SBJ.net Poll

Do you think John Q. Hammons had an unfair advantage in the competition to win development rights for the vacant plot in downtown Springfield? Why or why not?

For poll results, click here.

What Readers Think

Yes

Do incumbents have an advantage in an election? John Q. is an incumbent, so yeah, he probably had the advantage.

—Stephen Eiffert, e2 Video Services

JQH absolutely had an advantage over any developer … especially a developer from out of town. JQH had the concessions. No one can compete when the food and beverage is already assigned. That should have been disclosed upfront.

If not, shame on Springfield. If it was disclosed, shame on the developers for not acknowledging it sooner.

—Larry Grover, CJR Commercial Group

The man has too many holds on the city. I know he has the money, but sometimes I think the city gives it away. Remember, he promised to have the arena on St. Louis Street, then on campus. But he still wins.

—Steve San Paolo, Springfield Catholic Credit Union

No

Perhaps a business leader will always have an advantage in his own town. Why shouldn’t he? John Q. has chosen to remain a resident of Springfield to contribute and support the town.

—Sue Pummill, St. Paul (Minn.) Public Library

The only reason I think it wasn’t unfair is because he actually owned all of the surrounding properties/operating rights that were associated with the deal. He made all of the right moves to make it happen.

I think the only bogus move on his part was pitching a hotel on his own land that he apparently had no intention of developing whenever he didn’t get his way. He constructed the whole thing from the beginning when he gave the $30 million to MSU to nullify the arena plans for the vacant land next to the expo center. He knew what he was doing from the beginning.

I think he had the most advantages in the deal, but only because he set them up along the way, and nothing about them were unfair from a legal standpoint. Even the fact that he has a proven a track record with the city is a completely fair reason to use Hammons. If another developer had done all of the developments that Hammons had done in Springfield and was successful in completing them, then why shouldn’t they be seen as a proven developer? …

Having said all that, I still think he is a little ruthless in his quest to control the city’s future. People (dislike) him because he has all of the advantages and because of how he went about it, but the fact still remains that we live in America and that is how capitalism and our economy work, and there is nothing unfair about that.

—Jeffrey A. Smith, Burns & McDonnell

The answer is undoubtedly no. The question addresses the most “fair” man southwest Missouri has ever had the pleasure to call its own. He has done more for this community than many would or could.

—Drew Burns, Employee Benefit Design LLC

Developers do not undertake large projects without doing due diligence they need in order to show their investors or creditors why this is a good investment.

Obviously, Hammons is the only one who really knows what his plans are for the property surrounding that parcel, but his process showed him that he could pay more than the others were willing to for the parcel. He may have a slight advantage because he controls a lot of property around that parcel, but for the most part, he isn’t any different than any other investor or developer.

—Jeff Prose, Richmond Monroe Group

An advantage? Definitely, as he should with all the development he has done.

But unfair? No. He is the best equipped to know the needs of the area and the best equipped to make it successful.

—Virginia Mee, Drury University

Current Question

Are you in favor of a property tax levy increase to support expansion of Ozarks Technical Community College’s allied health, technical and work force development programs? Why or why not?

Vote at sbj.net/poll.