Friday, August 14, 2015

Beggs & Lane Was For It Before They Were Against It...Studer Lease Analysis

Sometimes you need to look a little deeper at an issue to see the whole picture.

Such is the case with the Studer CMPA lease that caused the Studers to end negotiations with the dynamic duo (Mayor Hayward and Council President Andy Terhaar).

If you look at the 24 issues presented to Council by BEGGS & LANE, the law firm keeps making suggestions to stiffen the lease approved by the CMPA.  These new measures were sent to Council to show them the areas where the City and Studer needed additional negotiation (read PRESSURE ON QUINT TO SIGN).


Simple enough right?

So here's the rub.  Beggs & Lane in 2013 while representing the City in a variety of matters was the attorney's for Beck Properties when they negotiated their lease for Maritime One with the City and CMPA.

See-Page-29-of-Beck-Lease-for Beggs & Lane

MANY OF THE ITEMS BEGGS & LANE objected to in the Studer lease, THEY WERE FOR when they included them in the lease for their client, Beck against the City and CMPA.

So why the change?  Well Quint is a wealthy, transplant who is generous and wants to move Pensacola forward.  Beck is a GOB and everyone knows GOBS get better deals with Hayward. (Ask Pate)

So Beggs & Lane was for the lease terms before they were against the lease terms.

Can anyone at City Hall find the conflict waiver letter the City signed to allow Beggs & Lane to represent Beck against the City?

The Florida Bar on Informed Consent

Bueller? Bueller?


Anonymous said...

They may have actually requested some of these things from the CMPA/City during their negotiations on behalf of Beck. The various drafts showing changes made and by whom have got to be public records available upon request.

CJ Lewis said...

I have a copy of John Daniel's legal memorandum dated August 5. It is "signed" and the copy given to the Council. Until today, I assumed that was "the" document. However, on the Studer's website, Shannon Nickinson has posted an unsigned copy dated August 6. You have now posted an unsigned version dated August 13. The document is posted with a name - "City Studer JPD Council Letter REV JPD 08.01.15" that suggests a prior version exists - prior to "08.01.15" - with that date (a Saturday) perhaps reflecting the date Daniel created the final version that now exists in multiple forms with multiple dates. I have not read each version side-by-side to see if there are any differences. However, the formatting is slightly different. The August 5 signed version begins pages 2-10 in the upper-left corner with the information: City of Pensacola; August 5, 2015; and Page X, each on a different line. The August 6 version includes no such formatting information. The August 13 version posted here is formatted like the August 5 version except it substitutes the date "August 4, 2015." Even if all of the text in each is exactly the same, the only difference the formatting and dates, which is the copy the City Clerk will put in the official archives of the City to be referenced in the future? This may be "no big deal" but the fact that there are "at least" three versions of Daniel's legal memorandum floating around makes you wonder how many more exist. In any bureaucracy, to include local government, "version control" of key documents is always a prime directive. It does make you wonder, if the City of Pensacola cannot handle something as simple as ensuring that there is just one authoritative version of such a key document, how they function at all.

Anonymous said...

What's the big surprise? In one case Beggs and Lane was representing a tenant. In the other case, they were representing the landlord. In each case they were looking out for the best interests of their client. You would do the same thing, especially since the lease with Beck was heavily criticized as being favorable to the tenant. The newly departed COO even stated that the landlord (city) was trying to tighten up the lease format.

Thank you for printing the 24 items for discussion. The Studer controlled News Journal had a hissy fit over the fact that the city would DARE object to a lease that came from Studer's lawyer, but never once printed the 24 objectionable items. Having read the items, and as I am one of the landlords, I see nothing unreasonable with the letter from Beggs and Lane.

The fact of the matter is that Studer really doesn't have a use for the property except to control the land surrounding "his" stadium. It has taken nine months for this to come to a head simply because Studer has been stumbling around looking for a make-believe project. A day care center? A sports museum? Really? Is this why the city spent $120 million?