Former Columbia Association President Lakey Boyd EXPOSED for Questionable, Seemingly Corrupt Decisions in Office

Submitted by jakeburdett t3_1257x95 in ColumbiaMD

New HoCo Watchdogs Guest Post: The Rouse Project 2.0: The Truth about the Tenure of Former Columbia Association President Lakey Boyd and the Wrongful Smear Campaign Against the CA Board By Jake Burdett https://www.hocowatchdogs.com/guestpost-7/

Part One of a series of posts that critically analyzes actions taken by former Columbia Association (CA) President Lakey Boyd and the false narrative-laden smear campaign against the CA Board of Directors that occurred in the months prior to Boyd's abrupt resignation.

Part One focuses on a very concerning contract signed by former President Boyd that significantly lowered the monthly rent due by a Howard Hughes Corporation commercial tenant at one of the most desirable outdoor dining locations in the County, potentially costing CA residents over $1 million in uncollected rent payments in the long run.

What do you think about this issue? Leave your thoughts in the comment section below!

Read and share this post with all of your Howard County friends and neighbors using this link: https://www.hocowatchdogs.com/guestpost-7/

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

goliebs t1_je3a5g0 wrote

C'mon man…. This is just dumb.

If the CA President were abusing her power as CA President to give shady deals to businesses at the expense of CA, the board would have unanimously fired her as soon as they found out, sued her for damages, and possibly referred her for criminal investigation. They wouldn’t spend months debating the issue, give a “performance improvement plan” to the president, and finally negotiate a resignation that prevented them from explaining what happened.

If you're going to invent conspiracy theories, please make them a little more coherent.

26

emleh t1_je33x6l wrote

Steven Keller, who runs HoCo Watchdogs, has a narrative to push. What he says is of little value, as it generally obscures truth.

23

evergreenneedles t1_je3bq2r wrote

I can’t believe I wasted my time reading this nonsense. It’s about the patio adjacent to the now shuttered Clyde’s & Soundry.

15

jakeburdett OP t1_je3edx3 wrote

Yes. And a new lease which is $1 million+ cheaper than the previous one. An explanation is needed for such a drastic change

−10

jakeburdett OP t1_je35aop wrote

Steven Keller did not write this post, I did, he merely allowed it to be posted on his blog. Could you please point to what is inaccurate/obscured in this blog post?

I am currently the Vice Chair of a grassroots progressive organization dedicated to getting money out of politics, called Our Revolution HoCo. Until last September, I was President of the Progressive Democrats of Howard County. The only agenda I have is to support accountable and transparent local government, and to shine a light on corporate influence and money in politics. Which is exactly what was going on with Lakey Boyd

I encourage you to read with an open mind before jumping to any reactionary conclusions.

−8

blorbschploble t1_je37gvn wrote

The all caps “EXPOSED” begs to differ

13

jakeburdett OP t1_je37q54 wrote

?

−1

blorbschploble t1_je38x4q wrote

I’d like you to entertain the idea that you may be well intentioned, perhaps even 100% right, but the style and form of your writing exemplifies the lawyer adage of “when you have the facts, pounds the facts. When you have the law, pound the law, if neither, pound the table”

It’s quite unsubtle, paints people in extremes, and leans heavily on manipulating the emotions of your readers. Like just rhetorically. I am not even accusing you of doing this on purpose or meanly.

Nearly no one here particularly cares about Boyd or the CA board except for “are they doing their jobs transparently?” We already know one entity hasn’t (doesn’t matter which). You are just demonstrating the other didn’t too.

Assuming you are doing this in good faith, hire an editor. Make sure you aren’t being used to get around confidentiality rules others are held to.

Trust that if the facts are on your side, that a dispassionate accounting is sufficient.

14

jakeburdett OP t1_je39yag wrote

I appreciate the feedback. I feel strongly about the issue, hence the strong and unsubtle language. Maybe if you knew everything I knew about the situation, you’d feel just as strongly. Regardless, I encourage you to tune in to the follow up pieces to see if you think my level of outrage is justified.

