Was the “Tilghman Times” Complicit, or Simply Lied To?

Yesterday we ran a post describing the full extent of the subsidy being received by Salisbury Mall Associates (SMA), developers of the old mall project. Forget for a moment that this group has yet to fulfill a single major commitment on time. Forget for a moment that we have now learned that SMA will be collecting the lion’s share of the city property tax revenue from this project to pay off the TIF (tax increment financing) bond that was issued by the Barrie Tilghman administration.

Today, Delmarva Dealings ran a post from its too infrequent contributor Amicus reminding us of the role played in this fiasco by the house organ of the Tilghman administration, the Daily Times. Was the Tilghman Times duped, or were they complicit in the deliberate spread of misinformation by the Tilghman administration and her minions then serving on the Salisbury City Council - Mike Dunn, Gary Comegys, Lynn Cathcart and Shanie Shields?

As Amicus has ferreted out for us, the Tilghman Times both reported as news, and printed as op-ed, that institutional investors such as banks, insurance companies or money managers would be investing in these bonds and therefore they would be deciding on the financial viability of the project (through their decision to purchase, or not purchase, the TIF bonds). We now know that the city and developer never intended to market these bonds.

This (yet again) disgraceful episode in Salisbury history keeps bringing up questions. Since the city and developer never intended on marketing this bond to outside investors, why did the firm of Stone & Youngberg receive a hefty fee? And you may want to know who paid their fee? It is my understanding that the fee was built in to the issue, so this is an additional subsidy being paid (albeit indirectly) by the Salisbury taxpayer.

The coming days will tell us whether or not the Tilghman Times was complicit in this fiasco or not. Will they begin to ask real questions and demand truthful answers (a first), or will they respond by doing nothing? Another likely response is claim that this is “Much Ado About Nothing”. After all, the old mall project is moving forward (or is it?). They may also choose to take the Clintonesque approach and fall on their use of the word “usually” in their reporting of the matter.

I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that this will somehow be blamed on Councilwomen Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen, along with the usual suspects like Linda Kent.

Technorati Tags: Maryland, Salisbury, politics, Salisbury politics, Barrie Tilghman, Mike Dunn, Gary Comegys, Lynn Cathcart, Shanie Shields, Debbie Campbell, Terry Cohen, Linda Kent, subsidy

Powered by ScribeFire.