I'm not going to rehash my interpretation of the facts, which I stand by. But let me tell you how I **feel** about the issue. I felt that, if the developers could meet some of the neighborhood and business concerns, that a compromise could have been reached. I walked out of the meeting on Sept. 13th pleased because I thought that had happened.
For me, the fact that the developers said they had "secured" (past tense) the parking was the critical factor in my decision to support what I thought was an emerging compromise. Had I known that there wasn't a firm agreement for parking in place on Sept. 13th, I would not have publicly praised the developers for meeting neighborhood concerns - I would have said IF they locked down the parking (and the condemnation issue), then we have the beginnings of a compromise. There were people after the Sept. 13th meeting who told me that the developers were probably lying - they don't have an agreement, they said. I dismissed their objections -- I felt it was **inconceivable** that anyone could possibly say, at a public meeting with hundreds of residents in attendance, that they had "secured" parking unless they really had done so. So I came out in support of the compromise. So when I discovered that the parking agreement was not what it had been represented to be, I was absolutely dumb-founded. I still am. Given all the emotion, and the real need to rebuild trust with the community, the developers' failure to be completely candid about the clinic parking was, for me, simply breathtaking. I felt strongly that the developers' misstatement was a real breach of faith. I still do. I apologize if my feelings have inappropriately colored my rhetoric. My position on the project itself, though, remains the same. For me, the difference between having "secured" a 5-year lease and having an unenforceable agreement in principle (which proposes a six month termination clause, by the way) is THE difference between a deal I can live with, and a deal which does not adequately protect the interests of the neighbors and local businesses. I'm a lawyer. I've made a good living representing clients who have foolishly attempted to negotiate their own contracts. I know all too well that a poorly drafted contract offers very little protection in case of a breach. And, as a practical matter, once the building is built there is very little that anyone can do to enforce these promises. The importance of affordable housing should not blind us to the need to work out these details first, before the project is given the green light. Because if the details aren't worked out in advance, they will never be worked out at all. And if these details aren't important enough to work out, you're telling the community that their legitimate concerns aren't important. That, in my judgment, is the worst outcome of all. As for political opportunism -- the "opportunistic" strategy would have been to mindlessly continue criticizing the project, regardless of anything that happened during or after the Sept. 13th meeting. And, frankly, it defies logic to claim that my handling of this issue over the last 2 weeks has improved my chances of winning the election. I hope, but am skeptical, that this post will be received in the spirit in which it is intended. Greg -- Greg Abbott for City Council 13th Ward http://www.gregabbott.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612.925.0630 -- _______________________________________ 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
