Jordan writes: > > I don't see why higher land costs should be an obstacle to a > city-supported downtown co-op. If it received a tiny fraction of the > subsidies for other downtown commerical development, or the kind of deal > on MCDA property given to political favorites like Ryan Construction > Company, we could easily have an affordable and thriving co-op.
Well, I don't know if we have to go to Ryan levels (besides, state TIF law changes make it impossible to draw in taxes from several adjacent blocks, as happened with the Target store) but... Jordan's argument brings to mind a couple of other interesting philosophical points: 1. You could argue that a Downtown coop - which would almost certainly start out smaller than a Lunds - would actually require a bigger subsidy than a Lunds. How? It depends on your definition of subsidy. If you use the Jim Boyd definition - that TIF is not a subsidy because the developer pays the same property tax level - than a Lunds does not affect the tax base (the new taxes Lunds pays merely pay off costs of the new project). However, a coop would almost certainly generate too little new property taxes to pay off ITS land acquisition costs. Most likely, it would take a direct appropriation - from the current tax base - to make it happen. In other words: with a Lunds, you net tax balance remains level; with a coop, your net taxes might actually drop. Now of course, there are other factors that come into play - your feelings about shareholder-owned versus member-owned, corporate values versus co-op values, etc. But my point is, if you're on the coop side, you have to admit you may actually be spending MORE (in terms of net tax dollars) to do a co-op deal. 2. Elitism. Now, I've been a member of the Wedge since memberships were $20, but I can tell you, it's the only place that might be more expensive than a Lunds. Hey, that's cool - I pay for quality food and more sustainable agriculture. BUT if one of your social goals is to have a grocery that's affordable to the most residents, a Lund's may not be the epitome, but it's incrementally more affordable than most co-ops. And if you want co-ops in all four corners of downtown, they will be smaller and thus their costs will be even higher. I'm a believer and participant in the co-op movement, but I'm glad it's not the only major grocery option (for now). So I believe that when it comes to city participation, it's not all mom-and-organic-apple-pie here. Call these contrarian notions food for thought. Love to have more courses to this feast! David Brauer King Field - Ward 10 Wedge member _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________ 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
