Questions for the Press about a Proposal with Green Energy Holdings

This week, I’ve posted a series of general questions about a proposed deal with Green Energy Holdings for a waste digester. See, Preliminary & General Questions about a Proposal with Green Energy Holdings and Questions for the CDA about a Proposal with Green Energy Holdings. (For a comprehensive list of all posts about this proposal, FREE WHITEWATER now has a designated category.)

In the Whitewater area, to my knowledge, there’s been one story, in the nearby Daily Union, published about the proposal.

In addition to the thirty questions I’ve published about the deal (nineteen general and eleven about the Community Development Authority’s role), here are several more specific to that newspaper story.

1. Why does the story’s lede erroneously say that the “Whitewater Common Council has finalized a preliminary development agreement” when that’s not true?

The agreement went to the Community Development Authority. There was nothing yet ‘finalized.’ Is saying that a preliminary development agreement has been finalized simply a transparent effort to make this proposal seem an accomplished fact?

2. Why does the story say that the agreement had to go to the Planning Commission, but omit the next step before the Community Development Authority? Did the reporter know the correct procedural sequence? If not, why didn’t he check?

3. If the story says that the proposal has to go the Planning Commission for review — even if that wasn’t the accurate sequence — then why bother with calling anything ‘finalized?’ (Perhaps my follow-up question under No. 1 provides an answer.)

4. Why does the story’s slug say that the plant will create a specified number of jobs, when in Paragraph 1 it’s merely “expected” to bring that number of jobs, and in Paragraph 25 it’s what they are “projecting” and “a projected number” from Green Energy Holdings?

Did the reporter ask how likely GEH thought its projection was? Did the reporter ask on what basis GEH was making its projection?

It’s clear in Paragraph 25 that then-city manager Brunner relies on what “[t]hey [GEH] are projecting.” Did the reporter ask if the city had made its own, independent assessment? (After all, in his Weekly Report of 6.22.12, the city manager said he worked on this for nine months.)

Did the reporter ask what the city manager did to assess this project independently during that time?

If he did, why is there no published statement about those supposed municipal efforts? If the reporter didn’t ask, why didn’t he ask?

5. The story describes a supposedly ‘monumental’ deal first announced to the community in June, yet set to begin construction quickly in August. Doesn’t that seem odd to the reporter?

So little information and so many grand claims. Why so few newspaper questions? In fact, why basically no true questions at all?

6. Brunner is quoted as saying that if the deal doesn’t reach a specified level of investment as incremental property value, then GEH will make a payment in lieu of taxes.

Lots of unasked (at least, unpublished) newspaper questions:

a. Why doesn’t the reporter ask about the difference between a possible increase in value and the much smaller payment in lieu thereof that would be only a taxable amount on the unrealized value?

b. Did the reporter ask how Brunner independently assessed the proposed dollar figures for increases in value?

c. Did the reporter ask how GEH established its projection for value?

d. The estimated total value is three times the supposed guarantee (that’s not really a guarantee of value anyway). Why didn’t the reporter ask about the vast range?

7. There’s mention about worm farming as a 22-billion-dollar-a year industry. Did the reporter ask what fraction of that value might accrue to Whitewater?

If he did ask, why wasn’t that figure reported? What would be the basis of any estimate, assuming there is one? Who made that estimate?

If these questions weren’t even asked, or if they don’t have answers, isn’t the grand national figure published in the story just fool’s gold?

8. Brunner is quoted as saying that “[t]his is exactly why we created the Innovation Center…” Why doesn’t the reporter ask about the actual, lawful federal basis for the taxpayer money used for the Innovation Center?

One can read about that basis online, to “…create jobs to replace those lost in the floods of 2008 and those lost from recent automotive plant closures.”

Is that what this proposal does?

9. Why so little information about how many plants GEH now has: locations, how long in business, number of workers at each, types of digesters, community reception, etc.?

It’s claimed as a big deal – why no company history, portfolio, prospectus for the public? Did the reporter even ask? If he did, what was the answer?

10. In an economy beset this last decade by financial scandals, dodgy accounting, and hollow claims about all sorts of projects, why wouldn’t the reporter ask about independent accounting assessments, offered from the developer and by the city?

Doesn’t every American city deserve open, up-front, information about the use of its resources?

Why would a real and legitimate newspaper accept unverified assertions of authority from politicians and business people? “Because I said so,” “trust me,” “I know what I’m doing,” and “in my years of municipal experience” aren’t a substitute for independent accounting and responsible, professional, open government.

11. The McClatchy newspapers have a motto, “Truth to Power®.” It’s inspiring. Isn’t that how a newspaper should approach government, on behalf of the public?

What’s your motto?

Shouldn’t it be something more than “All the News That’s Fit to Bolster and Re-Elect?”