None of the things I’ve posted come from any sort of confidential information, and is instead all available upon request through the MD HOA Act.

You say no one cares about Lakey or the CA Board. Perhaps you don’t, but many do care about this conflict a lot. And it’s hard to determine who’s doing a good job if the public has only been exposed to a one-sided, false and manipulated narrative

I did have a few folks read after I wrote, and suggest edits, many of which were incorporated. But let’s face it: it’s a 22 page piece, so even an editor can only do so much to change the original tone. I do appreciate the feedback, though

−3

blorbschploble t1_je3afh4 wrote

No what I mean is no one cares about them personally

Public servants are necessarily expendable. Sounds like all these people kinda suck in their public capacities. Because waves hands around

6

jakeburdett OP t1_je3az4j wrote

Sadly, a cult of personality was invented around Lakey, so some DO care about her personally!

But even for those who just cared about her professional performance, how could folks properly evaluate that without these facts? Without these facts, people had a much more positive idea of Lakey’s performance than was due, and so many viewed the CA Board pushing her out as irresponsible, rather than responsible. Many people may vote in April based on that faulty logic. That, to me, is why this story was still important to get out there

0

emleh t1_je59obc wrote

If you are coordinating with him, I don’t trust the information. What other groups did you reach out to share the information? I’d like to see who else supports this analysis.

7

jakeburdett OP t1_je5a93c wrote

Are you suggesting these documents are falsified, or the math calculations are incorrect?

2

emleh t1_je5ak0q wrote

I’m suggesting the Board has not been transparent. I also think it’s garbage that the Board used our CPRA fees to fund outside counsel to address their ethical issues.

10

jakeburdett OP t1_je5cis7 wrote

But again, the Board was legally not allowed to talk about this stuff, due to it being a personnel issue. The CA attorney works for CA STAFF, like Lakey Boyd, and so it is not uncommon for Boards to get outside legal counsel. Bottom line is Lakey likely would’ve cost the CA millions in the long run, so getting an Attorney to help put an end to the chaos was the harm reduction approach IMO

−4

emleh t1_je5crlw wrote

The Board also demonstrated they didn’t understand their roles. The point is CA is a nightmare that provides little value for the fees we pay.

4

jakeburdett OP t1_je5depi wrote

I agree CA residents should get more for their fees, which is why Lakey Boyd pissing away millions of dollars of potential revenue doesn’t help much. But I disagree with your assessment, and think it was much of the local media narrative that misunderstands the Board’s role. It is absolutely the Board’s role to provide oversight over the hired President, yet this was unfairly characterized as “Micro-management”

−4

emleh t1_je5dmo9 wrote

She resigned so who cares at this point?

4

jakeburdett OP t1_je5eh10 wrote

This point was addressed in an Author’s Note at the end of the post:

“The title of this blog may beg the question “Didn’t Lakey Boyd resign as CA President months ago? Why does any of this matter still?”

While Lakey Boyd may no longer be CA President, she is still very much active in public life in the Howard County community. Unfortunately, many of the facts and evidence presented in this blog post have not been shared widely, leaving most Howard County residents gravely misinformed about Boyd’s tenure and abrupt resignation and believing a carefully-crafted false narrative that Lakey Boyd was an innocent martyr who was unfairly pushed by the CA Board.

Additionally, the elections for CA Board and Village Boards are on April 22, 2023, and without the record being set straight on this concerning, high-visibility situation, many CA Residents may otherwise vote for candidates solely based on their stances about Lakey Boyd and the CA Board, without knowing that these stances are misguided and that some of these candidates may be beholden to special interest entities that do not have Columbia’s longterm wellbeing as a priority.

Thus, before the upcoming 2023 CA elections, this series of blog posts will inform Howard County residents of exactly what Lakey Boyd was truly doing as CA President and will vindicate the CA Board members who wrongly had to endure months of character assassination simply for trying to provide oversight of a CA President/CEO who was suspected of catering to special interests at the expense of CA residents.

