A Citizen’s Questions, a Developer’s Response: What Happened on October 15
A personal account of an unsettling public exchange—and why transparency and accountability matter.
At the October 15 NorthPoint meeting concerning Sunset Crossroads, I witnessed an exchange that left me shocked. A citizen was seeking answers about Development Impact Fee (DIF) credits for land being dedicated for a possible fire station. Instead of a clear explanation, he was met with categorical denials, condescending remarks, and repeated redirection away from his question.
The two NorthPoint representatives involved were Joel Schrenk, Regional Representative, and Brent Miles, Founding Partner & Chief Marketing Officer of NorthPoint Development.
What Was the Citizen Asking?
He wanted to understand how DIF credits for the fire station land would be calculated. Would the credit reflect the land’s original residential value or its potentially much higher value under the new industrial designation? Could that change substantially increase the credit—potentially to three times the land’s original value—and would that be fair to the public?
These are legitimate questions about the financial implications of the agreement.
What Does the Agreement Say?
The Development Agreement does address DIF credits for the fire station land. The relevant provisions include:
- Section 5.8.1: Addresses the reservation and dedication of land for a future fire station.
- Section 5.12.3: Provides for credits against applicable fees for qualifying improvements and dedications, subject to the City’s DIF program and its limits.
- Exhibit G-2, Recital F: Specifically identifies the fire station property among the properties to be dedicated in exchange for DIF credits following dedication.
- Exhibit G-2, Section 14.5.1: Also addresses the fire station property dedication.
The agreement expressly contemplates a DIF credit for the fire station property once it is dedicated, subject to the agreement’s conditions. Yet neither representative acknowledged these provisions or explained how they would apply.
That raises a separate question about the credit’s valuation. If the land’s value increased substantially when its designation changes from residential to industrial, would the value used to determine the credit reflect that increase? Could the resulting credit be as much as three times the land’s original value?
The provisions cited establish that DIF credits are contemplated, but the precise valuation method and resulting amount must be confirmed through the applicable DIF program and contractual provisions. That is why the citizen’s question deserved a direct, document-based answer—not a categorical denial.
Denials Instead of Documentation
During the conversation, Brent Miles of NorthPoint told the citizen:
“You’re a million percent wrong on that.”
He also said:
“Well, I don’t know if you can read, and I don’t know what you read.”
And:
“It’s just not true.”
The citizen explained that he had read the agreement and asked for it to be brought forward. Miles replied:
“We’re not going to do that now.”
These remarks did not explain the applicable DIF provisions or resolve the citizen’s question. Instead, his understanding was dismissed without the relevant agreement language being substantively addressed.
Why I Describe the Interaction as Condescending and Gaslighting
What concerned me was not simply a disagreement. It was the combination of categorical denials, remarks belittling the citizen’s ability to understand what he had read, and the failure to address the provisions he was asking about.
I experienced the interaction as condescending because the citizen’s understanding was belittled instead of his question being addressed on its merits.
I also believe the interaction amounted to gaslighting. The citizen raised a question grounded in the written agreement, yet he was emphatically told he was wrong while the relevant provisions went unacknowledged. The repeated redirection left his central question unanswered and undermined his position without resolving the factual issue.
I cannot know what the representatives privately intended, but I can describe what I witnessed and why it concerned me.
My Regret—and the Public’s Right to Answers
I wish I had spoken up. I regret not supporting the citizen and asking that the relevant agreement provisions be addressed directly. I was equally disappointed that the mayor and another council member did not intervene.
Public meetings should provide opportunities for residents to ask questions and receive clear, evidence-based answers. Transparency means more than making documents available; it means being willing to address what those documents say and explain their implications.
Banning residents deserve clear answers, respectful public engagement, and accountability from both the developer and their elected representatives.
I encourage readers to watch the exchange and review the agreement for themselves. Read the provisions. Listen to the conversation. Then decide whether the citizen’s question was adequately answered.
Development Agreement: Sections 5.8.1 and 5.12.3; Exhibit G-2, Recital F and Section 14.5.1.