> Any reconfiguration of Block E was done to improve its public function. . .
>Dan McCaffery
But that's not the point! (Even if we all believed that those are
"improvements".)
The point is that we had a legally binding agreement between the City
Council and the developer. You can't change a contract after it is signed,
even if your changes are "improvements". And you certainly can't change it
without the knowledge of the other party. In this case, the other party is
the City Council (and not some city employee down in the planning or
licensing departments). It's quite clear from the current fuss that the
City Council did not know that Mr. McCaffery was maiking these
improvements" to their agreement.
So the City Council should hold firm, and demand that Mr. McCaffery deliver
what was agreed upon. And DO NOT issue any occupancy permit until that is
delivered in full!
People in Minneapolis are getting pretty tired of elected officials
knuckling under to developers, making sweetheart deals, and then not
demanding that the city actually get what we paid for. And the people are
showing this at the ballot box -- just ask any of the former elected
officials who aren't in City Hall any more! So elected officials should
take warning from this -- you are elected by the citizens of Minneapolis,
and they pay your salaries. They expect you to stand firm for the
city. And they'll vote you out of office if you don't!
Tim Bonham, Ward 12, Standish-Ericsson
_______________________________________
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
