Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Even the Wall Street Journal is uncovering all sorts of facts about Palin's time as mayor that were obviously missed during that thorough vetting process. Turns out the central project she worked on as mayor was a major boondoggle:
The biggest project that Sarah Palin undertook as mayor of this small town was an indoor sports complex, where locals played hockey, soccer, and basketball, especially during the long, dark Alaskan winters.The only catch was that the city began building roads and installing utilities for the project before it had unchallenged title to the land. The misstep led to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs for a small municipality with a small budget. What was to be Ms. Palin's legacy has turned into a financial mess that continues to plague Wasilla.
Here are some details:
Litigation resulting from the dispute over Ms. Palin's sports-complex project is still in the courts, with the land's former owner seeking hundreds of thousands of additional dollars from the city.Hockey is much loved in Wasilla, and Ms. Palin, whose son was a star player, wanted to build an indoor rink, with a track, basketball courts and soccer field. In the late 1990s, the city sought a 145-acre parcel owned by the Nature Conservancy, which wanted to sell the land to buy more environmentally sensitive property elsewhere. City officials negotiated a price of $126,000. Months passed without the city's securing a signed purchase agreement, according to the city's attorney, Tom Klinkner of Birch, Horton, Bittner & Cherot.
At the same time, Gary Lundgren, a Fairbanks real-estate investor, was in talks with the Nature Conservancy to buy a larger adjacent property. As discussions between the environmental group and the city dragged on, Mr. Lundgren said, he purchased the entire site for about $1 million.
The city sued Mr. Lundgren and the Nature Conservancy, arguing that Wasilla had had a deal. In 2001, a federal district court judge ruled in Wasilla's favor. Mr. Lundgren appealed, but the city believed it would prevail, according to Mr. Klinkner.
Ms. Palin marched ahead, making the public case for a sales-tax increase and $14.7 million bond issue to pay for the sports center, which was to feature a running track, basketball courts and a hockey rink. At the time, the city's annual budget was about $20 million. In a March 2002 referendum, residents approved the mayor's plan by a 20-vote margin, 306 to 286. The city cleared roads, installed utilities and made preparations to build.
Later that year, Ms. Palin's final one as mayor, the federal judge reversed his own decision and ruled that the property rightfully belonged to Mr. Lundgren. Wasilla had never signed the proper papers, the court ruled.
To make things even worse, when the city couldn't win in court they just seized the property:
After Ms. Palin left office, the city decided to take 80 acres of Mr. Lundgren's property through eminent domain. An Alaska court confirmed the city's right to do so and ordered that an arbitrator determine the appropriate price.
Sounds like that community could have used a good organizer.
Politics
Comments
Still think Republicans support property rights and oppose misuse of eminent domain?
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 10, 2008 9:43 AM
In all fairness, a sports complex is far more necesary in a place like Alaska, with its long, cold, dark winters, than it is in more moderate climes like, say, Northern Virginia. Such a place is vital both for individual health and as a center for community activities. So once again, you have a Republican taking on an important task, and FUCKING IT UP out of sheer incompetence, spite, and flat-out disregard for law and decency.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 10, 2008 9:50 AM
How much of did this sports complex contribute to the $19 million in long term debt left behind by Ms. Palin?
Posted by: Genuinely Doug | September 10, 2008 10:17 AM
Yeah, but just think about the great "administrative" experience she gained by working the issue.
Posted by: Ahcuah | September 10, 2008 10:23 AM
Raging Bee wrote:
First of all, we have no idea whether it was Republicans or Democrats who invoked eminent domain here; the article only says it was done after Palin left office. Perhaps she was replaced by a Democrat, I have no idea. Second, I never said that all Republicans are opposed to eminent domain. Republicans in local office tend to be for it out of political expediency. But when it comes to the legal question of eminent domain and the takings clause, there is no doubt that opposition to a broad reading of the power to seize property under eminent domain comes almost exclusively from conservatives and support almost exclusively from liberals. It is not by accident that the Kelo case had the conservative justices in dissent and the liberal justices in the majority. And on that issue I agree with them (though obviously on little else).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 10, 2008 10:27 AM
Palin was succeeded by another Republican. That Republican got entangled in threatening to use emininent domain to push frotage roads through for some shopping centers. She made some pretty nasty comments to one of the business owners there.
http://www.adn.com/matsu/story/452991.html
So the last 2 Republican mayors of Wasilla have been all about seizing property. The most recent for private enterprise expansion, as allowed for (wrongfully, I believe) under Kelo v New London.
