Mike Turner, meet Jett Rink

Yer humble host promises this is the last Mike Turner post. One can take only so much of this tedium. But this one is funny.

For this one, it helps to have lived out West, and have a passing familiarity with Western politics.

I ran across this odd set of contributors. The Independent Petroleum Producers "Wildcatter" PAC gave $2,000 to Turner.

And what looks like a family of Wyoming oil men gave some money too (not much).

Yeah money from Wyoming and oil wildcatters, to Mike Turner. Lots of oil in this area huh? Something underground in Highland County we don't know about?

But look at Turners voting record from the IPAA website on their issues. Not bad!

And note the scorecard from the "American Land Rights Association". The issue is totally off the radar in OH 3, but this is one of those "Sagebrush Rebellion/Wise Use" groups. Made up of ranchers, mining companies, and oil men, they are fighting the Feds, particularly the BLM, for better deal to exploit natural resources on public lands (and against environmental restrictions).

Also not too bad (though not as good as IPAAs scores).


I'll let ole Jett Rink say it....

Mike Turner and the Real Estate/Development Interests

Mike Turner has received significant contributions from a cluster of donors best described as the real estate/development special interest community. This includes PAC and individual donors from real estate, contracting, construction, engineering and architecture, and building trades unions.
In fact some of the largest individual contributors are associated with this special interest donor base.
And there is overlap. Note that RG Properities is one of Turners largest contributors. This development firm is a regional partner with Wal-Mart in shopping center development. The Wal-Mart PAC has contributed $12,500 to Turner.

But so what?

The set of top contributing developers are key players in contributing to urban sprawl in northern Warren/Southern Montgomery County. Even smaller contributors are involved. Individuals associated with developer active in that area, Design Homes, have contributed $5,700 to Turner. Individuals associated with Kendall Construction have also contributed.

And the big infrastructure project in the area that would materially benefit these developers is the Austin Road Interchange.

Has Turner done earmarking for the Austin Road interchange?

Lets look at the latest big infrastructure bill, authorizing appropriations out to FY10.

And that would be SAFETEA-LU, AKA known as Public Law 109–59, enacted by the 109th Congress. The bill made famous by that Alaska “bridge to nowhere”.

Here is the Congressional Research Service statement on earmarks in this bill:

SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS Order Code RL33119 Oct 18 2005

Earmarking
The level of earmarking in SAFETEA is exponentially larger in terms of both
numbers of projects and dollar terms then was the case in TEA-21. For starters,
SAFETEA contains at least 5,092 separate earmarks for congressional high priority
projects (HPPs) with a value of over $14.8 billion (there are several additional blank,but nonetheless numbered earmarks in the conference report). This compares with 1,849 similarly labeled earmarks in TEA-21 with a value of $9.4 billion.

Then looking at the OMB Earmark List we see that there are two earmarks for Austin Road.

And, finally, looking at the Congressional Record here they are, in the pork-laden High Priority Projects list.

H.R.3

TITLE 1 FEDERAL AID HIGHWAYS

SUBTITLE G HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS

SEC. 1702. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
Subject to section 117 of title 23, United States Code, the
amount listed for each high priority project in the following table
shall be available (from amounts made available by section
1101(a)(16) of this Act) for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to carry
out each such project:

And the two Austin Road line items on the list:

2404. OH Construction of I–75 Austin Road Interchange,
Montgomery County, Ohio .............................. $6,000,000

4630. OH Construct full movement interchange on I–75
at Austin/Miamisburg-Springboro Rd. and
widen Miamisburg-Springboro Rd. from
Wood Rd. to SR 741, Dayton, OH .................. $750,000

So, a total of $6,750,000 earmarked.

Chickenfeed compared to the projected construction cost. But note that these authorizations extend to 2010, and can be reauthorized at a higher amount. And Turner is jockeying for a position on the House Appropriations Committee, where he would be in a position to earmark more money for this project as well as others.

But is this a Turner earmark?

