacity due to overdue maintenance and repair. Paired with this are concerns over the source of city water—Cross Lake— which needs $200 million in upgrades as well as needed repairs to the Cross Lake dam. After the problems in Texas over municipal water supplies and the recent Red River and Cross Lake flooding, these critical issues should now take on new meaning to a population that has too long held “a never happen to us” mentality.

Moody’s report noted that the city’s population has only increased 0.4% since 2010 and that unemployment was higher in June than the state and national rate. Moody’s also reported that the median residential income was equal to 74% of the national average. Additionally, Shreveport had general fund deficits in four of the last six years due to weak revenue performance, particularly sales taxes which comprise over 50% of the general fund revenues.

The continuing decline in gaming revenues was also a factor in Moody’s downgrade. The Riverfront Development fund has been tapped for increased operating expenses as its revenue has dwindled, which is expected to continue. Additionally, poor liquidity is a detriment to future credit. The City’s goal of a 5% reserve of its operating budget will not be met this year; it could be less than 2% at year end. Moody’s also noted that the city’s long term liabilities “are elevated and growing fixed costs will continue to pressure the budget.”

Other findings of merit in the Moody’s report were also gloomy, such as the continuing history of contributing less than the actuarially determined contributions for pension liabilites. Moody’s “tread water” amount of $30.2 million in funding is the annual amount required to present the pension liability from growing. This year’s budget has a $25.5 million in pension funding. 

And for those that look to trends, the last 3 years have not been promising in several areas reported by Moody’s. Fund fiscal balances as a percentage of revenue have declined from 29.2% at the end of 2014 to 25.8% at the 2016 year end. The cash balance, as a percentage of revenue, at 2014 year end was 10.6% and only 2.2% at the end of 2016. 

The proposed sports complex and mixed-use development, if constructed, will improve on a short term basis sales tax revenue; long term additional ad valorem tax revenue wills also increase provided no ad valorem tax abatements are included in the final package to land the mixed-use development. Government leaders should not sit back and expect these projects to be the magic genie that solve growing financial challenges of the city. Expect these concerns to be campaign issues next year in the mayoral and council elections.

The Tyler administration is in a full court press mode to pressure the Shreveport City Council to vote on September 12 to allow Mayor Tyler to proceed with the hiring of professionals for $30 million bond issue for “acquiring, constructing, and equipping of a sports complex in the City.” Negotiations have already commenced for the purchase of the needed properties for the proposed $130 million Cross Bayou project that will include the sports complex and the mixed-used development project.

The public is entitled to answers to many questions that are important to consideration of the entire project, and especially the upcoming Council vote. How forthcoming the Tyler PR team will be is open question; to date the public presentations, media releases and press packages are long on glory but short on details. Here is a list of inquiries that have not been addressed to date:

1. Is the award of the Pelican team to Shreveport contingent upon the construction of the mixed-use private development (“private development”) or just the sports complex (“complex”)?
2. Is the complex to be built if the private development is not to be built? In other words, is the economic feasibility of the complex dependent on the private development?  If so, what guarantees will the City have in hand on the private development before construction of the complex begins?
3. The sports complex and private development are to be located in an EPA identified brownfield area. Does the City have the funds for the cleanup of both areas, or for just complex area? If just for the complex, will the private development company do the clean up on the land for the private development? 
4. Cross Bayou has flooded several times since 2015 and Sheriff Prator has stated that the Red River will again flood, which will cause more flooding of Cross Bayou. What impact will future Cross Bayou flooding have on the sports complex and the private development? 
5. Since the City does not own all of the property needed for the complex/private development, what is the source of funds to purchase the needed property(ies)?
6. Cross Bayou is a navigable stream. Will it be necessary to get EPA approval for any of the sports complex construction and/or the private development on the bayou? If so, are these costs be included in the initial projects of expenses for both the complex and the private development?
7. What amount of bond funds are unspent from the 1996 bond issue for riverfront development and will these moneys be spent for the sports complex and/or the mixed-use   development?                                                                                                                                   8. Will the main entrance to the complex be from McNeil Street and/or from Common Street? What will be the costs for the necessary streets, drainage, lighting, right of way acquisition, etc for these entrance/exit avenues and what is the source of payment for the same?
9. CAO Crawford advised that the $1.9 million annual payment for the proposed $30 million revenue bond would be paid from the Riverfront Fund until such time as “the development comes on line (three to five years). It will produce enough revenue streams to pay for itself.”  Please identify the referenced revenue streams.
10. If Riverfront Development funds are to be used to subsidize the operations of the complex, what is the timeline for self-sufficiency of the revenue streams, i.e. when is it anticipated that the subsidy will not be needed?
11. If Riverfront Development funds are to be directed to the complex, what funding to other projects, programs, city departments or other organizations will be cut or deleted, i.e. what budgets will be cut to fund this subsidy?
12. What is the anticipated job creation—full time and part time-from the sports complex?

