Your questions about public investment are fair, Jim. I'll work on putting the number together and get back to the list ASAP. In all truth Sherman is not trying to hide anything. I just don't have one big number because the financing is really complicated. It's not like there is a line item in the pro forma that asks the city to just write out a big check for $x million. There are tax credits, empowerment zone bonds, TIF or tax abatement, infrastructure costs, LCDA funds and they come from different programs from various levels of government.
Here are the categories for public expenditures: 1. subsidy to make the housing affordable (local, state, met council, federal tax credits) 2. Structured parking 3. Land acquisition for Lake Street and for Nicollet Ave. 4. Costs for Nicollet infrastructure, including bridge over the greenway Second, we need to have a discussion about what is subsidy v. public investment. For example, is it a subsidy to Sherman if the city builds a new bridge over the greenway and pays to reconnect Nicollet? Third, once we come up with a number, people need to acurately explain what its going toward. I can just hear the grandstanding about subsidy to the "Cub project" when in fact TIF and tax credits are used to build 300 units of affordable housing. Lastly, Jim, you do deserve credit for the idea. In fact, I had your name in the message I wrote but pulled it just before i sent it. I don't know you and didn't know if you would want "credit" or not. Now I know....you obviously want credit. dave harstad whittier --- JIM GRAHAM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe you have earned your money on this one > Mr. Harstad. I also believe you may have been a > little > creative with the history of who came to whom, and > asked > what, which originated Sherman's involvement in the > project. > I do not remember you being at Lo's restaurant, with > all > of us and Lisa McDonald, when Sherman first became > involved, so we will allow you a little "Negotiated > Reality". > > Such "negotiated" reality is not uncommon with > history, > so it is permissible, but your company should be a > little > more up front about the level of public subsidy the > project will require. I do not argue that the > project will be > beneficial, I simply ask that Sherman Associates be > up > front and truthful about the level of subsidy from > public > dollars. > > The past City Council and Mayor could get away with > stretching the truth from a few million to 30 > million to > 60 million, to perhaps 90 million dollars of subsidy > for > such projects as "Target", but public scrutiny and > campaign promises from the present city government > will make this a little more difficult. If you, and > they, are > not completely forthcoming about the true amount of > public subsidy the project will take, perhaps we > should > hold you legally libel, and them politically libel. > > As one of the people who originally conceived of > this > project with Hung Tran (I originally drew it on the > back > of a place mat for Martin Sabo at the lunch counter > in > Butler Drug five years ago) and "brought" the > project to Sherman through Dean Dovolis of DJR, I do > > have some background knowledge of the project. > > Just tell the truth about how much public money will > be > needed, what ever the source, and let the public > decide > if they want to pick up the tab. Statements like > "rundown > of the pro forma is outside the scope of this forum, > but I'd > be happy to share it with anyone off list" make me > suspicious. > > ( [DH] Not true. Not only does Sherman have > numbers > that work, the numbers work without > significant > subsidy. A rundown of the pro forma > is outside > the scope of this forum, but I'd be > happy to share > it with anyone off list.) > > Why not just say what it will actually cost in > public subsidy. > $20 million? 30 million? We do not need to see a > performa > to understand what the total public cost is. When I > was > introducing the project to Paul Ostrow over lunch a > couple of > years ago, I believe the figure was approaching $20 > million. > There is more housing and less retail now, so what > could have > reduced the "Public Cost"? Did K-Mart agree to sell > out > for less? Are your anchor tenants going to kick in a > greater > amount? Is Sherman Associates willing to pick up a > greater > amount of the investment dollars? Do you have > another > partner willing to invest its own dollars? > > Not that we don't mostly support re-opening > Nicollet, (I ran > on the issue and beat up on Jim Niland about it five > years > ago), but these are important questions the answers > to > which "Inquiring Minds Would Like To Know". > > Jim Graham, > Ventura Village > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.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
