BioDistrict bill before legislative committee tomorrow

HB 576, by Representative Leger, will be heard tomorrow by the Committee on Municipal, Parochial and Cultural Affairs.

Among other things, the bill renames "GNOBEDD" something far more in line with what its more commonly known as - BioDistrict New Orleans.

There's been some discussion by folks in the know here in New Orleans about other aspects of the bill and what they will ultimately mean for the city and for the historic neighborhoods that stand to be impacted by the district.

For one, I'll note that the BioDistrict has attempted to mollify critics by providing some neighborhood representative seats.  That sounds nice, but the new representatives would not be on the Board of the BioDistrict itself...rather, they're seats on an advisory committee... that is clearly heavily controlled by parties favorable to the Board.  Additionally, the new reps must be appointed by the mayor - and the current mayor has shown he's bought the BioDistrict hook line and sinker.  Furthermore, those two reps come from a list submitted by the local legislators...who are all in the bag as well when it comes to setting up and supporting the BioDistrict.

So, the supposed injection of resident input is mere window dressing - not substantive change that gives meaningful representation to the thousands of people who will be affected by the district. Resident input is mediated and muted at least three different ways by the provision as written.

State of Louisiana, Jacobs Engineering tried to evade programmatic agreement, avoid public input on Charity Hospital adaptive reuse

On October 18, 2010, the State of Louisiana, using Jacobs Engineering as a facilitator, held a public meeting at City Hall regarding the adaptive reuse of Charity Hospital.  Numerous people and parties attended, and emotions ran high against the state's failure to retrofit Charity - or even discuss that option.  The facilitator was visibly shaken by the raucous experience.

Recently, several consulting parties have learned that they were not given actual notice of two public meetings held on March 16 and March 30 regarding the adaptive reuse of Charity Hospital.  Not a single member of the public attended either meeting - and, indeed, it's unclear whether the third meeting was only held because notice wasn't actual run in a timely fashion in the paper...or because not a single person attended the second meeting.  The BioDistrict and LSU had people on hand, but they apparently were not considered public attendees by the organizers, which is strange.  

Talking to several consulting parties, it seems nobody was even emailed by the state or Jacobs regarding these meetings.  The state did tuck at least one notice in the back sections of the Times-Picayune, however.  Here's the only one I can find.

This was very clearly an attempt to evade giving consulting parties and the public notice of the public meetings.  The state will argue that the fine print newspaper notices were sufficient to meet its obligations of notice, and that it has now fulfilled its public meetings requirements.  And perhaps that would or would not fly in a court of law.

But it's downright shady.  It's shady as all hell.  Mr. Bilyeu with Jacobs Engineering definitely has the emails of the consulting parties that are to be provided with notice per a September 2010 mass email he sent out regarding an adaptive reuse workshop (not a public meeting).  From my experience in several Section 106 processes, the federal agency or responsible entity typically emails the consulting parties regarding meetings.  Consulting parties have indicated that they have either a position or an interest that goes even beyond that of the public more generally when it comes to  participating in the process.

Keep in mind, too, that these March public meetings are coming AFTER a January Jacobs-headed meeting to issue an RFP for Charity - a meeting that consulting parties were not told about.

Here's the requirement in the Programmatic Agreement that governs the Charity adaptive reuse process:

FP&C will endeavor to promote adaptive reuse for those nine
historically significant buildings that neither it nor other state
agencies use. During this process, FP&C will give notice to the
SHPO and to those groups and individuals who participated in this
Section 106 process as Consulting Parties. Additionally, public
meetings and/or forums will be held at no less than 2 points in the
process of evaluating the reuse or transfer of these properties from
State control, to solicit input and comments from the interested
parties.

My overarching question: what are they so afraid of...?  Public meetings or forums on adaptive reuse don't even involve binding input.  To diverge from past notice practices to avoid attendance and to have zero attendance subsequently result shows an intentional desire by Facilities Planning and Control to keep the public from having a say as mandated in the programmatic agreement.

Now that the BioDistrict has been shopping around its own proposals for reuse of the building, it's all starting to make a bit more sense.  Mr. Jim McNamara, head of the BioDistrict, was at both March meetings.