Downtown garage “is raising questions” (from the Goldwater Institute)

by David Safier

Rhonda Bodfield's heart was not in today's story, Garage's no-bid design policy stirs questions. And no wonder. There's no there there. If a story exists, Bodfield couldn't find it.

Watch how the story unfolds.

Here's the first paragraph:

The city's decision to give a no-bid contract for architectural work on its new parking garage at the mouth of downtown is raising questions about fairness and whether the city got the best price. [Boldface added].

The decision "is raising questions"? From whom?

The answer comes much later in the article. The questions came from "others." But the only "other" mentioned is Byron Schlomach of the Goldwater Institute.

Others aren't so sure that the decision was an appropriate one.

Byron Schlomach, an economist with the Goldwater Institute, said the garage effectively amounts to a subsidy to the developer.

How bad are the possible improprieties mentioned in the story?

There was a no bid contract, but that's not unusual for this kind of project, especially since the chosen designer was already completing another part of the project.

The design costs went up. But the two cost hikes mentioned in the article were both because of "change-orders." Since the article isn't specific, I assume that means the city decided it wanted changes in the design, which meant the architect had to, literally, go back to the drawing board.

Schlomach's complaint doesn't even touch on what actually happened. All he could say was, the arrangements gave the sense there might have been some impropriety.

Schlomach said at a minimum, public entities need an open and competitive bidding process.

"In this particular case, what they did is leave themselves vulnerable to the argument that by not putting it out to a competitive process, this really is a subsidy to the private apartment complex."

Schlomach said governments need to be careful not to violate the gift clause, which prohibits giving away taxpayer money or assets. "It seems like the city of Tucson is skating on thin ice here."

Anyone who has followed G.I. knows, when they have a case, they cite chapter and verse about the problems they've uncovered. Whether they're right is another matter, but they are nothing if not thorough. Here, not so much.

If there was anything more than the faint whiff of a possible taint of unproven impropriety in this situation, Bodfield didn't spell it out in the article. No wonder her heart wasn't in it. The "scandal" is a straw man with no heart.

My conclusion is, either someone at the Star got rolled by G.I. on this one, or the Star's editors figured it was time for a Downtown Scandal of the Week, and this was the best they could come up with.