Another Rubberstamped Yes Vote Puts Westfield in Jeopardy

Last night's (11/13/24) Town Council meeting went on until almost midnight and unfortunately, the new Amendment proposed by Hudson Bay for the One Westfield Place project was approved 5-4. The votes were split down party lines, with all of the Democrats unanimously voting for it. Please see my comments on the meeting as to why I voted against this from 2:18:10 to 2:20:00.

This was an extremely disappointing result on multiple fronts. I've been vocal about the lack of due diligence our Town did before agreeing to this deal. We sold our most valuable assets (our parking lots) to a developer in a no-bid RFP process for ~$11M. But after last night's Town Council meeting, I now believe I underestimated the extent of how little diligence the Town did. 

When Hudson Bay came back to renegotiate the plan, an alarm bell should've gone off in our heads. Why would a developer motivated by revenue and profits, possibly come back to the town and "offer" to change the plan and remove a 100,000 sqft, revenue-generating office building among other concessions? Hudson Bay, along with the members of the Council who voted yes on this amendment, want you to believe that the developers did this out of the goodness of their hearts because they were listening to residents. 

I call BS on this. This is insulting to even insinuate. A simple Google search on commercial real estate would show you that US commercial real estate is headed toward a crisis and that the brutal reality of plunging office values is here. 

But rather than using this opportunity when the developers came back to the table to take a step back, re-evaluate, and renegotiate from the ground up, members of this Council instead decided to play nice with the developers and play along with the narrative that they are "listening" to residents' feedback. By voting yes on the amendment, the Council has now agreed to a bad deal, and then a re-negotiated bad deal. This is like if your neighbor offered you $100k for your house, and then offered you $150k 2 years later because they were "listening" to your feedback, and you took the deal not because of fair market value (you don't know fair market value because you didn't go out for more bids), but because they "listened" and increased their already bad offer by 50%, that's why you accepted it. 

The alarm bells should've been ringing that if the developers are renegotiating the project downwards, they must be in financial trouble or something. The first basic due diligence item I would do is a basic Google search and with no effort you'll find that:

•  Developer revises Saks Fifth Avenue project - They are renegotiating another project in Beverly Hills, word for word sounds like Westfield. 

• Hudson Bay falls behind on payments

• A wave of Hudson Bay temporary store closures hints at signs of stress

• Saks Fifth Avenue (owned by Hudson Bay, the OWP developers) is canceling its famed holiday lights show in a cost-cutting measure. Would they be doing this if they were in good financial standing?

  
  

It's so obvious that they are in financial trouble that even Google AI is calling out Hudson Bay's financial struggles, this is not hard to see. This takes minimal work and care. 

The most basic diligence would tell you that before even renegotiating with the developers, shouldn't we check their updated financials and do some updated reverse due diligence? 

• Are they the same stable company they were when we originally entered this agreement? 

• Is this really who we want to sell our parking lots to in a no-bid RFP process? 

• If we are betting our future on them, shouldn't we know that they are going to financially survive to make it to the future?

  
  

Unfortunately, our Experts plainly admitted that they did not check or ask for updated financials from the HBC developers. Watch here starting at 1:30:15 to 1:35:50.

To make matters worse, rather than answering a basic question if this newly amended project actually increases the massing, scope, and size, of the project, our expert said he could not verify that. How can you not verify that? How can we vote on this if we literally have no idea if this is bigger or smaller!? Watch here starting at 33:10 to 35:17.

Lastly, the Councilmembers who voted yes for this amendment, truly believe that with the town's fiduciary duty in mind, there is no way we could've gotten a better deal from any other developer if we actually did a bid RFP process. Watch here from 2:38:00 to 2:38:30. If this is the case, why do we do RFPs for paving, town snack stand, leaf pickup, and literally every other project across town? Why do people even try to sell their house to multiple buyers, why not just give it to the first one that knocks on the door and consider it the best?

👉 Overall, I am beyond disappointed in the result of the vote and shocked that anyone on the Council was willing to vote yes for this. 

I believe this has the potential to have a catastrophically bad financial impact on our town. At a bare minimum, I have lost all faith that our experts and certain members of the Council are willing to do the basic fiduciary work we are tasked with. 

Simply put, Westfield deserves better. 

I promise to keep fighting for you and to push the entire Council to actually do the work we are tasked with doing. Protecting you, our tax dollars, and the town we all love. ❤️