Even though Ms. Boyd is no longer CA President, the very same special interests and co-opted community members, groups, and media outlets/blogs that fought hard to keep her are continuing to grasp for control of the CA for completely self-interested reasons in new ways with the upcoming election and beyond, and CA residents need to be hyper-vigilant to watch out for that.

It is this Author’s opinion that any CA candidates who have overtly and enthusiastically expressed support for The Rouse Project and/or Lakey Boyd, and who have villainized community members for trying to shine a light on Lakey Boyd’s potentially unethical actions as CA President, should be considered with extreme skepticism.”

−1

emleh t1_je5eq1l wrote

Sounds like you just hate Boyd and are writing up a complaint, trying to get others to join in the hate. Ridiculous.

8

jakeburdett OP t1_je5euus wrote

I hate the things she did, and the smear campaign she contributed to. Not sure why you’re not also bugged by it, but to each their own, I guess

−1

jakeburdett OP t1_je5a5da wrote

I’ve shared here, everywhere on Facebook, to several community groups, and I think it may get published in a more “legitimate” outlet soon

−2

isadesking456 t1_je4w4nj wrote

How much was the writer paid for this piece and who is paying him? Note that HoCo Watchdogs is a private, for-profit corporation, so their finances are purposefully shrouded in mystery.

It's also noteworthy that this writer is a law student and he is defending the Columbia Association board, which has spent hundreds of thousands of community dollars on legal fees over the last several years. Has the writer been promised a job with the lawyers who seem more than happy to stoke these expensive community fights?

It's clear that someone pointed him in the direction of the documents he used to make this flimsy and verbose "case"; was it an attorney or a member of the current board with whom he has an undisclosed relationship? How else to explain why someone who lives and works outside Columbia would choose to get involved the homeowner's association politics?

18

jakeburdett OP t1_je4wy91 wrote

As an unemployed law student, that’d be nice if this conspiracy theory was true haha. But no, I did this all for free, and I’ve got years of unpaid activism and other writing to show for, as well

The documents I used were requested by a CA resident under the MD HOA Act and sent to me, but this was not assisted by the CA Board members involved in the dispute with Lakey Boyd.

My interest in this as a HoCo resident is that what happens in Columbia is not contained to just Columbia. Howard Hughes Corporation has sway county-wide, so them funding a slate of candidates for CA absolutely does impact the whole county

−1

isadesking456 t1_je50406 wrote

Unemployed law student with years of unpaid activism? Who's paying your tuition? How do you afford food and housing? Something's not adding up.

Which CA resident requested those documents? Have they been working with the board? Did you ask about their motivations for passing these documents on to you? I'm not surprised someone would use you to fight their fight, since you have a reputation here and elsewhere as being a caustic bully who is willing to say anything about those you don't like. Easier for this "CA resident" to hide behind you than to make this case publicly.

It's actually a pity you're not getting paid, since you're clearly doing someone else's bidding.

14

jakeburdett OP t1_je51cz9 wrote

My parents and student loans pay for my tuition and housing, plus money I saved between 4 year university and law school. Many young people who are students nowadays do this.

It’s not my place to reveal who the CA resident that requested and sent me the documents are—many community members trying to speak out against the dominant narrative have been aggressively ridiculed by Allies of Lakey Boyd, and so are understandably hesitant to publicly stick their neck out on the line like that. I know this resident’s motivation was to hold Lakey accountable for one of MANY of her highly questionable actions in office

You have an interesting definition of a bully. To me, a bully is someone who picks on the powerless and those weaker than them (I.e. what Howard Hughes Corporation, Lakey, and their defenders do). But calling out people in positions of authority for gross corruption and abuses of power (what I do) is accountability, not “bullying”. I guess we may have to agree to disagree on this one?

−4

isadesking456 t1_je53gex wrote

If the case against Lakey were as strong as you purport, those community members wouldn't fear sticking their necks out.

If you weren't working (for free, apparently) for a private, for-profit corporation dedicated to "transparency," your unwillingness to discuss the source of this information and their motivations would make more sense. Transparency for thee but not for me, right? (That's the CA board's credo after holding 15 closed meetings--without proper notification--over the last 10 months.)

