LANDIN, CDCB MAKE NAKED GRAB FOR GBIC'S ECO-DEV ROLE

By Juan Montoya

To the uninitiated, this Wednesday's Brownsville Herald half-page, full-color ad crowing up the accomplishments of the Community Development Corporation of Brownsville may have seemed like a perfunctory self-praise most non profits pay for the public to see they're doing Good Things.

The ad, which in the Herald could cost upwards of $2,000 to print, took a curious tack.  Was it a mere coincidence that they bought the ad when one of their projects is in danger of being sidelined?

Crowing up their accomplishments as "the largest non-profit housing developers in Texas," – a claim that might raise some eyebrows in Houston and Dallas – the thrust of the ad was geared toward the role of the CDCB not in providing low-income housing, but rather as an engine of "economic development."

If you weren't aware of the fact that the CDCB is in a death struggle with the corporation that was assigned the role of fostering economic development – the Greater Brownsville Incentives Corporation – you'd think the CDCB was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Does it matter that the CDCB tells the Internal Revenue Service that "CDCB'S  mission is to assist low-income families in education and affordable housing through rental and home ownership," and not primarily economic development?

Last year, the CDCB reported to the IRS that it operates through $3,779,353 in government grants, down from the previoos year's $4,801,204. It lists its executive director (Nick Mitchell-Bennett) raking in a $100,906 salary for his troubles with the pesky city leaders.

In fact, the CDCB has met a wall of resistance from a majority on the City of Brownsville Commission over its plans to rezone 143 acres off north Alice Road abutting 300 acres of GBIC-owned property dedicated to establishing an industrial corridor which would be negatively affected by the development of residential projects such as that proposed by the CDCB.

And the Union Pacific Railroad, whose major switch yard are adjacent to the CDCB's residential development property, have come out against the plans for the project saying it exposes its liability
to potential chemical spills or other hazardous materials since the 120-unit project are directly upwind from the rails.

A letter from the GBIC CEO Mario Lozoya referred to the effect on the organization's industrial-corridior plans as a "devaluation" due to CDCB's  proposed residential development. That led to the commission tabling the CDCB's request for a rezoning of the property from dwelling "Z" to Dwelling "G" on the second and final reading.

And it just happens to be that two city commissioners – Jessica Tetreau and Cesar de Leon – are also on the GBIC board.

In fact, Tetreau was the past chair and De Leon is currently the chairman. They both said in open meeting that they had been kept in the dark about CDCB's plans for a residential development there. About the only ones who were aware and gave the go-ahead were former Interim CEO Gilbert Salinas, Interim City Manager Michael Lopez, city planner, and Mayor Tony Martinez.

No one, apparently, felt the chair or the members of the board of the GBIC needed to know about the rezoning planned for the property adjacent to the GBIC's planned industrial corridor.

Back to the CDCB's ad on Wednesday's paper.

In it, the author(s) (Mitchell-Bennett and PIO and Marketing Coordinator Melissa Landin?), expound on the role of CDCB as a crucial part of the "economic development" of the Brownsville community. The last time we remember Landin getting involved in economic development was her role in bringing AeroMexico to the Brownsville airport.

As soon as the city subsidies were gone, so was AeroMexico.

Landin, by the way, is a former city commissioner and has been pressuring her pal Tetreau to approve the rezoning, calling the tabling of CDCB's rezoning request "politics."

The claims to CDCB's role in the economic development is based – if we are to believe the ad – in the past five years of the non-profit has performed its role as a provider of low-income housing and rental assistance through a number of claims, none that can be substantiated without a thorough review of its books. For now, they are asking the newspaper-reading upblic to take them at their word.

But let's take a look at just one of the claims in the ad, that "since 2013, CDCB originated 16,000 small-dollar loans saving borrowers $11.2 million in fees and interest as compared to payday lenders in Texas."

Payday lenders?

When we were in the military, drill instructors used to say that if your spit-shined boots for inspection weren't as shiny as someone else's the thing to do was to look for another recruit whose boots were worse than yours and go stand next to him. That would make you look better. Now we see why the CDCB compares itself to payday lenders instead of the local banks and financieras.

Do they know, for example that "Payday loans, which are already effectively banned in 15 states, involve customers taking small-quantity loans with very high fees? Clients are expected to pay back the fees and principal amount often by their next payday. Prohibitively high fees, however, often cause debts to roll over to the next month, which critics say causes a cycle of debt."

These are the lenders that the CDCB wants to compare itself to?

The GBIC, on the other hand, separated itself from the ineffective and extravagant Brownsville Economic Development Corporation (BEDC) after it found that its board was turning a blind eye to the excesses of its administrators who were wining and dining public and elected officials at its expense.

Landin (previously Zamora) didn't utter a peep when she was a city commissioner. Now it seems like she's leading the public relations effort to discredit the GBIC's economic development efforts and raise the economic development profile of the CDCB at the GBIC.

What will the CDCB honchos and Landin plan next, to not only usurp the role of the GBIC as the economic development entity of Brownsville, but also to take over its annual $5 million share of the city's sales taxes? Or perhaps they want to dictate to the rest of the city what to do so it will fit their plans?