Tomorrow's Strib has a long article about the controversy over the
city's mega subsidy to Target.
http://www.startribune.com/st/qview.cgi?template=metro_a_cache&slug=targ10
While some CMs have acknowledged their mistake, tt is amazing that SSB
and council member Joan Campbell are still vigorously defending the
project.
the article puts the total amount of the subsidy at $62 million, or $160
per resident. It is interesting that before city council approval of
the project, council member Lisa Goodman, who opposed the project,
estimated that the Target would cost $150 per resident, and Rebecca
Yanisch responded with a memo that the cost would not exceed $46 per
resident. I recently heard a figure from a city council member,
however, that it the subsidy is worth "more than $127 million," and
would like to get more information about how the subsidy is calculated.
The article indicates that there are also some variable costs, such as
the city actually becoming responsible for the $93 million of bond debt
if the store fails. It is also absolutely amazing that, according to
the article, the city did not do any market study to determine if the
store was likely to succeed, before making such a huge investment and
taking on such huge risks.
I have two questions for those more familiar with City finances. 1) Is
$62 million the most accurate figure for the minimum public subsidy? 2)
what is the maximum amount that the city will have to spend if things go
badly?
Also, for RT Ryback - the article mentions that RT used to support a
subsidized Target store and was actually at one time a paid consultant
to promote the project, but then changed his position. When and what
sort of consulting did RT do? When exactly did RT change his position
and when did he begin to publicly express opposition?
Jordan Kushner
Powderhorn, Ward 8
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
