Sorry to post a second time in one day but I'm responding to questions
raised by my earlier post:
David Brauer asked if I was advocating spending money on office tenants.
Absolutely not. Please go back and reread my post more carefully because I
am specifically saying that the city SHOULD NOT subsidize office tenants
with our tax dollars; we need a mayor who can attract them with her, or his,
salesmanship...not with the public checkbook.
In fact, the problem we have right now is that the Mayor has been willing
to spend taxpayer money to subsidize development, but missing in action in
several key cases when she could have been attracting private investment
without a subsidy. Tenants leave, we pay higher taxes.
As I said, we need a mayor who can attract private investment without
subsidy so tax dollars can be used on the real needs of the city. An
effective leader who attracts private dollars can save the money now going
to development so it can be used to help solve the affordable housing
crisis...where, I also think...we can be attracting more private investment.
On the point David makes below I couldn't agree more: He raises an extremely
serious issue and, yes, I also agree that it's one a Mayoral candidate
should also be raising:
R.T. Rybak
www.rtformayor.com
David wrote:
>I have heard that the city's internal services deficit (where departments
don't pay purchasing back for equipment they order) has been funded by
drawing down enterprise funds - instead of borrowing, which would show up
more publicly on bond house credit >.ratings.
>I'm not sure if that's why the garbage >fund went red...but if it did, the
>litter-collection failure is a DIRECT >>(if somewhat delayed) result of
fiscal
>mismanagement...a real issue for a >>>.mayoral challenger to attack!
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