Also, your bullying is well known in Howard County and on the eastern shore. But I understand that you need to tell yourself stories of righteousness to justify your behavior. Why did you get kicked out of the Hickory Ridge Village Board meeting the other night?

13

jakeburdett OP t1_je58onp wrote

Again, it’s not my place to disclose people’s identities without permission, and there are very legitimate reasons why people would be scared to blow the whistle, because they know how whistleblowers tend to get treated (as is happening to me now, for example). All of these documents and the facts reported in the blog are legitimate, it sounds like you’re just reaching for an excuse to ignore it. I’m not working for anyone, I wrote a guest blog post…

I was removed from the Hickory Ridge Candidate Forum last night for… daring to post this blog in the chat! Is Hickory Ridge Village defending Lakey’s reputation?

−2

Columbia4Life t1_je5ddqj wrote

>But calling out people in positions of authority for gross corruption and abuses of power (what I do) is accountability, not “bullying”.

Is that why you, a cisgender, heterosexual white man, have such a long, documented history of contempt and disrespect toward women, people of color, and LGBTQ+ people when they don't fully toe your political line?

As one example of many, this is you, telling Sherman Howell, an 80-year-old Black Columbia resident and NAACP member with a decades-long resume of civil rights activism including marching with John Lewis on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965 - that he doesn't care about black lives. The level of pathological self-importance required to say such an absurd thing to a man with Mr. Howell's background is off the charts.

https://twitter.com/jake_burdett/status/1583704126428688384?s=20

Maybe you're right. You're not a bully. You're an asshole.

13

jakeburdett OP t1_je5dp6k wrote

Sherman May mean well, and he’s certainly been around for a long time, but he has consistently supported politicians that have been very detrimental to the black community, and does not seem to care when this is pointed out to him.

The rest of your statement is baseless

1

Columbia4Life t1_je5fpdv wrote

Representation means Sherman does not need your counsel or permission to make his own political decisions.

The fact that you believe you know better than he does what is good for the Black community proves that the rest of my statement is not baseless.

7

jakeburdett OP t1_je5khs4 wrote

Lol. You think corporate-funded and police union-endorsed candidates will look out for the black community? Go study some history

−2

Columbia4Life t1_je5n7yg wrote

The point is that the Black community does not want or need you, a white man, telling them what's good for them and what isn't. Especially in the contemptuous manner in which you do so.

8

Columbia4Life t1_je5nqup wrote

But hey, since you're here speaking for Columbia residents when you don't live here, I guess that tracks!

6

jakeburdett OP t1_je75cwz wrote

Lol that you made this fake account for this. This is not about me telling the black community what to do, this is a criticism of Sherman Howell’s long record of supporting systematically racist policies and the politicians who perpetuate it

2

Columbia4Life t1_je787ve wrote

Keep proving to everyone on this thread what a self-important asshole you are.

3

DoorKnob410 t1_je5x7v1 wrote

Mean well? Sherman Howell helped organize the March on Washington. What have you done other than yell on the internet?

7

jakeburdett OP t1_je5xgxo wrote

Good for Sherman. Does that erase decades of harmful, counterproductive work in the community afterwards? I think people are complex, and you can give credit where it’s due, but also scrutiny when it’s due

1

Columbia4Life t1_je5zkv0 wrote

This is what he has done in the years since. Harmful and counterproductive enough that the NAACP gave him an award for it.

https://bizmonthly.com/columbias-howell-wins-award-naacp/

4

jakeburdett OP t1_je75mgq wrote

HoCo/MD NAACP is run by a well-known predator. They’ve sadly become co-opted for corporate interests, as well, and are actually quite conservative. I do have respect for NAACP nationally, though, and was a big supporter of Ben Jealous’s 2018 campaign

1

Columbia4Life t1_je78bgb wrote

Oh really? Who is the predator? And of course, what proof do you have of that fact?