The Council should press Tyler to answer these questions, and others, before voting. Although this is first of several votes needed to accomplish this project, the sooner the realities are known the better. And really there are no reasons to need address these factors now versus later. 
    
According to the Fact Sheet prepared for the City Council, the “resolution is only a preliminary step in the process and it does not obligate the City financially.” But as most citizens realize, the further down the street of dreams that the government engine goes, the harder it will be for elected officials to put a stop on a project and objectively analyze its merits.

And for the four Council members (Flurry, Bradford, Lynch and Bowman) who seek re-election next fall, a “yes” vote on this resolution will most likely end their political careers, much like this project could be the death knell for Tyler’s re-election.
    

    

The rumblings on how the Sci-Port Board of Directors and particularly its Executive Committee (Dare Johnson, Nancy Alexander, Joe Badt, Linda Biernacki, Robert Manriquez and Robert Stroud) sat by and let the crown jewel of the riverfront take on red ink to the point that the center will close on Labor Day are not going away, and in fact they will probably become louder—and they should. In a desperate move to keep the Sci-Port ship from not totally sinking into the Red River the Sci-port Board contracted with the Planet Aqua Group to manage the center.

Sci-Port will close on Labor Day and its 72 workers will be out of work. Planet Aqua says that substantial renovation is needed and that Sci-Port will reopen, on a smaller scale, on New Year’s eve. Sci-Port is to pay over $113,000 a year to Planet Aqua for its management services; all the other details on the conversion are as clear as the Red River at flood stage.

Planet Aqua is the start-up company that is attempting to open the Shreveport Aquarium, which will be the first aquarium this company has constructed. From the day of the greatly ballyhooed announcement that this group was going to make a tourist mecca out of the Barnwell Center a late August opening was promised—and thereafter repeatedly in cheery emails and messages on its website. Parties were booked and staff hired for the end of August opening. But low and behold, after the tanks were filled with Shreveport water, problems began to surface in making Shreveport water appropriately saline, animal adaptation to the new facility and the like—just the standard nuts and bolts operational realities of an aquarium.

Recently Planet Aqua announced a delay in opening—for at least a month.  That means the 30 people who quit jobs to go work for the Aquarium on August 31 get to sit at home, unpaid, for at least a month. Trying to save face the press release cited expansion of the facility, which was not originally on the drawing boards as the reason for the delay. This major hiccup leads to the obvious question—if Planet Aqua can not get its own facility open on time, how is it going to also manage the conversion of Sci-Port and get it open on December 31?

A much more serious but not quite so obvious issue is the nature of the two organizations. Planet Aqua is a private for profit business entity. Sci-Port is a public non-profit corporation. The business principles of operation of a for profit versus a non profit are totally different—its like mixing oil and water. How the business operations of both entities, which are in reality sharing if not competing for the same customer base, will be handled is an open question. The Sci-Port Board has totally failed in their fiduciary obligations for management and how much of these responsibilities, and how well they will be discharged by Planet Aqua, is a story yet to be told. From the appearance of things Planet Aqua has more than enough challenges in getting its on parade under way , much less saving Sci-Port.
 

It’s a good question that Shreveport and Bossier residents have been asking since the Shreveport City Council voted in February of this year to approve an ordinance that would allow for ride-sharing apps like Uber and Lyft to operate in the city. And the recent announcement that Uber will be soon be operating in Texarkana Texas has raised the angst of local residents on both sides of the river who are disappointed that this transportation option is not available.

The Shreveport ordinance outlines the requirements for a transportation network company (TNC) to be licensed in the city, as well as TNC drivers. As defined by the ordinance , a TNC is a business that uses a digital network to connect transportation network company riders to transportation network company drivers who provide prearranged rides. A TNC driver is an individual who uses a personal vehicle to offer a prearranged ride to riders upon connection through a digital network controlled by a transportation network company in return for compensation by the riders; the TNC driver pays a fee to the transportation network company. Bossier Parish has piggy backed on Shreveport; it’s TNC ordinance reconizes any TNC licensed by Shreveport.

The TNC ordinance differs from the ordinance regulating other vehicles for hire, which includes taxi cabs, courtesy transportation services, interactive services or providers of any other vehicle for hire services including limos.
In 2014 East Baton Rouge Parish passed its version of a TNC ordinance; Uber and Lyft have been operating in the greater Baton Rouge area since then. New Orleans enacted a TNC ordinance in 2015 and Uber and Lyft opened in the Crescent City that year. These services were expanded in 2016 to allow full services by TNC to and from Louis Armstrong International Airport in Kenner.

The primary difference between the Shreveport TNC ordinance and those of Baton Rouge and NOLA, other than fees for the companies and the drivers, is the requirement that a TNC must execute an agreement “to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city, its officers, agents and employees for any incident that causes harm to a third party and arises from the intentional or negligent acts of the TNC or any of its drivers.” This requirement is in addition to the insurance regulations for both the TNC and its drivers. 

