Tag Archives: Incarceration

Georgia legislature giving unelected bodies bond-issuing privatizing power

The Georgia House has just passed a bill authorizing local development authorities to form public-private partnerships as they see fit and to issue bonds to pay for them, putting we the taxpayers on the hook. If this bill passes, VLCIA could issue bonds for a private prison, a biomass plant, a coal plant (apparently not a coincindence; see below), a toll road, a private railroad, or whatever it felt like. It wouldn’t even need cooperation by elected officials. It wouldn’t have to go to the Lowndes County Commission for permission, like VLCIA did for $15 million in bonds to buy real estate. The Industrial Authority could just issue the bonds itself! And we the taxpayers who would have to pay for it? We’ll just get to pay, that’s all. There’s still time to stop it in the Georgia Senate.

Maybe HB 475 should be called the “Easy Jobs for Cronies Act”. It adds various definitions of public-private partnership, and then throws in a wild card: Continue reading →

Who are the “local leadership” who approved CCA’s private prison?

They’re even quieter about it than the Industrial Authority, but the Valdosta City and Lowndes County governments are in the private prison deal just as deep.

Jay Hollis, CCA’s Manager of Site Acquisition, in his Valdosta-Lowndes County, GA / CCA Partnership: Prepared Remarks of August 2010, wrote:

Our Valdosta/Lowndes County site quickly became our primary due to its local and regional workforce, collaboration of local leadership, site characteristics, proximity to necessary services and infrastructure, and accessibility to name a few.
So who is this local leadership?
We look forward to working closely with Valdosta/Lowndes leadership as we move forward in the months to come.

Finally, I’d like to take a moment to recognize a few folks that have been essential to the project:

Continue reading →

Why did CCA pick Lowndes County for a private prison?

Apparently CCA picked Lowndes County for a private prison for reasons that were not what VLCIA’s consultant seemed to think would influence the selection.

According to Valdosta-Lowndes County, GA / CCA Partnership: Talking Points (undated, but it refers to “The agreement formalized by the Industrial Authority on 8/17”),

The Valdosta/Lowndes site became the primary due to the local and regional workforce, collaboration of local leadership, site characteristics, proximity to necessary services and infrastructure, accessibility, etc.
Nothing in there about low poverty or high wages. One could even read that the other way around, as in a low-wage population looking for jobs.

Looks to me like our Industrial Authority didn’t do much due diligence about private prisons.

Also note that the contract of 17 August 2010 between VLCIA and CCA was signed after the announcement in July 2010 that CCA had selected Decatur County. More about that in another post.

-jsq

Apparently VLCIA misunderstood what CCA was looking for

Apparently VLCIA, or one of its expert consultants, thought CCA was looking for a thriving county economy in choosing a private prison location. That doesn’t seem to be what happened.

Economic Impact of Project Excel by Clifford A. Lipscomb, Ph.D., 2 November 2009:

The VLCIA has noted that Project Excel is considering other locations. Below I provide a comparison of key economic indicators for these alternative counties — Grady and Decatur.
Table 1. Characteristics of Selected Counties
VariableDecaturGradyLowndes
Population, 2008 28,82325,115104,583
% Pop w/ Bachelor’s degree 12.1%10.6%19.7%
Median HH Income, 2007 32,65033,06038,666
Persons below poverty, 2007 22.5%22.2%20.5%
Persons white non-Hispanic, 2008 54.8%60.6%60.0%
In closing, it appears that Project Excel is an excellent candidate for location in Lowndes County.
So which other county did CCA actually pick? Continue reading →

CCA documents from VLCIA

All the CCA documents VLCIA provided in response to Matt Flumerfelt’s Open Records Request are on the LAKE website. I will continue posting what I see in them (in the category CCA), but you may find things in them I don’t. If you find something particularly interesting, please send it to the LAKE blog submission address or comment on the blog so we can all see it.

-jsq

Missing: CCA Submission of Preliminary Specifications

Has CCA supplied a key document required by the contract? If not, is the contract still valid?

According to “SCHEDULE 1.6.2 DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE” CCA was supposed to provide to VLCIA

Submission of Preliminary Specifications (Section 1.6.1)
No later than 6 months after receipt of the Survey
CCA did provide a Title Objection Letter 19 November 2010, and that was due “within 30 days of receipt of the Survey”. So these Preliminary Specifications were due about six months ago. Let’s see them!

If those specifications have not been received by VLCIA, maybe the contract with CCA is no longer valid.

Or maybe VLCIA already received the NTP and is moving on with implementing the project. Seems to me the community should be informed, one way or the other.

-jsq

How the Industrial Authority can stop the CCA private prison: no third extension by 13 March 2012

Apparently the Industrial Authority can end the contract for CCA’s private prison six weeks from now, by simply not doing anything until then.