2

jakeburdett OP t1_je78frs wrote

You can look it up. Good to know you do not believe women

1

Columbia4Life t1_je7919y wrote

Cool, and while I’m at it, I’ll be sure to look up the skeletons in YOUR closet. I seem to remember you saying something about scrutiny being due.

3

jakeburdett OP t1_je7992p wrote

Sounds like you’ve been doing that for awhile, and good to know you’re more concerned about a local blog writer and grassroots activist than you are about people in serious positions of authority in the state and county.

1

Columbia4Life t1_je7aj7s wrote

You don’t know shit about what I’m concerned about, beyond the fact that nobody should give credence to anything you write or say - and thanks for showing us all why.

3

jakeburdett OP t1_je7apfn wrote

No, your priorities are very clear. You made a Reddit account Just for this! It’s clear your allegiances are with the corrupt corporate forces being exposed

1

jakeburdett OP t1_je5dsi2 wrote

You also just created this account 2 hours ago. Clear sock puppet dummy account from someone in the HoCo establishment

−5

DoorKnob410 t1_je5dmoy wrote

That tenant sure is getting great use out of the "under-valued" "open space". I wish CA had held a harder line and that little pier was even more vacant and dead than it is right now! I also hope the new CA President works even harder to price CA property in a way that discourages its use. I'm sure everyone is glad Clyde's is gone and the building is dark.

Keep fighting the good fight, Jake! We're lucky to have you.

14

jakeburdett OP t1_je5epq4 wrote

This is a false dichotomy. The only choices aren’t to either have the space remain vacant, or to give away the farm. I’m sure there are many restaurants who’d kill to pay a fair rate for arguably the best outdoor dining space the County has to offer

−4

DoorKnob410 t1_je5fmct wrote

There's only one restaurant tenant that could use that space. It's consistent with CA's mission to have vibrant outdoor space. This is a pure judgment call that you spent a LOT of text trying to turn into something malicious. Lakey Boyd is fortunate that you're her Woodward & Bernstein.

9

jakeburdett OP t1_je5kddt wrote

It’s also consistent with CA’s duties to get top value for their resources to not betray their fiduciary duty to CA residents. It’s not clear that that was done here

The post was facts, followed by a judgment/conclusion. You are welcome to disagree with my judgment/conclusion, which it sounds like you do

−1

OhhMyTodd t1_je2yndk wrote

I don't feel like this gives enough recent data about the commercial real estate market for restaurants for me to have a strong opinion about whether that lease was a bad idea or not. The space had been vacant for a while now, too, so I'm not sure how much demand there even was. Plus, if there were concerns over her financial decisions, why could that not be brought up by the board publicly? I'm not saying I wholeheartedly support her, but this seems to be trying really hard to make a mountain over what could potentially just be a molehill.

13

jakeburdett OP t1_je2zkqy wrote

Great point, and I do address that point at the end of the piece, quoted below. Nonetheless, I understand being skeptical, and am confident you will be convinced after reading the next parts of the blog, which will be published in the next few weeks. Then, you’ll see that this is not just about this one contract (a bad contract which may have cost the CA $1 million+ in potential revenue), and it is not “making a mountain out of a mole hill”. Also, the Board was not able to discuss those things publicly, because it is a personnel matter subject to employee-employer confidentiality. This was knowingly and cynically taken advantage of by Lakey and her Allies to push a false narrative and smear campaign that they knew the CA Board was unable to counter publicly, which is why the CA Board was having so many closed meetings this past year

“Defenders of former CA President Boyd may argue that the terms of the December 2021 lease contract awarded to the new Howard Hughes Corporation tenant (The Collective 13) was signed during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the lower monthly rent rate and no annual inflation adjustments were justified due to “pandemic hardship”.

It is true that many businesses were struggling financially during the pandemic and that the previous tenant did not renew their lease potentially because they were unable to afford the monthly rent rates they were being charged under their contract established in 2013.

In a case such as this one, would a rent reduction for a future tenant be justified?

Let’s address that question with a few other questions:

How many Howard Hughes Corporation residential tenants were either evicted or did not renew their leases during COVID due to financial hardship?

