Soccer Controversy

Friends,

If you have been reading the Indianapolis Business Journal, the Indy Star, or any other local news source in the last month, you’ll know that the Mayor’s Office and the City County Council have had more time taken up by one issue than any other: soccer.

Specifically, the Mayor’s administration has publicly stated that they are no longer pursuing the Professional Sports Development Area and the stadium and development that this would enable on the near southwest side of town, at the former Diamond Chain manufacturing site. This is after many years of work on that site, and only six months after the December meeting when the Council approved that PSDA map.

Many details about this complicated issue came out while I was on vacation, and though I was reading and sending enough SMS messages that it’ll probably cost a fortune from international roaming, and though I kept up on the news, I will admit that I was extremely confused and wanted to take my time to get as many facts and as much information as possible before wading in semi-publicly to you, my constituents.

There’s simply a huge number of factors at play here, and I will certainly not do a perfect job of representing all sides in this issue, but I want to do my best to explain my understanding as of today, and then ask for your feedback on what you think I should do. Note that many of the conversations I’ve had were had in confidence. I feel comfortable sharing this much with you all, in light of the fact that incredible amounts of detail have been published in the IBJ even while I was out of the country. To any of my Council peers reading this: I have revised this several times to ensure I am not revealing Caucus business or private conversations.  I am striving to honor my commitment to my constituents to be transparent in my dealings without causing anyone to fear that I cannot keep confidence about private conversations. I am open to feedback about any specifics that cause any harm to my peers. Such harm is not at all anything I desire here.

The Mayor’s ask: Mayor Hogsett’s administration is asking the Council to vote for a new PSDA map that would allow state taxes in an area of downtown near the Heliport to be captured and used to help spur development of the site, in the hopes of attracting a group of investors who would likely support bringing a Major League Soccer expansion team to Indianapolis. Due to the enabling legislation from the Statehouse expiring on June 30th, 2024, the administration is insisting that this map needs to be approved very quickly so that the Metropolitan Development Commission can approve the confirmed map with time to send it to the Statehouse for final approval.

The Mayor’s rationale: the Mayor’s team is pointing out that the economic boost of a MLS team would be far greater than the boost from the Indy Eleven having their own stadium. Without saying it directly, representatives from MLS and the Mayor’s Office are both implying that the MLS would never accept the Diamond Chain site or the current investor group of that site. The administration also claims that the Keystone Group / Indy Eleven proposal to build at Diamond Chain is impossible without putting taxpayers at risk for financing falling through. Though they admit this is not one of their main reasons, they also point out that the history of the four cemeteries on the site will make it very difficult to develop the site with an appropriate respect for the human remains being uncovered on the site.

The Indy Eleven / Keystone’s ask: Keystone Group, led by Ersal Ozdemir and a group of investors in the original Diamond Chain site, is asking the Council to vote no on the new map and encourage the administration to come back to the negotiating table. Their read of the enabling state law is that the PSDA approved back in December would be required to be submitted to the state by June 30th without a new one to send in its place.

Keystone’s rationale: Keystone agrees that their original TIF proposal is unacceptable, but emphatically states that this is not their best and final offer. They have produced a new financing plan (prior to Chuck Surack joining as an investor) that would use developer-backed TIF bonds, rather than public-backed bonds that would put the taxpayers on the hook for gaps between the amount raised by bonds and the amount needed to construct the parking garages of the development. A third-party review commissioned by the Council thought these bonds would likely be insufficient to cover all the private development construction costs, but that this was close enough to be negotiable. Keystone has been reaching out to the administration since February trying to talk through any concerns and find a path forward - the administration has refused to meet or discuss any possibility. They claim that they have already agreed to follow the same archaeological standards that the city uses for its Henry Street Bridge project in the same cemetery, and would be open to negotiate further on specific asks from the community.

My current thoughts: I am not inclined to vote for the new PSDA as of this evening. Here are some of the factors influencing that:

Transparency:

-Several elements of the timeline and the administration’s presentation to the Council indicated that the Mayor’s team was involved in negotiations for months with MLS investors without admitting that to the Council. In fact, when Councilors asked administration spokespeople if something strange was going on with the Keystone deal based on an unusual lack of responsiveness, the administration denied there was anything to be concerned about.  