This report from the Springboro Sun of 9/5/2007 implies that it is:

Congressman Turner Answers Questions

....Congressman Turner works with Congressman Dave Hobson, Ohio 7th District, matching line items and funding. So far $350 million extra has gone to WPAFB, with other local gains going to transportation projects such as the Interstate 75/ Austin Road interchange and economic development projects such as Middletown Regional Hospital's new facilities.

So it sounds like Turner is involved somehow, based on the article .

Putting it together graphically:


…one can see how some of Turners large contributors would stand to benefit from improved interstate access, as the interchange would make Social Row a major artery, and improve access for the lower reaches of OH 48 below Centerville. The benefit would be greater, of course, for property adjacent to the interchange, which is held or being aquired by RG and Miller Valentine.

Yet, this is all just circumstantial. There is no way to prove a quid pro quo. Contributions could be based on shared ideology as much as Turners ability to earmark infrastructure improvements.

Taking a larger view, for what its worth, here is what various construction industry lobby/PAC groups give Turner on their Congressional scorecards. I wasn’t able to find any for the real estate or homebuilder industry.

There is a larger public policy issue around the Austin Road interchange, due to the impact this will have on the city housing market, the downtown office market, and redevelopment of old inner-city industrial sites.

Maybe not a big deal if this area was growing, but its not.

This could also be the reason that there is minimal emphasis on downtown revitalization by top level groups like the Dayton Development Coalition (the leadership are Turner donors) compared to other cities.

In any case one can infer Turner, though touted as a GOP urbanist, really represents a suburban/exurban growth coalition.

Martin Luther King Day

This is the day for one of the largest events of the year downtown. Probably up there with those summer festivals.

It’s the big Martin Luther King Day march and rally.

I was at one back in 2005 or 2006. It was pretty large:


The idea behind this is that people would march from the four corners of the city, east, west, north, and south, and come together at Dayton’s zero milestone, 3rd and Main, as symbolic of community unity.
Unfortunately there isn’t many coming from the east and south, but the symbolism here is still neat.
After the marches coalesce, there is speechifying from the steps of the old Court House, Dayton’s traditional spot for political oratory.

One of my favorite Dayton-based bloggers, where I just lurk and read, is “Brother Omi”. He’s linked in that blogroll sidebar. He has a post on MLK Day, and I particularly like this passage, which reminds us that Dr. King was broadening his agenda in the years before he as shot:

“…Unfortunately for everyone, MLK's holiday is an opportunity to miseducate generations of children. We are giving images of the March on Washington and people attempt to mimic MLK's historical speech. Then we fast forward to his assassination five years later. No one seems to inquire about that five year gap when MLK's approach to his ideology, his spiritual evolution, and his political stance changed dramatically.

MLK was one of the first Civil Rights leaders to speak out against the Vietnam war. Ironically, no politician brings that up. He was the first Civil Rights leader to speak about the dangers of corporations and claimed that it was Wall Street who was our enemy. MLK was pro-union and for the upliftment of all poor communities in this country. The same politicians who evoke his name are brought and paid for by corporations, are anti-union, and don't even speak about the poor….”


Surf in to his blog and read his last thoughts about this day as one for education and reflection rather than for going to rallies and listening to speeches.

Though I think one can do both.

The Defense Community & Mike Turner

Since one of the other Dayton bloggers (Esrati) is running for Congress for the OH 3 I thought I’d do a little digging using the internet to see what’s out there on his opponent, Mike Turner. Sort of noblesse oblige to a fellow urban affairs blogger

I posted a bit already on how OH 3 is a write-off for the Democrats, so running against the incumbent is pretty much (IMHO) quixotic.

I also noted how these safe seats have a tendency to become rotten boroughs, controlled by big contributors and local interest groups that contribute a lot of money.

So lets see how this money works with a local special interest…defense spending.

First a look at career contributions from the defensecontractor community to Mike Turner
(the source for all the contribution numbers are queries run off the FEC website)

One can see the split between Political Action Committee (PAC) and individual contributions…





...and how the contributions trend over the political cycle. Interesting to see the individual contributors being that large.