Did the future tenants who moved in after the prior tenants were forced out due to hardship also receive a 50%+ decrease in monthly rent?

It is highly doubtful that this occurred. Even if the extremely low rental rates in this 2021 CA contract were set using COVID hardship as justification, the contract spans 2021 to 2027 and could even be extended through 2032, well after the effects of COVID are no longer a significant justification for hardship.

Beyond that, even if a rent reduction was justified, how was this drastic of a reduction calculated? Why was inflation adjustment not included? Answers to these questions are exactly the kind that the CA Board of Directors and the public deserve. These types of contracts and leases should be getting appraised for fair market value, rather than picking some arbitrarily low number.

It was incumbent upon Lakey Boyd as CA President to fulfill her fiduciary duty to CA residents and prove that a valid methodology was used to establish these seemingly low monthly rent rates as the true market value for the CA-owned open space that she leased out to a tenant of the private developer Howard Hughes Corporation. Otherwise, the CA would be at risk of violating IRS Rev. Rul. 72-102, potentially putting the CA’s tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) non-profit service corporation in serious jeopardy.”

−6

JimboSkillet t1_je33vt3 wrote

OP, do you have any insight on potential renters that may have been competing against Howard Hughes for these outdoor spaces? How can I, as a layperson CA resident, be sure this was a sweetheart deal vs. a market reaction? Thank you for posting this.

8

jakeburdett OP t1_je35k9f wrote

Great question, and I address that point towards the end of this piece:

“Defenders of former CA President Boyd may argue that the terms of the December 2021 lease contract awarded to the new Howard Hughes Corporation tenant (The Collective 13) was signed during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the lower monthly rent rate and no annual inflation adjustments were justified due to “pandemic hardship”.

It is true that many businesses were struggling financially during the pandemic and that the previous tenant did not renew their lease potentially because they were unable to afford the monthly rent rates they were being charged under their contract established in 2013.

In a case such as this one, would a rent reduction for a future tenant be justified?

Let’s address that question with a few other questions:

How many Howard Hughes Corporation residential tenants were either evicted or did not renew their leases during COVID due to financial hardship?

Did the future tenants who moved in after the prior tenants were forced out due to hardship also receive a 50%+ decrease in monthly rent?

It is highly doubtful that this occurred. Even if the extremely low rental rates in this 2021 CA contract were set using COVID hardship as justification, the contract spans 2021 to 2027 and could even be extended through 2032, well after the effects of COVID are no longer a significant justification for hardship.

Beyond that, even if a rent reduction was justified, how was this drastic of a reduction calculated? Why was inflation adjustment not included? Answers to these questions are exactly the kind that the CA Board of Directors and the public deserve. These types of contracts and leases should be getting appraised for fair market value, rather than picking some arbitrarily low number.

It was incumbent upon Lakey Boyd as CA President to fulfill her fiduciary duty to CA residents and prove that a valid methodology was used to establish these seemingly low monthly rent rates as the true market value for the CA-owned open space that she leased out to a tenant of the private developer Howard Hughes Corporation. Otherwise, the CA would be at risk of violating IRS Rev. Rul. 72-102, potentially putting the CA’s tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) non-profit service corporation in serious jeopardy.”

If you are still skeptical and not convinced yet, then be on the lookout for Part 3!

−5

JimboSkillet t1_je36x1y wrote

Cut to the chase already. Did anyone else want to rent this space for more? Who specifically?

17

blorbschploble t1_je37qe9 wrote

Yeah. Boyd could be satan incarnate but this NY Post quality tabloid prose doesn’t fly in HoCo/Columbia.

19

jakeburdett OP t1_je37kvk wrote

Not sure, but that doesn’t address the question of how was this huge monthly rent rate decrease arrived at? What was Lakey Boyd’s methodology of reaching these low rates? Was a fair market evaluation appraisal conducted, as it should have? You may be right that perhaps a rent reduction was justified to find a new tenant. But what she have been justified in renting it out at $1/month at that point? There needs to be a reasonable formula/methodology of arriving at these numbers, rather than choosing them arbitrarily, which would be a betrayal of her fiduciary duties to CA residents. I’m not sure the details of how this rate was calculated, and until we know, all we can do is speculate. But without knowing more, this did not seem even close to up to snuff.

