I 'm not sure if I understand completely how this idea
will work.
It sounds great for Ms McDonald to say she will
increase spending on Affordable Housing by $50
million/year for the next five years without raising
taxes but as they say "there's no free lunch."
If i understand the Strib article detailing her "plan"
the city will issue $250 million in bonds which they
will then pay off over 30 years at an annual cost of
$20 million. Whew! Scares the heck out of me.
She blithely adds that she would use an assortment of
city revenues to pay the cost. Could we please be a
bit more specific? Is this another SSB shell game
whereby we say we are not raising taxes as we let
loose an army of assessors to jack up estimated market
valuations?
Then she goes on to talk about gradually shifting
federal development aid from subsidizing several city
departments and some building projects, using federal
rental subsidies for home ownership and use a portion
of the property tax when downtown TIf districts expire
in 2009.
Wait a minute! Is this voodoo economics or fuzzy math
class?
I'm not suggesting that we not be concerned about A.H.
but to suggest it won't necessitate raising taxes
without telling us what else will happen give is less
than forthcoming.
How will we provide for additional payments into the
infrastructure fund if we're chewing off another $20
milion a year? What will we do between now and 2009
when the downtown TIF districts expire? What Federal
development aid subsidizing several city depts. will
this be? What departments? How will we fund them
otherwise or will we just cut?
I'm not sure i like the Mayor's idea of a referendum
any better except that it is more honest. I'm not sure
the public will buy on to the program?
R.T.'s comment of these ideas by LMc and SSB as
election year conversions is pretty right on. But the
idea of a "Housing Czar"!? Why not "Czarina"? I've
never liked the Czar idea. It's always sounded like a
public relations/marketing buzzword ploy.
I'm not sure how much the city can realistically do
about Affordable Housing. These are noble sentiments
but given our financial situation Lisa's plan might be
hard to accomplish. If the city didn't have the funds
in hand last year to fund the total infrastructure
plan for the Hollman development where will it come up
with the $$$ to pay off the bonds unless it is a Ponzi
scheme whereby we take a portion of the bond proceeds
to pay off the bonds.
Do we have an idea how many dollars in property tax
revenue we can expect from the new properties? And
what happens if the legislature completely revamps the
system? How will this money be used? Are we talking
about loans to developers? Are we building public
housing? How much will the $50 million in public money
leverage from the private sector? How does this relate
to the property tax structure?
There are a lot of unanswered questions here is my
point. This may be the greatest idea since sliced
bread but I need to know a lot more before i would
sign on to this plan. In the meantime, pardon my
skepticism.
But maybe I just don't understand. In that case Lisa
can enlighten me as she did this morning when she
pointed out to me that she had included a ban on
future drive thrus in the overlay districts of the
city's new zoning plan which has already taken effect.
Tim Connolly
Ward 7
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
