Three groups supporting two Election Day ballot items surrounding the Burlington Town Center redevelopment spent nearly $62,000 to help get the measures passed, campaign finance filings show.
The Partnership for Burlington’s Future, a political action committee created by Mayor Miro Weinberger and chaired by city Councilor Dave Hartnett, spent about $41,000 on the effort. In the two weeks leading up to November 8, the group dropped more than $20,000 on advertising, signs and posters, along with food and supplies for a spaghetti dinner at the Fletcher Free Library. The PAC paid to host an election night party at the Courtyard Burlington Harbor to watch the results roll in.
The partnership, which also advocated for two other local ballot items that passed, raised about $40,000 and had an additional $3,267 left over from a previous campaign, reports filed Tuesday with the Secretary of State’s Office show.
Another group, Together for Progress, spent about $15,300. Together for Progress filed as a political question committee, which means it can spend money for a political cause but not raise any. The group is made up of the Burlington Business Association, Local Motion, AARP Vermont, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission and the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce.
The political spending appears to have paid off. Voters approved creating a new downtown zoning district that will allow 14-story buildings and authorized $21.8 million in tax increment financing for street improvements in and around that district.
Neither vote was particularly close. Nearly 60 percent of residents voted for the TIF bond, while 54 percent voted in favor of the new zoning overlay.
The results mean mall owner Don Sinex can go forward with his planned $250 million
redevelopment, which will include mixed office, retail and residential buildings and streetscapes around the project. Using the TIF money, Sinex would also reopen portions of Pine and St. Paul streets that were cut off when the current mall was built in the 1970s.
Sinex plans to break ground in the first half of next year.
Sinex registered his company, BTC Mall Associates, as a political question committee and reported spending nearly $5,600 on print newspaper advertisements and on Facebook. The ads touted the benefits of the project.
An opposition group, the Coalition for a Livable City, reported raising about $9,000. The group spent $7,627, filings show.
The coalition spent $300 November 17 on court
fees. The Coalition filed suit Friday against the city and Sinex in Vermont Superior Court, alleging the ballot language on the TIF question was misleading and seeking to invalidate the referendum results.
Weinberger said he expects the city to fight the suit, which, he said, “appears to be based on a basic misunderstanding of tax increment financing law.”
Related Stories
Can Max Tracy Ride the City’s Progressive Wave to Become Burlington’s Next Mayor?
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
The question I keep asking is why does the Mayor, his PACs and followers in City Council want this thing so very badly? So much money spent in a campaign to promote the Sinex BTC (as a way to promote a major zoning change) suggests a real need that doesn’t fully add up. I’ve asked this question to many people and heard interesting answers. I’m still left wondering if there is something more to the story. Why a pre-development agreement made in May blocked the ability to make any real changes to what had been decided on? Why was an amendment to add just 5% more affordable housing shot down when added housing for our city was one of the most touted benefits? Why the constant threat of an opportunity lost with a “no” vote when he Sinex himself said he would simply go back to the drawing board? Why the concern over whether Sinex would make enough profit? Where did 160 feet plus mechanicals come from in the first place? Did Sinex really march into town demanding a zoning bust for his project or was he the fall guy for a Miro strategy to increase building heights despite the public interest in current heights shown in PlanBTV? Why the tricky vote pairing with the zoning change and ballot vote (to stack the deck of CC support)? Do the benefits to the zoning change really outweigh the risks? What really would have happened if 3 and 4 were voted down? I suspect like many projects, it would have been rethought, reworked, and re-envisioned – maybe for the better. One thing for sure, 46% of the voters may have had similar concerns and questions.
Not only did 46% reject it but the majority rejected it in the wards most impacted. We learned that all the current parties agree on a neo-liberal capitalist agenda of publicly subsidizing the 1% in hopes that we’ll benefit from a trickle down effect. The Progs are to progressive politics what military music is to music. We need an anti-gentrification slate to run against these sell-outs
Sasha Goldstein wrote: “Neither vote was particularly close. Nearly 60 percent of residents voted for the TIF bond, while 54 percent voted in favor of the new zoning overlay.” But doesn’t the fact of 46% of voters saying NO to the zoning change warrant at least a notice? After telling us that Miro & Sinex spent $62,000 promoting Item #3, one might expect 7Days to marvel at how close the vote really was. The Mayor worked pretty much full time for a “Yes” vote for two full months. I wouldn’t call it or even imply that it was a landslide. Would you?