-To this day, though the Council knows that Tom Glick is the person attempting to broker a deal on behalf of an ownership group, we know nothing else about the investors pushing for a second site. I’m not a fan of billionaires in general, and billionaires who are operating in the shadows send up additional red flags. This is particularly important given that the horrific human rights nightmare Saudi government is increasingly interested in investing in soccer, and MLS commissioner Don Garber seems friendly and open to the idea.

-As meeting after meeting occurs where the Council is told we must keep absolutely secret, even while details of the meeting are leaked to the media, revealing information becomes a political choice to determine who gets which details about these major negotiations. The public's ability to understand what is going on is being used as a threat, and there is no conversation at all from the administration about treating the public as a co-participant in decision-making on this issue. We do not live in a dictatorship, and when we are asking our city's legislature to take an about-face on a major public issue within six months of going the opposite direction, the public deserves some real answers about this.  I stand for a radically democratic city, where government does all of our business openly. I am frankly extremely uncomfortable with our decisions to invoke cloudy exemptions under the Open Door Law. As the IBJ has detailed, the Mayor's office has sent legal advice that I personally interpret as an implied threat in order to prevent any conversations with Keystone, even while the mayor's office presents the same sort of information to persuade us about the merits of a business deal under the same exceptions. I work for my constituents, and I don't think it's right to have this many conversations and this many meetings without talking to my bosses about it.

Respect:

-From my perspective, which I have shared with the administration’s spokespeople, the Council is being treated as a rubber stamp rather than a separate but powerful branch of government that should govern alongside, not at the request of, the Mayor.  

-Multiple constituents have reached out to express disapproval with the administration suddenly turning their backs on the Indy Eleven, Brickyard Battalion, and Keystone Group, after years of working together. As one community leader put it, “Where I’m from, you dance with the one who brought ya”. There could be very good reasons why a sudden change of course might need to happen - but one bad TIF proposal doesn’t explain why the administration would totally stop negotiating. The public deserves to have the real reasons that the relationships seem to have broken down so completely.

-Supporters of the new PSDA proposal have, as of today, moved this approval of a map from the Metropolitan Economic Development Committee to the Rules Committee. The most recent claim about the rationale behind the committee change is due to code requiring a ten day notice period, which we are too late to meet. However, there is some evidence that the Council has previously broken this rule for previous developments. And I was personally told by others that it was being moved to Rules because it was contentious, not because of the timing. Failure to get a story straight feels to me like a lack of respect.


Timing:

-To quote my least favorite State Senator as he quipped during SB52 testimony, “Your failure to prepare is not my crisis.” Throughout my adult life, anytime someone has placed a document and a pen in front of me and told me that I had to sign quickly as the deal I was being offered was not going to be around for long, that was the sign of a scam. The administration chose not to discuss the new PSDA, their choice not to proceed with negotiations with Keystone, issues with the human remains, or any of the other factors above with the Council until very recently. Based on the timelines they have in mind, this puts the Council in a position where we would need to move forward with a vote extremely quickly. I’m not a fan of these sports-based developments, and although approving the map does not require me to vote for any specific financing plan, I’m not convinced enough to move faster than I’m comfortable with.

Constituent Feedback:

-This is roughly neutral currently, as I’ve received a huge amount of feedback on both sides of this issue.

-My constituents in the Cole Noble neighborhood (which would border the new PSDA site) have voted overwhelmingly to support the new site - I very appreciate both this knowledge and the democratic way this support was gauged, and this is certainly a major factor for me.  

-Dozens of other constituents have written emails to me asking me to stand with the Eleven and original site.

-Many supporters and constituents are concerned with the human remains in the dig site being treated respectfully - but what that entails differs between different parties, and if the site’s development fully falls through, I fear that perhaps we will lose the current momentum behind doing the right thing and honoring the dead as we have failed to do for a hundred years of development.

I’ve told the administration that I’d be much more likely to look favorably on this proposal if it was made in the service of a broader vision. Convince me that the revenue from this MLS is to support:
- the massive construction of affordable housing,
- an immediate commitment to a fully funded Vision Zero plan,
- a civilian traffic and parking enforcement team,
- city backing and funding for a park and a deliberate, slow archaeological dig on the cemetery sites,
- or any of the other priorities my constituents have asked for,
and I’d be much more open to weighing my current hesitations against a broader social good.

But I’ve heard nothing to this end privately, and I would insist that such a commitment be made publicly and enthusiastically for me to trust it.

In love and solidarity,
Jesse