"Malfeasance: Misconduct or wrongdoing, especially by a public official."
"Malfeasance : a wrongful act that the actor had no right to do; improper
professional conduct, 'he charged them with electoral malpractices'".
[Anglo-Norman malfaisance, from Old French malfaisant, malfeasant, present
participle of malfaire, to do evil, from Latin malefacere.]
Does the Target store fiasco rise to the level of malfeasance on the part of
Sharon Sayles Belton and the City Council members who voted in support of
this project? I would argue that a serious case can be made that those
decisions DO constitute malfeasance. The Target store subsidy may be the
single greatest financial mistake that city government has ever made in the
history of Minneapolis.
The Mayor and Jackie Cherryholmes have certainly ensured that historians
will look upon the 90s as the "TIF Era" in which a development tool intended
to erase urban blight was misused and distorted beyond recognition for the
purpose of short term political gains for an entrenched DFL party
establishment that had lost complete touch with the interests of
constituents.
What I find absolutely amazing is that in the face of the facts that show
the complete folly of the Target project and other failures of TIF, the
Mayor and her supporters are promising MORE OF THE SAME IF RE-ELECTED!
We the people, need to take back our city government from those who have
managed our finances and development projects in such a fiscally
irresponsible manner.
It will be interesting to see the supporters of the Mayor trying to defend
her TIF record after the devastating exposes of the last two days.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Jordan S. Kushner
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 9:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Mpls] Question(s) re Target subsidy.
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
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