Then a list of PACs sorted by most first (this is an eye chart, so click on the image to enlarge)

And a similar list, but this one was put together by grouping individual contributors using by defense contractor “contributor community”…people who work for or are associated with those who work for a defense contractor.

Using the largest contributor on the second list, MTC, as an example.

The FEC database includes people and also their employer and link to a disclosure form pdf that has their address. This permits one to associate contributors who list “homemaker” as their job with their husbands, as they share the same address and surname. The same would apply to relatives sharing the same address.

And in some cases, as this one, one contributor can contribute from more than one address.

By grouping contributions from individuals with some connection to the defense contractor one can develop a “contributor community”, and aggregate their contributions as associated with the contractor.

And then looking at how the contributions lay out over the congressional career of Mike Turner. Note there was quite a bit of money flowing to Turner in 2002 as he had a tough primary battle. In fact some money was returned.
Note that finance law permits multiple contributions up to the limit per election. If a candidate has a primary and general election individuals can contribute up to the limit for both elections. Double your money. So it's in the interest of an entrenched incumbent to have some token primary opposition so he or she can raise funds during that election, and roll them over to be used in the general.

Though the MTC donor community contributed a lot, I can’t find any connection between any specific Turner earmark that benefits this specific contractor. If there is something it's deep in the weeds.

That’s not the case with the second highest defense contractor contributor community, “Greentree”.

Here is the contributor community:


….and their funding trend. Note the big spike in 2007.


I found that odd compared to the more or less consistent contributions from PACs and the MTC people.

Was there something special in FY07 that caused this contribution spike?

Surfing around I found the Favor Factory. This is an online database set up by the Seattle Times to track defense earmarks and connect them with contractors and Congresscritters who received donations.

Here’s is a screen shot of the Mike Turner page at this database. Note that he earmarked a program for FY07 that this contractor will be working on. Same year as the big contribution jump.

Was there a connection? I don’t know. It also seems like a lot of contribution vis a vis a small earmark. Just odd to see that.

Taking a look at some bigger picture things. Here is a cut and paste from the Congressional Record of an amendment to a bill to penalize contractors who overcharged in Iraq

Yes, Turner voted no on this amendment. What’s ironic is that one of the larger individual “contributor communities”(in this case a group of managers) for Turner was Bearing Point, one of the contractors alleged to be involved in overcharges.

The company said it's in the process of responding to separate subpoenas issued by a federal grand jury in California and the U.S. Army requesting information on certain contracting activities with the federal government and Department of Defense.

BearingPoint also said it paid $15.5 million in December 2005 to settle complaints by the Justice Department that it overcharged the government for travel expenses.

Of course, Bearing Point is a big company, and operations here probably have nothing to do with the overcharge situation, but maybe this vote demonstrates a pattern of Turner siding with contractors.

The next defense contractor-related vote by Turner is really strange.

The “Accountability in Contracting Act” was a government contracting reform bill.

You can read it in detail here, but to summarize the key points are

1. Limit Length of Noncompetitive Contracts
2. Minimizing No-Bid Contracts
3. Minimizing Cost-Plus Contracts
4. Public Disclosure of Justification for No-Bid Contracts
5. Disclosing Contractor Overcharges
6. Funding Contractor Oversight
7. Closing the “Revolving Door”

So what happened?



Yeah, yer humble host scratches his head too when seeing this Turner vote, especially since Hobson voted for it, and the contractor association itself supported it, and the GOP supported it when it came for a vote.

Anywho, this might seem like big money, but the really big individual contributor/special interest money going to Turner are the real estate/developer/builder community and the partisan/ideological“leadership PACS”.

I will take a very brief look at the developer/builder money later.

The Rat Pack Meets Tiki Towers: Grafton Hill in the Sixties

The 1960s, particularly the early though mid 1960s marked an apartment boom in Grafton Hill, perhaps a local reflection of a forgotten “return to the city” trend that was occurring nationwide at the time.