CCA has already paid for two extensions on their Option Agreement for land purchase. The Second Extension Term was paid for in March 2010 and forwarded to the land owner. Here’s video of Col. Ricketts announcing it to the VLCIA board 15 March 2011. That second extension expires 13 March 2012, six weeks from today.

A Third Extension Term is possible, but has to be negotiated. Here’s what Purchase and Development Agreement of 17 August 201 says:

1.4.2.3. Third Extension Term. The Authority shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain an option for a third extension term of twelve (12) months (the “Third Extension Term“). In the event the Authority is able to obtain such extension option on terms and conditions such that any required earnest money to be paid by the Company in connection with the exercise of such extension option does not exceed $75,000, and there is no increase of the price of the Site or any other payments not already required by the Option Agreement, then the Authority shall enter into a written agreement (the “Third Extension Term“) with the Seller reflecting the terms and conditions of such extension option….
What happens if the Authority does not provide such an extension option? Continue reading →

CCA and the problem with Industrial Authority confidentiality agreements

In the confidentiality agreeement CCA and VLCIA signed way back on 17 August 2009, I see nothing that says the Industrial Authority can’t talk about CCA in general terms. And I see a lot of things that a governmental entity by state law can’t hide if the public requests them. And that VLCIA has now revealed. Which means the Industrial Authority has violated that agreement because state law required it to. So what does that say about the validity of other contracts VLCIA has signed with CCA? And what does it say about the practice of this governmental entity signing confidentiality agreements?

That agreement includes this legal boilerplate:

it will use any confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information to which it has access solely for the purpose set forth herein and that it will indefinitely protect the confidentiality of such information and will not directly or indirectly disclose, reproduce, distribute, transmit or transfer by any means in any form any confidential documents, information and/or trade secrets that AUTHORITY may have or acquire during the Evaluation Period.
There’s nothing in there that says VLCIA can’t even say in their board meetings that Project Excel is a private prison for CCA. And outside board meetings, some board members have no reluctance to acknowledge that.

Confidentiality agreements like that are normal between two business entities. They seem a little odd between a business entity and a governmental agency. For example, that Agreement continues:

For purposes of this Agreement, “confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information” includes, but is not limited to, marketing materials, conceptual site drawings and images, form contract agreements, the identities of business contacts and the relationships developed with such contacts during the Evaluation Period, proposed terms of purchase and sale, if any….
Yet many of those things are by their nature public records that VLCIA is required to hand over in response to an open records request, such as the one Matt Flumerfelt made which produced documents such as these: Continue reading →

Where is CCA’s private prison site in Lowndes County?

The private prison CCA wants to build in Lowndes County (what the Industrial Authority calls Project Excel) is proposed to be on the east side of Valdosta, at the southwest corner of U.S. 84 and Inner Perimeter Road:

That survey plat was included in EXCEL (CCA) Title-Survey Objections (Reno-Cavanaugh) of 19 November 2010. That’s one of a group of files returned by VLCIA in response to an open records request by Matt Flumerfelt.

We now have some idea of what the prison would look like, due to this plan: Continue reading →

the relatives of those people don’t care who is winning (the drug war) —Carlos Fuentes

A writer of fiction tells the truth about the failed war on drugs. We’re way past the beginning and middle of this story: time to end it. Which makes this a very bad time to build a private prison that depends on the war on drugs.

Anita Singh wrote for the Telegraph today, Carlos Fuentes: legalise drugs to save Mexico,

Fuentes, Mexico’s greatest writer and a former diplomat, addressed the contemporary problems of Latin American — in particular, Mexico’s drug problem.

He said: “The drug traffickers are in Mexico, they send the drugs to the US and once they get across the border what happens? We don’t know who consumes them. We can’t prosecute, we can’t defend. It’s a very difficult situation for us Mexicans. The governments of the US and Mexico have to fight drug trafficking together.”

Fuentes believes that decriminalising drugs is the only way to end the violence that in the past five years has claimed nearly 50,000 lives of gang members, security forces and innocent bystanders.

“It is a confrontation. Sometimes we win, sometimes they win. But there are 50,000 killed and the relatives of those people don’t care who is winning.

Nobody is winning except the profiteers in arms and pesticides, such as Monsanto. And even mighty MON is losing to Boliviana negra. Alcohol prohibition produced Al Capone and other gangsters; the failed War on Drugs produced drug gangs and ever more vicious militarization of police forces, right up to the Mexican failed “solution” of calling out the Army into the streets.

We’re all losing through lack of money for education and militarization of our own police. We can’t afford this costly failed experiment. The real solution is the same today as in 1933: legalize, regulate, and tax. That will also drop the U.S. prison population way down, saving a lot of money that can be used for education. It’s going to happen eventually, so building more prisons that will end up being closed is a bad idea.

-jsq