Posted by: JohnA | September 10, 2008 10:57 AM
In case anyone missed it, Palin was involved in a huge scandal involving an Alaskan creamery:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/31/133347/773/467/581251
Posted by: Gingerbaker | September 10, 2008 11:29 AM
Ed:
Say that again, please, only more slowly. Liberals are FOR increasing the concept of eminent domain takings? I don't know squat about it, but the last couple of big cases I heard about (one in CT, the other I can't recall) were being pushed by a gaggle of developers IIRC.
Posted by: democommie | September 10, 2008 11:40 AM
Palin endorsed the current mayor, Dianne Keller, in the 2002 election, so she has to share some of the responsibility for Keller's actions.
Posted by: Alan B. | September 10, 2008 11:45 AM
democommie:
Here in upstate NY that's pretty much how it's been working too. It's been mostly giant corporations like Wal-Mart trying to force out smaller retailers through the "boom" they will bring to our local economy. Of course because upstate is a conservative/Republican stronghold, they usually have no problem invoking eminent domain for such cases. Wrongly or not, it is NOT the few liberals around here that have been pushing for eminent domain. At least in my experience.
Posted by: Robert W. | September 10, 2008 11:48 AM
democommie wrote:
Let me be a bit more specific. The issue is whether government must use eminent domain to seize property for direct public use (to build a road or a canal, for example) or whether they can also use eminent domain to seize property from one private owner and give it to another private owner who will do something that the government thinks is more beneficial with it (like putting up a business that will pay more taxes than the homes that were seized and provide jobs). On the local level, politicians of both parties tend to want broad eminent domain powers, for obvious reasons.
But when it comes to the legal argument over whether the takings clause requires a direct public use or merely an indirect public benefit - over a broad or narrow reading of the takings clause - it is almost universally true that conservatives favor the narrow reading and liberals favor the broad reading. The Connecticut case you mentioned was the Kelo case that went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the broad reading. In that case, all of the dissenters were from the conservative side of the court and all of the liberals were in the majority (with Kennedy, as usual, in the middle).
As a political question, there are lots of liberals who are opposed to the broad reading of the takings clause on the grounds that such takings almost always tend to affect the poor and minorities primarily. And I agree with them AND with the conservatives who argue that taking private property from one owner and giving it to another because he promises to pay more in taxes on it is a violation of property rights.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 10, 2008 11:57 AM
I've seen a lot of these stories break days or even weeks earlier on blogs with much of the same information and sources as provided by the professional media. I suppose my question is, do you think the professional media is even really doing their job anymore, or are they just relying on bloggers to do the legwork so they can take the credit?
Posted by: Matt | September 10, 2008 11:59 AM
Matt, the bloggers do the legwork so that the media can properly assess which stories have the least substance. The media then takes those stories and shrieks about them for hours, even days at a time. When their throats get soar, they occasionally let one of the other stories through, you know a quick summary of facts on something that matters before getting back to another six hours of lipstick and pigs.
Posted by: random guy | September 10, 2008 12:50 PM
Ed:
Thanks. I don't know anyone in my circle of liberal/progressive/socialist/communist friends who advocate for eminent domain, except for the narrow way you talked about. The day a developer ACTUALLY pays more taxes will be the day that Sarah Palin stops speaking in tongues.
Posted by: democommie | September 10, 2008 1:05 PM
...it is almost universally true that conservatives favor the narrow reading and liberals favor the broad reading.
If it's "almost universally true," then why do you always cite just ONE CASE to back you up on this? Generalizing from one case across a whole country doesn't make a lot of sense.
Besides, the behavior of judges does not always reflect the priorities of the party from which they came. Does Judge Jones' ruling mean Republicans oppose creationism?
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 10, 2008 1:28 PM
Ed
"..all sorts of facts...that were obviously missed during that thorough vetting process..."
You imply that the McCain campaign was actually looking for such issues, or would have cared if it had. More likely, Palin's impulsive nature and totalitarian leanings are features of her candidacy, not bugs.