Shreveport’s TNC ordinance incorporates the insurance requirements of the Louisiana Transportation Network Company Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law, and also requires that certificates of insurance provided for driver and company licenses “shall further identify the city, its elected officials, officers, directors, employees as additional insureds under such insurance.”  

These indemnification requirements are not included in the East Baton Rouge Parish nor the NOLA ordinances. Both of these require primary liability coverage insurance in the amount of  “at least $1,000,000 for death, personal injury and property damage” as well as uninsured and under insured motorist coverage in the same minimum amount. These are the same requirements for insurance coverage in the state statute which Shreveport has incorporated into its TNC ordinance.

Both Uber and Lyft have expressed interest in opening operations in the Shreveport Bossier area; neither have offered a timeline nor any reason for the delay in expanding to this area. Some observers believe that the indemnification requirements of the Shreveport ordinance is the primary hold up for a TNC here. When questioned about the need for the indemnification over and above the $1,000,000 insurance coverage and the possible negative impact of the same on TNC expansion to this market, city officials stated that……

Its time for the Tyler Administration or the Shreveport City Council to review the TNC ordinance indemnification requirement and the real need for having the same when weight against the citizen requests for Uber/Lyft services in the city. If Shreveport believes more protection for the city is needed, then the TNC ordinance could be amended to increase the required insurance coverage. 

The only thing missing during the Tyler administration’s sports complex presentation at the Shreveport City Council on Tuesday was a marching band,
majorettes, and Shriner’s minicars. 

And when it was over, the Council was left with the task of sorting through the parade debris to decide how to vote on September 12 on the Mayor Tyler’s resolution to pursue a public private partnership on Cross Bayou. 

And if ever there has been a hot potato political issue list in Shreveport, the sports complex would certainly be in the top five if not number one.

Preceding a well-scripted hour long performance, the Tyler administration passed out to the Council a 40 page plus promotion package that included everything from listing every major institution and employer in Shreveport to detailed drawings of the proposed complex along with the mixed-use development site along Cross Bayou. 

The booklet touted the Ark-La-Tex median household income to be $61,364, a “proven track record of support for the Pelicans by hosting preseason games in 2014 and 2106” (actually played to small crowds at Centurytel in Bossier City), and “extensive support from various governmental agencies, business community, and citizens.” 

The community support was evidenced by a second handout with over 20 letters, which supported the notion of a Pelican developmental league team in town, but not specifically the proposed sports complex. The Downtown Development Authority has already backtracked on the report that its board endorsed the sports complex.

The City had two primary selling points on the complex and surrounding development which would include retail space, hotel, housing and a park along Cross Bayou. 

The first was that the $30 million in bonds for the complex would be repaid initially from the Riverfront Development Fund and later from revenue generated by the new development. Secondly, the Birmingham development firm Corporate Realty would head up the private development, lock stock and barrel, of more than $100 million that would complete the package for the long promised development of Cross Bayou with no public dollars. 
Social media has been less than kind , to say the least, on the idea of the sports complex from the press release on Monday before the Tuesday Council presentation. And its hard to find, other than the usual suspects who support anything in the name of “economic development”, many (if any) supporters of the project that area not in the construction or food and entertainment industry. 

Tyler probably hoped that the sports complex, mixed-used development proposal would give her administration some breathing room from the public pressure to deal with crime and the increased scrutiny over the water billing litigation. 

The day of the presentation there were 3 shootings in Shreveport and the day after a homicide. So much for her proud announcement to the Council on Tuesday that crime for July 2017 was less than crime in July 2016. And the quick response by the Police Union denouncing the project certainly took some of the wind out of her sports balloon.

And as far as the water billing litigation, the Council was briefed in an executive session Tuesday after the conclusion of the meeting by one of the private attorneys handing the litigation. Although the briefing was confidential, Caddo District Judge Ramon Lafayette on Monday ordered that Tyler appear for a third deposition and answer questions she previously dodged. Lafitte also ordered City Attorney William Bradford to produce his text and phone records showing communications with Lynn Braggs and David Aubrey. 

For those keeping track the city has lost 7 of the 8 court rulings in all the water billing litigation. 

Loss in all the hubbub over the Mayor’s proposal is that the Council vote on September 12 is only to authorize the major to proceed with the project in hopes of being named the winner in the award of the Pelicans developmental league basketball team. 

The other city in the running is Pensacola Florida which has an existing facility that hosted a Continental Basketball (CBA) team for 6 years. Pensacola is also preparing a new sports complex, mixed-used development similar to Shreveport.

The proposal does not commit the city to spend money on the project or in fact endorse the proposed development,-its more of a wedding announcement party versus an actual wedding. 

Nonetheless the four Council members facing re-election next year and the three who hope to “term out” with a memory of successful service realize the significance of their votes.

 If nothing more all the interest in this project, which is a good thing from the perspective of civil involvement, may send a message to Tyler, who held a high dollar campaign fundraiser event Thursday evening, regarding her priorities for her Administration and her re-election thoughts for next year.