Thursday, February 6, 2014

Reprint Paradise Lost? Part Eight: More Gold and a Few Notable Failures

More Gold and a Few Notable Failures
                                            
Not every Transcam and Landscam bill put forward by the San Francisco cabal proved successful. In March of 1999, Senator Dianne Feinstein’s call for a Mid-Bay Crossing Bridge didn’t get far before it was killed. This bridge would have provided an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay from Alameda to the Mission Bay or Hunter’s Point landfalls in San Francisco. The MTC agreed to study the proposal, but then it died.
                                                
Another failure was the proposal to redevelop Treasure Island, partly as the site for an Indian gaming casino. Then-Mayor Willie brown floated the idea for an Indian gaming casino at Treasure Island in 1996, then backed away from it when his choice for developer, Li Ka Shing, didn’t get a favorable response. This proposal withered on the vine in 2000, but was later revived.

Of all the legislative prestidigitation proposed during the height of the Transcam and Landscam bonanza, perhaps none was more blatant than the attempt in the 2000 legislative session to win the trifecta: an interlinked series of bills that would have benefited, among others, Richard C. Blum, who had holdings in two key companies: URS Greiner and Catellus Development.

In 1997-98 Quentin Kopp’s Bay Bridge bill, SB 60, had been the vehicle for a few sharp investors at URS Greiner to make serious profits. Though the bridge design competition was officially still undecided, an amendment to SB 60 essentially narrowed the field to two choices: the T. Y. Lin cable-stayed bridge and Donald MacDonald’s self-anchored suspension bridge. As the bill itself states, “$80 million will be provided for a cable suspension design [Emphasis added].”

If the bridge was contracted out to private companies, URS Greiner was first in line to board the gravy train, holding a ticket for no-bid contract # 59N770.

URS stock shot from 10 to 18 1/2 after the amendments were added to SB 60 in the late spring of 1997, and proceeded to perform according to the current legal status of “contracting out.” In the beginning, URS stock rose. Then Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Ford prohibited the practice in August 1998, and URS fell. When Judge Ford exempted the Bay Bridge from his ruling, URS rose again. Obviously, insiders knew URS was the only real player in the Bay Bridge contract game.

During the Bay Bridge selection process, board members of URS Greiner issued themselves almost 5 million shares of stock, in the form of 10K stock options issued first in March of 1997, then again in March of 1998. U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s husband, Richard C. Blum was then the primary shareholder in URS.

The Selling Shareholders Amendments filed with the SEC regarding the first  issuance of URS stock were for 2,933,748 shares of penny stock issued to BK Capital Partners I, II, III and IV, all companies owned by Richard C. Blum and the Bass Brothers of Fort Worth.

The URS stocks were issued March 25, 1997, three days before Joseph Nicoletti of URS was named chairman of The Bay Bridge EDAP committee. The Selling Shareholders Amendments filed with the SEC stipulated that the shares could be sold at market rate, and that those who issued themselves the shares were acting as their own underwriters, entitling them to all profits derived from stock sales.

As the document states under the section titled “Risk Factors” in the subtitled section “Dependence upon Government Contracts”: “The Company derives a substantial portion of its revenues from local, state and Federal government agencies. The demand for the Company’s services is directly related to the level of funding of government programs that are created in response to public concern with rebuilding and expanding the nation’s infrastructure and addressing various environmental concerns. The Company believes that the success and further development of its business is dependent, in significant part, upon the continued existence and funding of such programs and the Company’s ability to participate in such programs… A substantial portion of the Company’s current and anticipated work is related to government contracts.”

The amendment also stated that the four BK Capital companies intended to  sell all the shares they had, indeed, issued themselves.

The insiders made a profit of close to $74 million during the Bay Bridge process. Some of Blum’s fellow URS board members exercised similar SSA’s filed with the SEC in the spring of 1998 during the final days of the Bay Bridge selection process. Their profit taking ranged from URS CEO Martin Koffel’s $10 million, to Treasurer Kent Ainsworth’s $3.36 million, down to URS board member Joseph Masters’ $547,000. The 1.1 million shares of URS stock issued to eight URS board members had a value of $25 million in less than six months.

