MICHAEL FERGUSON II: Selective outrage and the illusion of equity in Albany

Albany, Georgia, is the kind of place where distance is measured less in miles and more in relationships. Six degrees of separation feels generous here — most of us are only one or two handshakes removed. Because of that, context matters.

Stories here don’t stand alone; they carry history, shared experience, and the credibility of those who were present when the work was done. I offer that as necessary backstory.

Nearly two decades ago, developer Orlando Rambo and I worked together to successfully develop a first-time homebuyer community on the southside. In partnership with a local bank and HUD, we helped create a pathway to homeownership for families long locked out of the market. It was not theoretical, it was executed.

Orlando and I graduated high school together some 40 years ago. I have seen first-hand what it takes to operate as a developer without deep access to capital. The work requires persistence, relationships, and endurance that often go unrecognized in public conversations about development.

I am also old enough to remember when a program, once led by Pinky Douglass, was created to integrate minority developers into government contracting. Its intent was clear. Its outcome was more complicated.

Over time, the structure was manipulated. Representation was present, but control often was not. The resources flowed, but not in ways that built lasting capacity within underserved communities. The result was participation that did not always translate into long-term economic positioning.

When efforts were made to shift that dynamic, resistance followed. Developers from neighboring Lee County signaled legal action when the possibility of a more level playing field emerged. That response alone revealed how contested true equity can become. This is why I have long supported Affirmative Action, not as preference, but as policy grounded in correction.

Its foundation is not abstract. It is rooted in the Constitution itself. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, but freedom alone did not establish access. The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed equal protection, yet equality under law did not automatically produce equality in opportunity.

The Fifteenth Amendment secured voting rights, though even those required continued protection to be realized. Affirmative Action was developed as a policy response to close that gap, to move constitutional promises into practical outcomes in areas like education, employment, and contracting. That framework was clear.

What followed has been less so. The language of diversity and inclusion expanded the conversation, but not always the results. In some cases, the focus shifted away from measurable outcomes toward representation alone. Presence increased, but decision-making authority and economic control did not always follow.

In a community like Albany, that distinction is not theoretical, it is visible. We are not lacking in representation. The greater challenge remains access to capital, contracts, and the ability to lead development in a way that produces lasting economic impact.

Which brings us to the present. More recently, conversations around downtown development — particularly those involving the Look Again Group — have drawn increased attention. As with any project involving public interest, the expectations should remain consistent: transparency, accountability, and a clear understanding of how these developments serve the broader community.

Commissioner Chad Warbington has, at times, taken positions that reflect a familiar pattern — raising the prospect of legal action when facing scrutiny over a land acquisition involving Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, while also supporting the use of Albany Utilities refund dollars toward a development initiative connected to that same institution.

More recently, the Sowega Council on Aging sold a property that received $3.5 million in public funding for renovation intended to serve the senior community. Yet there has been little public discussion of any formal agreement outlining protections for that investment, such as conditions, long-term use requirements, or clawback provisions in the event of a sale. That absence raises reasonable questions.

Equally notable is the difference in response. Some projects are met with heightened scrutiny and calls for fiscal restraint, while others move forward with far less public concern. The contrast is difficult to ignore.

Mayor Bo Dorough recently shared that these decisions are difficult when asked about his support for the latest downtown development. He also suggested that, as an “outsider,” I may not fully understand the complexities involved. Respectfully, I understand more than enough.

I understand what it means to be a taxpayer in this city. I understand what it means to participate in development without the advantage of excess capital. And I understand that complexity should never be used as a substitute for clarity or consistency.

There also has been a noticeable emphasis from the mayor on revisiting the failed brewery project and its previous ownership. That focus, in my view, reflects a broader pattern that does not require “inside” information to recognize.

From where many of us sit, it appears that certain projects receive more attention and alignment than others. Whether intentional or not, that perception carries weight in a community where public trust is already fragile.

It is also worth noting the acquisition of the flower shop and surrounding properties at a price that, to many observers, appeared to exceed fair market value. In an open session, it was acknowledged that the owners were personal friends. That context matters. Not because relationships are uncommon in a city like Albany, but because when public funds intersect with personal relationships, the expectation of transparency and objectivity must rise accordingly.

Even the appearance of preferential treatment can erode public confidence. And in matters involving taxpayer dollars, perception is central to maintaining trust.

In closing, in reference to recent correspondence from Carlton Fletcher concerning these matters, there is at least one point of agreement: Our city has a track record of business decisions that warrant closer scrutiny — and that pattern must change.

In the case of the  Look Again Group’s proposal, it was not, in my view, the strongest submission. When asked, I shared that perspective directly with Orlando and offered recommendations on how it could be strengthened. That is what honest engagement looks like.

It is my hope that this project proves successful and helps break the cycle of underperforming investments utilizing taxpayer dollars. My past experience working with Orlando gives me reason to believe that, given a level playing field, he and his team are capable of meeting the challenge. And if there is any way I can contribute — through insight, experience, or support — I remain a phone call away.

At times, I find myself asking: Where are leaders like Jalen Johnson and Bob Langstaff when you need them? Their absence is felt, and it raises broader questions about how leadership evolves in this city: who is elevated, who is removed, and who ultimately decides. Those once labeled “outsiders” can quickly become “insiders,” while others are pushed to the margins. That cycle deserves reflection.

And to the point about “outsiders,” let’s be clear. Those labeled as outsiders are, in fact, the very people who determine who is on the inside. They are taxpayers. They are stakeholders. Most importantly, they are voters.

Oversight is necessary. Accountability is necessary. But both must be applied consistently. You cannot claim fiscal discipline on Monday and abandon it on Tuesday when the deal benefits your circle. Albany deserves more than selective outrage; we deserve consistency, transparency, and leadership that does not change with convenience.