A few points about the Park Board purchase of the new headquarters building.
1) The real estate agent is a former Park Board Commissioner, whom I have met but have forgotten his name. This real estate agent would make a commission on this property no matter whom he sold it to. There was no monetary incentive for him to sell it to the Park Board, in fact he could of gone slow and looked harder for other buyers who might have paid more for it, and thus generated a higher commission for himself. 2) It is technically correct to say that the Park Board was not "actively" seeking a new location for a new headquarters. However, the reason that Minneapolis has such a great and extensive park system, is because the Board in its 120 year existence has consistently acted aggressively to acquire new lands when opportunity presented itself. In my 8 years on the Park Board, I participated in many informal discussions with staff, including former superintendent David Fisher, other board members and others, about acquiring property for a headquarters "out in the park system." The property that generated the most discussion was the Bureau of Mines campus near the Vets Hospital. This property was looked at as a potential site for a new maintenance facility and/or administrative headquarters. The Airport, National Park Service, MinnDot, Private groups, and Lord knows who, all looked at this property to some degree -- competition for the land and buildings was intense and convoluted, and no proposal ever got to the point of the Park Board taking any formal action to acquire it took place, as best I can remember. The desire to have the headquarters "back in the Park System" has always been in the back of peoples' minds. 3) The Park Board administrative headquarters use to be housed in City Hall. When space got tight, the Park Board got kicked out to City Hall and went across the street to he Public Health Building (it has a different name now). When space got tight there the Park Board got kicked out and moved to rented space in the Flour Exchange Building. In 1993 the Park Board moved to its present location in rented space in the Grain Exchange Building. The Park Board is the only government entity that does not have its own building. 4) The new building on West River Parkway, near Broadway, will be paid for by money that is now being used to pay rent to the Grain Exchange and for expensive parking in the Jerry Haaf ramp. No new money needs to be raised to pay for this building. 5) Bringing more land into the Park System is a major strategy of the Upper River Master Plan. Dean Zimmermann Mpls City Council - Ward 6 612-673-2206 ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 11:34 AM Subject: [Mpls] Fwd: park board questions > Although I've not found out from the Park Board "Who brokered this deal" for their new facility, I have a theory, and would appreciate confirmation if anyone has the facts, which goes thus: The Park Board said they were not actively looking for a space, had no realtor or broker searching high and low for the best deal in town for the ideal property. Along came Mr. Broker who represented the Moore Building, and said "Have I got the building for you!" Commissioners knew money was tight and it wasn't their top priority but hey we trust Mr. Broker's judgement we'll take a look. Nevermind, Mr. Broker will make a very nice commission we'll get a great space. The property was bid on and closed in 2 months behind closed doors (B. Fine said it was open to the public, but the June minutes reflect that the public part of the meeting was closed prior to the discussion and vote of buying this hot property, with no answers to the numerous provocative and well-articulated questions voiced by V. Mason at that meeting.), pounced on over everyone and anyone's doubts, including an override of Mayor Rybak's veto. All this without looking at any other properties or options, presumably, because, to paraphrase what happened, "It's a hot property and we need to act fast," and "Oh by the way, that'll be another $100k because suddenly there is "a competing bid." As stated,Vivian Mason raised numerous pertinent and important questions during the June meeting where this resolution to buy was passed. She received not one answer according to the minutes. Not one. Except that there wasn't time to scrutinize the decision--they had to act NOW--but they had the answers to these great questions in their minds, again paraphrasing. And that's where the answers to Vivian's questions have stayed. In the minds of the Park Board members who rammed this down the public throat this summer. Next thing you know, the taxpayers just bought a $3 million rehab. Only Vivian Mason and John Irwin objected to the purchase. I'd like an answer to this question from the Park Board--was former Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Commissioner Sherm Malkerson, or his company involved with this transaction? And since the Park Board has tried to justify this purchase with smokescreens/screens of numbers, formulas and figures, I would be very interested in seeing the numbers on Mr. Malkerson's commission. There are more questions for which we need answers regarding this transaction; I would be very interested in further explorations of how this was the best deal for the taxpayers and our parks. I find myself wondering exactly who this transaction benefited most this summer, and who it is going to benefit most in the coming months and years. I would not be a bit surprised if the answer turns out not to be the citizens of Minneapolis. I think it would be a mistake for everyone to quit thinking about this just because Park Board has said it's a done deal. Wade Russell longfellow > _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