This trend preceded the better-known historic preservation/restoration/gentrification movement to some extent. A modern ironic/nostalgic echo of the era was the lounge/”cocktail nation” pop culture fad of the 1990s (though this fad didn't have a spatial turn)

In Dayton’s case there certainly is architectural evidence that Grafton Hill was a popular place to live during this era, or this location was in demand. If the market wasn’t there nothing would have been built. The 1960s was the heyday of elevator buildings: mid rises 5 stories or higher. Grafton Hill probably the highest concentration of these buildings in Dayton. These buildings are not cheap to build, so that they were built is yet another indication of a strong market for this neighborhood. The 1960s kick off with Riverview Terrace (1961). Amazingly it still has its original window sash. In terms of design this is sort of "old" looking for 1961, almost a throwback to the 1940s and 50s style. Next comes the Schantz Apartments of 1962. This is the first low-rise of the era, and is one of those long "barracks-style" buildings. I suspect there might have been some decorative lettering or signage on that blank brick wall. But a fair modern composition on the entrance facade(including that chimney as a verticle accent) Next a series of elevator buildings go up on along the river. Townview (1965), is the first postwar Grafton Hill apartment house to have a garage included. Not in Grafton Hill, but just across Salem and part of the same wave of mid-rise construction were two buildings in Jane Reece Terrace, facing downtown. The first, Horizon House (1965) was torn down by 1988 or 89, but Lantern Arms (1966) survives. Neat penthouse with the barrell vault roof. The ironic thing about these riverside apartments is that there was not much of a skyline to look at at that time. The first really tall postwar downtown high rise was the Grant-Deneau Tower which topped off in 1967, after these buildings opened.


Back in Grafton Hill, the two Miamiview towers. Miamiview South (1965) has or had a pool on the roof. Miamiview North (1966) had either a rooftop penthouse or party room. I think I looked at an apartment here once back in 1988 and was impressed on how big they were. This was a deluxe apartment in its day.



Also in 1966 the Rockwood, on Grand Avenue. This one is actually a fairly good design. Sort of modernist entry treatment (barrel roofs were popular here?), and also custom detailing on the windows. Another building with a basement parking garage. The last market rate elevator building was the tallest and most deluxe. Park Layne, under construction in 1969 and leasing in 1970, with a pool, doorman, and secured indoor parking. The Sixities also saw a boom in low rise apartments of 1 to 3 stories. On Grand, this duplex is a very correct modern building from 1965. Again the barrel vault canopy detail, but also window styling using horzontal and vertical band windows. Below are two buildings on Superior from 1964. Very basic compared to the Grand Avenue example. On Grafton an interesting set. The first is from 1966, the second, Grafton House, was open in 1967. The second one has a few 1960s touches...white brick, and the facade composition was a bit more modern than the 1966 one. And then this thing from 1966. Either the Superior or the Sher More. But the funky birdsmouth roof, including the lower canopy, are pretty unusual. Note the atrium with decorative stair just visible, and the diamond/lozenge decorative detail in the verticle window panels, and taperd V shaped sidewalk to the front door. On Central, looks like by the same developer, the Regency Windsor (1966) at Central and Plymouth and Regency (1965)(which apparently has or had basement parking).

The sidewalk to the entrance was laid out on a sort of curve. The old Meridian of 1951 is visible in the background Moving into the later 1960s one starts to see revival styles. The Sher-May (1967) on Grand is almost suburban, with the speckled brick and faux mansard roof. And the one story "motel" building on Federal (now vacant)is sort of a take-off on cape-cod/colonial style. Don't have an age on that one. As far as I can tell the last of the market rate low rises in Grafton Hill was colonial revival Overton Manor of 1968. This building replaced, I think, some four plexes, which themselves replaced old mansions, like the one next door.