The BK Capital Partners’ $74 million profit and the $390 million increase in outstanding revenues of URS Greiner during 1998-99, demonstrate how a transportation infrastructure process can produce fantastic profits.

Although Willie Brown only lurked around the periphery of issues like the Bay Bridge and the Desert Wildlands, his connection to both bullet trains is firmly established. Willie Brown bought Irvine Sensors stock in October, 1982 when it was trading at $3 a share, and sold it in December, 1982 when it hit $7, nicely doubling his money and then some.

The trifecta legislative package of 2000 finally brought all the principals into the open. The first bill was John Burton’s Catellus-backed SB 1215, from the 1997 session. During the process of SB 1215, Catellus stock went from below $10 a share to $18 a share. On November 26 and 28, 1997, right after SB 1215 became law, almost 4.25 million shares of Catellus stock were traded at over $18 a share, with heavy insider activity on both days.

Burton’s additional bill in 2000, SB 1562, called for development of a new rail link between San Francisco Airport and another airport located in another county. There is only one place this can be: the former Fisk Naval Air Center in Alameda. By some strange quirk, part of this airbase is within the city and county limits of San Francisco. The Fisk Center is presently being developed as a mixed-use commercial office and retail facility, with 350 dwelling units. The developer is Catellus.

Directly after Burton’s SB 1215, was passed in the 1997 session, his campaign received three contributions totaling $155,000 from the Southern California District Council of Carpenter’s Political Action Fund. Richard C. Blum was the union’s pension fund manager at the time.

On the day his second bill, SB 1562, was introduced in the 2000 session, Burton’s campaign received a $4,000 contribution from Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott, the lobbyist group headed by John Foran, who has been active on every speculation-driven transportation process from the bullet train in 1982 up to the present.

The third bill was sponsored by Assemblywoman Carole Migden, and called for an expansion of the San Francisco Airport. The notice that there was going to be a “competition” for the expansion was posted the same day the competition closed. Like the Bay Bridge circus act, it was an insider’s game, a stacked deck involving “all the usual suspects,” as one of my sources described it.

Migden’s AB 398 was a “juice” bill, and the juice that this bill exuded was the opportunity for the powerful band of San Francisco political insiders to make huge profits. Lo and behold, the company with the contract was, again, URS Greiner. During the timeframe of the Airport bill process and its subsequent passage, from summer 2000 to the end of that year, URS jumped from $12 to $19 a share.

An opportunity for speculators was the possibility of a Mid-Bay Crossing Bridge. If the bridge included a landfall at either of two Catellus properties—Mission Bay or the Fisk Naval Air Center in Alameda—it would surely have a beneficial effect on Catellus stock prices.

In the weeks leading up to the Burton-Migden-Feinstein legislative package  in 2000, the savvy investors were furiously buying up shares. Blum was purchasing URS stock in 100,000 share lots; it had fallen from 28 to 12 during Willie Brown and Dianne Feinstein’s efforts to kill the the MTC’s chosen Bay Bridge design. When they failed, URS turned around and began rising again, from $12 to $20 a share in six months.

Imagine the effect on Catellus stock if the Mid-Bay Crossing Bridge had run  from one of their properties to a landfall on another. The previous study done for the MTC by Korve Engineering in May 1991 alluded to that possibility in Alternative #6. As a matter of fact, the late T.Y. Lin already had a design for just such a bridge. When Mayor Willie Brown was trying to kill the Bay Bridge selection in 1998, he hired Korve Engineering to help, paying them $10,000 for a study of the bridge in November of 1998. He then dusted off his lobbying shoes.

On August 22, 2000, a hearing was scheduled for 1:30 in one of the old restored hearing rooms in the east wing of the State Capitol building in Sacramento. Although the scheduled hearing was supposed to be about “wetlands reclamation,” the real action was the proposed expansion of the San Francisco Airport.