−1

JimboSkillet t1_je383kj wrote

All you’re doing is speculating then?

16

jakeburdett OP t1_je38l6e wrote

No, it’s verifiably true that if the terms of the previous lease were kept, it would have resulted in over $1 million in additional revenue for the CA. Whether that is justified or not is speculation, I suppose, but until I’m given a convincing justification (which we have not been given), I’m led to believe this was a sweetheart deal.

−2

evergreenneedles t1_je3c06s wrote

But there wasn’t an active lease because that business closed. Covid changed many things, including real estate and the restaurant industry.

13

jakeburdett OP t1_je3cppn wrote

The previous tenant’s lease was active from 2013-2021, and the lease for the new tenant was signed in December 2021. Both tenants were in the same industry, using the same open space for the same reasons. So it is a good comparison

Your point about the pandemic is a good one, but keep in mind that the terms of Lakey’s 2021 contract can still be in place as late as 2032, well after the effects of COVID have subsided. I addressed the point you’re making in the blog. I’ve copied and pasted that part below, to show that residential tenants were certainly not extended this same courtesy:

“Defenders of former CA President Boyd may argue that the terms of the December 2021 lease contract awarded to the new Howard Hughes Corporation tenant (The Collective 13) was signed during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the lower monthly rent rate and no annual inflation adjustments were justified due to “pandemic hardship”.

It is true that many businesses were struggling financially during the pandemic and that the previous tenant did not renew their lease potentially because they were unable to afford the monthly rent rates they were being charged under their contract established in 2013.

In a case such as this one, would a rent reduction for a future tenant be justified?

Let’s address that question with a few other questions:

How many Howard Hughes Corporation residential tenants were either evicted or did not renew their leases during COVID due to financial hardship?

Did the future tenants who moved in after the prior tenants were forced out due to hardship also receive a 50%+ decrease in monthly rent?

It is highly doubtful that this occurred. Even if the extremely low rental rates in this 2021 CA contract were set using COVID hardship as justification, the contract spans 2021 to 2027 and could even be extended through 2032, well after the effects of COVID are no longer a significant justification for hardship.

Beyond that, even if a rent reduction was justified, how was this drastic of a reduction calculated? Why was inflation adjustment not included? Answers to these questions are exactly the kind that the CA Board of Directors and the public deserve. These types of contracts and leases should be getting appraised for fair market value, rather than picking some arbitrarily low number.

It was incumbent upon Lakey Boyd as CA President to fulfill her fiduciary duty to CA residents and prove that a valid methodology was used to establish these seemingly low monthly rent rates as the true market value for the CA-owned open space that she leased out to a tenant of the private developer Howard Hughes Corporation. Otherwise, the CA would be at risk of violating IRS Rev. Rul. 72-102, potentially putting the CA’s tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) non-profit service corporation in serious jeopardy.”

−1

GingerMan027 t1_je523ge wrote

I have lived here a long time. I kinda know a couple of people on the Board, knew about others indirectly. They're not getting rich from this.

I have dealt with the board on little issues before, they helped.

I guess if this is a pissing contest between the board and the Howard Hughes Corp., I'm believing the people who live here.

I think there is a lot of money to be made in development around here. Who stands to make it?

−1

cjftw17 t1_je2xlsp wrote

Good to hear another side to this story. Many of the biggest proponents of Boyd had almost comical conflicts of interest.

−9

jakeburdett OP t1_je2zpfi wrote

Yep! That will all be exposed in Part 4 of the blog! Let’s just hope it’s not too late to get the truth out there, and CA residents will see through the lies before the elections in April!

−3

hiruy2000 t1_je3c3q6 wrote

Comical, breathtaking, shocking, are just a few words I’d use to describe the conflicts of interest. Many of them rely on the benevolence of Howard Hughes Corporation for their survival.

−9