The deep and sometimes wide lots on Central were ideal for apartment house construction..in the case of Overton Manor this permitted a circular drive to the portico entrance. The last multifamily construction was, I think, subsidized. The Metropolitan (1971). The city directory listed a DMHA district office in the lobby, so this might be a housing project of some sort. If so it's one of three mid-rise projects in the city. The last mid-rise (9 stories) in Grafton Hill was 465 Grand (1973)(senior housing?). In the forground the low-rise Grand Rock(1965). That name reminds me of the Eden Roc, one of those faux luxe Morris Lapidus hotels in Miami Beach. Looking at the Grand Rock facade, one can see it is a variant of the aparment we saw on Grafton upthread. Speculating on Grafton Hill

I dated these building mostly from city directories. So the dates I give are when the buildings were occupied. Prior to this was a four phase process:
1. Financing
2. Land aquistion
3. Demolition and construction
4. Leasing

I show a two year timeline for the buildings just to get a feel for the activity in the neighborhood, but its pretty obvious there was a real bubble or boom here in the 1964-1966 years, maybe starting earlier , in 1963.

The question I still have is “why?”

Why this neighborhood? Why was there a market for apartment living in Grafton Hill? Who built the aparments? And why was it like to live there? Who lived there? Did the local medial take notice of the apartment boom? I

It would be interesting to hear from people who were around during the 1960s and remember this neighborhood, or lived there.

End of the Apartment Era and the Present Day

According to a 1970s rental market study for the predecessor project to “The Landing” the apartment market collapsed in Grafton Hill in the late 1960s due to white flight. The study noted the Park Layne was an anomaly as it started to lease after the market collapse.

I suspect changing lifestyle trends and a localized apartment glut might have played as much a part as racial change. A lot of units went on the market here in a short period of time.

Also, the 1970 census has this tract at 5% to 9% black, so white flight hadn’t occurred in a big way yet. This did happened in the 1970s, when the tract went to 50%-75% black in 1980.
Since 1973 there have been some demolitions in the neighborhood, as some of the apartments (and maybe older houses too) have been removed, particularly on Central.

The last we’ve heard for Grafton Hill was a proposal to reconstruct some of the old mansions on Central, and that new high rise on Riverview & Central

Grafton Hill Apartments II: Noir City (1940s)

WWII kicked off a new real-estate boom in Grafton Hill. These apartments reflect city living during the film noir era of the mid to late 1940s and very early 1950s, a little understood transitional era in US cultural history. Aesthetically these buildings are a good study of a provincial city transitioning to tmodern design.

Note the geography: Large apartment blocks are starting to cluster on Central Avenue.


The first was the Grandview Apartments (1944) a neat deco/streamlined thing on Grand Avenue, with some interesting detail (including the door surround and corner window treatment). Sort of a mix of classically inspired detail (quoins around the windows) and moderne (corner streamlines, and curved aluminum canopy)

Incidentally Grandview was named before the hospital located in the area in the late '40s.


I think there were other similar smaller buildings. None survived to the present day. The first big postwar buildings were these on Plymouth and Central, from 1947 & 48. Sort of a transition from deco/streamline to modern: symmetric façade composition, with brick banding on the flanking bays, and a streamline entry canopy.

Though not apartments, Grandview Hospital locates on Grand 1947. One of Daytons’ early modern building, but again a bit uncertain as it retains the classical tripartite façade composition.


And the first postwar elevator building, the 5 story Meridian from 1951. This is more modern, with the blank façade , rectangular windows, and lack of decoration. A symmetric tripartite façade composition is retained
Both the 1947-48 Plymouth/Central and 1951 Meridian have nice entry treatments, with stone facing on both, and that period decorative lettering for the Meridian. Note the subtle difference in the stonework, with a more modernist, perhaps Wrighting tratement with the long thin dimensional stone (or is it brick) on the Meridian, vs the the more streamlined concrete or limestone surround on the Plymouth-Central.

Large scale apartment development went on hiatus during the 1950s in Grafton Hill, but at the end of the decade activity revived.