Actually Dave if you knew me, you would know that credit is not what I seek. I put the source in as a reference or "foundation". What I seek are projects that are good for Minneapolis. As many of the principals of this project would tell you, I think the money to re-open Nicolett is small mitigation for the City having ruined one of the great streets of Minneapolis for almost thirty years.
After ideas are expressed they become "public domain" and I am happy when they germinate, where ever the soil is. Dean Dovolis might tell you how some of those ideas have taken root in St. Paul, Lexington Kentucky, and other cities. Usually they have also been in large part due to some other source, as much as from me, so I am more than happy to let others have the credit. It is a big job to fix the ills of forty years of "planned" destruction of our City, and there are plenty of projects to go round for the next ten years if we spend wisely. It will take that long to reweave the fabric of this great community. IF we are lucky. On the subject of "Cost": Questions of public dollars are for the "people" to be able to make decisions about what to invest"their" dollars in. For too long developers have hidden the actual costs of projects in the jargon of Performa. The "Target" investment, the "Saks" investment, and the subsidies of half million dollar condominiums on the river are just a few of these projects that the public would have been outraged if they had actually seen a benefit/cost analysis of the real dollars spent. For this reason the public is gun-shy and no longer trusts in development. The way to restore that trust is to be right up front with the cost. What a refreshing concept - "Here is what you are going to get and here is what you are going to pay." Imagine, buying a car and having the dealer renegotiate the price upwards every year after you bought it. This would not be conducive to having the customer trust car dealerships. Or as a lawyer imagine representing a client and then after winning the case you renegotiate the settlement. These analogies are not too different than having developers renegotiate what they will give the public or re-negotiate what the cost will be. As a lawyer you would be sued for mal-practice for representing a client in such a manner. Yet political leadership representing "their" clients, (the public), in such a manner face little or no repercussions. (Of course with the FBI actions, and more indictments likely on the way, this may no longer be entirely true.) When this project did not fulfill 100% of my dreams for it I was a little upset by the turn of events, but then a young planner who had worked with me on projects (Antonio Rosel) gave me some sound advice. He said,"Jim, sure its not all you had planned, but it is 80% of the plan, and it does re-open Nicolett". Fortunately I have become old enough to not let the "desire for the best" stand in the way of "getting the good", so I accepted his very sound advice. I thank him for that advise and wish your project well. I don't mind buying, I just want to know what I am buying and what it will cost. Jim Graham, Ventura Village - DreamWeaver _______________________________________ 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