It was the last day of the legislative session, and the Senate Resources subcommittee was hearing a bill sponsored by Democratic Assemblywoman (now Senator) Carole Migden of San Francisco. The bill would provide $150 million in state funds to acquire the Cargill Salt Flats adjacent to the San Francisco International Airport. The acquisition and preservation of the salt flats was tied to a $3 billion expansion plan for SFO. Six months before, a design competition had been held for the two new airport runways in the SFO expansion project, and five engineering-and-design firms were chosen as finalists.

Representatives of a number of environmental groups— most notably the National Audubon Society and the Sierra Club—were present in the hearing room to give their qualified support of the bill, providing the salt flats were preserved.

Also present during the hearing chaired by then-Senator Tom Hayden was Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, (D) San Francisco, pushing SB 1215 from the 1997 session and SB 1562, which was introduced and passed in the 2000 session.
The first was the land swap bill between the State of California and the City of San Francisco involving Mission Bay. The second was for a high-speed transportation link from San Francisco International airport to another airport across the bay. The hulking and mustachioed Senate President John Burton circling nervously around the room, awaiting the outcome.

Seated in the audience were a number of other players with a direct interest in AB 398. Tina Thomas, the environmental attorney who helped author the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 1974, was there to give testimony on behalf of the bill.  Once an environmental stalwart, she now tends to work on behalf of big-time developers, in whose interests she tosses an occasional bone to groups like the Audubon Society (represented that day by lobbyist John McCaull), and the Sierra Club (Warren Alford attending).

Two other lobbyists were also present. At the end of one row sat Jo-Linda Thompson, with Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott. Seated alongside her was the Nossaman group’s main man, John Foran, former Senator from San Francisco.

But the real star of the show hadn’t appeared yet. He was late, as usual, en route from San Francisco. “Does anyone know when His Eminence is due?” inquired Hayden from the dais. “Well, when he gets here then we’ll hear the Willie Brown bill,” said Hayden, ignoring Carol Migden’s sponsorship, and referring to the true guiding hand in the matter.

It was 2:33 P.M. when His Eminence finally showed. Willie entered the committee room to speak on behalf of AB 398, and the airport expansion.

He was, as usual, impeccably dressed, in a green suit, an electric-blue monogrammed shirt with contrasting white collar, and blindingly shiny black oxfords. It was Brown’s first appearance on behalf of a bill since he’d stepped down after a record fifteen years as Assembly Speaker.

“The expansion of the airport is the lifeblood of the city,” Willie said in opening his testimony. “Another twenty-six gates are being added, and this is a golden opportunity. The Cargill Salt Flats represent a once in a lifetime opportunity to acquire these wetlands and help keep SFO healthy. The money that we need from the state will be matched by federal dollars, and Senator Feinstein is pushing ahead in the Senate with a bill that will provide the additional $150 million. Senator Feinstein managed to get a placeholder bill [a spot bill, author’s note] in the Congress and Governor Davis has also signed on with this project.”

After Brown’s presentation, Assemblywoman Migden echoed the same general tone; Feinstein’ spot bill was holding a place for the expected federal approval of funds for the SFO expansion. “Senator Feinstein is moving on this and she’s lobbying to acquire the whole 19,000 acres of the Cargill Salt Flats for $150 million. My interest is in helping the state acquire the lands for the airport expansion,” said Migden.

The San Francisco Chronicle smelled a rat in the wetlands preservation deal. In a column published on June 2, 2000, Matier & Ross reported: “…It’s not just the $250 million or more that may be needed to convert the murky Cargill Inc. pools into a wildlife paradise. There’s also the possibility that closing the deal will have to be sort of a “wink-wink” arrangement to go ahead with San Francisco International’s controversial plans for building a pair of runways in the bay.”

Later in the Column, Matier and Ross reported: “Sen. Dianne Feinstein (who  helped craft the bill) says it’s not linked… But Assemblywoman Carole Migden, who actually carried the bill signed by Governor Gray Davis, says as far as she’s concerned, the two projects absolutely are linked. “It’s a trade-off… Anyone who is straight will tell you the pond restoration and runways are linked.”


Through all these processes the real winners have been the same: Corporate insiders and their political partners in plunder.

No comments:

Post a Comment