Everyone still gives McCain credit based on his false reputation as a straight-shootingy, mavericky reformer. Have you considered that maybe THIS is the real McCain? And he picked Palin because, as he has stated repeatedly, that she is his "soulmate"...and reflects values he holds himself?
Posted by: jackdan | September 10, 2008 1:49 PM
You are a tad snarky over the WSJ on this story...misplaced. Though the WSJ's op/ed page is an execrable slime-pit of fact-free bias and the unapologetic sounding board for neocon blather, the newsroom is one of the best there is, and they manage considerable autonomy...I'd call them very honest and only a tad right-leaning, quite trustworthy, very professional.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | September 10, 2008 3:52 PM
As a Real Estate Developer, I have three observations:
1) If I was forced to guess who would state this on Ed's blog, that's easy, and he did.
2) Comments like the above shows strong evidence that democommie earns his name.
3) Property taxes is my biggest carrying cost when I decide to purchase a property and develop it into something the public requires with the exception of financing costs. Developers do not get homestead deduction rates on their taxes, so they actually pay way more than a typical homeowner for a given piece of property, to me that equates to an extra $900 for every increment of $100,000 of property (I pay what they pay plus an extra $900 for every increment). Also since developers try and move property as fast as they can, they do not benefit from inflation index caps, they are almost always paying what the actual assessed value is, not the capped index. The only advantage I have is that I've learned how to challenge the Tax Assessor & Board when it comes to insuring they properly value my property, an approach any property owner can do themselves. At least in my state, Michigan, Tax Assessors I have worked with have all been extremely professional and incorruptible, not that I would try.
democommie - I always enjoy reading your posts, even this one.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 10, 2008 4:56 PM
Michael Heath:
I don't know where you're doing your development but I'm sure the rules differ depending on location.
What I think you're saying is that you're paying taxes based on 100% of evaluation for any property that you're developing. But are you also saying that you're not passing that tax payment along to your customer when you sell him the property? Would that not be fisacally irresponsible? I know at least a dozen developers and not one of them would think that paying taxes and other fees on developed properties and not recouping them when selling or leasing the property was a loss. If you're holding the property after development than aren't all taxes and fees are part of the basis for figuring lease rates.
I know that several of the developers I've known over the years will carp about the taxes but not worry too much about the town having to put in new lift stations for sewerage, build new schools or accept roads in a development. Impact fees are charged in some, not all communities, but they are often a tiny fraction of the town's outlay for the infrastructure costs associated with such development.
Often municipalities give breaks for five or ten years on taxes to sweeten the deal so that developers will come in and do their magic. I'm not sure if I agree with that idea or not, but I know the developers like it.
I'm not looking to pick a fight, really. I don't always enjoy your posts, but I almost always enjoy your candiness and intellectual honesty. I just know that for every honest developer there is one, or more, who's out to make the quick score and move along.
Posted by: democommie | September 10, 2008 11:00 PM
Northern Michigan.
The market dictates pricing. Developers in this market are fortunate to cover both installation costs and carrying costs.
I do residential site condominiums, not subdivisions, so I'm responsible for all installation costs, including roads, water systems, utilities, and even improvements to current roads to access them. Generous profits are available based on the absorption rate and performance that beats that rate (trade secret); in this housing market not getting stuck with a lot of inventory is a good thing - so lying low and hanging out in Ed's blog is smarter than building speculation inventory on lots.
I added a URL to my post name for one of my developments. The navigation tips lower in the linked webpage kind of gives away my targeted demographic for this particular development, which is retirees who are newbies to the Internet.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 10, 2008 11:53 PM
Michael Heath:
Now I see your problem. You're building them in Michigan AND selling them there. You need to build them in Michigan and sell them in coastal New England!
Well, I'm not sure how things work from one state to the next and I do recognize that all real estate, to paraphrase Tip O'Neill, is local. Sounds like you're one of the good guys.
Man, those are some cheap houses. I live in a place that's almost completely gutted and when it's finished I'll have about $50-60K in it (just construction materials) not counting labor. If I was interested in selling I might be able to recoup my out of pocket--the housing market here is very overstocked at the moment.
Posted by: democommie | September 11, 2008 6:18 AM