About the parking ramp editorial... I'm out in California and away from my files, but I recall Strib reporter Mike Meyers' Target Store expose indicated that the city subsidized the Target Store parking ramp with a floor specifically dedicated to Target shoppers. I think that violates even the Strib's ultra-constricted definition of what constitutes a subsidy.
Of course, as Wade noted, any businessperson will tell you that if someone else (in this case, the city) puts up their money for a capital improvement you need (a parking ramp), that's money you save or don't have to borrow. The Strib's larger point - that the city profits from parking doesn't cancel the notion that you've also subsidized a corporation. The two can exist side-by-side. It's also important to note one other bit of editorial sophistry: under the rubric of "the larger area needs more parking, so building a ramp is no subsidy," the Strib slides a lot of subsidy under the tent. Yes, city studies say that the S. Nicollet Mall and Walker areas need more parking. But there's no doubt the city is building HUNDREDS of extra spaces above and beyond the pre-existing need to accommodate new uses (Target Corp., Walker expansion). The Strib has been reliably pro-subsidy, arguing that it builds the city. Don't be fooled by this attempt to change language without changing meaning. David Brauer King Field - Ward 10 _______________________________________ 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
