The problem is not with the developers. The problem is with the City of Minneapolis staff and elected overseers, (otherwise known as politicians). If either group were a Real Estate professionals they would be sued for not representing their clients,(US), interests in a fiduciary responsible way. We could then at least be paid by their errors and omissions insurance.
When I have raised the possibility of "Conditional Deed" or title with MCDA officials, I am usually looked at like I am an idiot or an irritant. (Both of which may be true, but not without cause in this case). We the people of Minneapolis, who pay taxes, should be able to have certain guarantees about how land will be used, especially if we are using imminent domain to obtain it and tax dollars to subsidize a particular development. At the neighborhood level, we are guaranteed certain features in a development, in order to get support for it and stop court actions before the City gives down the cash and land. Then the developer goes about building something different, sometimes with the collusion of City staff and/or leaders. "Tell the idiots what they want to hear until we are out the door". Remember the parking lots at Lyndale and Lake. Really needed them until the old businesses were torn down and confiscated, then have the cronies, and possibly business partners, of City Council Members start look at developing the parking lots. How about the oversight of NRP funds and City owned land along Lake Street in Central Neighborhood? Federal Indictments, but looks like work is proceeding. Might even be an even better deal for the developer? One City Councilman is in jail, and the others are out of office and certainly might be hesitant in coming forward for their percentage. I believe the principles called it "5%'ers". I would suggest that no future deals be cut without the simply consideration of a "Deed" conditional upon performance. You can always add a exemption allowing for changes if approved by the condition holder, the City or the Neighborhood. It is only good business. Of course this is an area where the City has little experience. My last question is for the legal staff of the City Attorney's Office. Why have you not advised your client, the City and the Public about such Conditional Deeds? We might need the services of a professional legal firm that specializes in Real Estate. They are cheap compared to the cost of bad legal advice. Jim Graham, Ventura Village ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Atherton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Mpls List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [Mpls] Block E: An undone deal? > List Manager wrote: > > > Speaking of zoning and planning, there's a fascinating story in the > > Strib today about Block E. Seems the finished product is different from > > what developers agreed to with the city (no public restrooms, no > > ground-floor connection between Hennepin and 1st Ave. N., no outdoor > > escalator and differently configured bus shelters). > > > > The question is, what can/should the city do now? Apparently, there is a > > Planning Commission meeting on the matter Monday...welcome back from > > holiday! > > This seems to be a consistent problem at all levels of city government, from > the council down to NRP contractors. You can't give contracts to developers > and rely on their good faith to deliver as promised, you have to detail > exact specifications and penalties in the original contracts. > > Michael Atherton > Prospect Park > > _______________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________ 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
