I'm sorry Brian Rice didn't appreciate my humor. I strove to avoid personal attacks and stick to policy satire only. (Thankfully, the real Wally Swan has not been in touch.) I'm no Will Rogers, but his statue is in the nation's Capitol because he was able to use his wit to effectively and entertainingly comment on the politics of the day.
I appreciate Brian's explanation of his thinking, though I think he engages in a lot of unexampled speculation about the motives and knowledge of list members. While it is certainly fine to disagree on the merits of the purchase, I should note that Commissioner John Erwin - who is, no doubt, up to speed - made the rather eloquent point that with a shorter borrowing term and higher monthly payments, rent will be needed to service headquarters debt, rather than produce income for the Park Board. I think in general, people agree that owning is better than renting, an argument proponents wrap themselves up in. But proponents, in my opinion, are unconvincing that this is the best ownership opportunity available. I think several good arguments have been advanced, including the overall development of nearby sites. Also, I *have* studied the numbers - and I am suspicious of the Park Board's comparative data. They assume that if they renewed their current lease, they'd get hit with a rather hefty rent hike (I don't have the exact figure at home, but it is mid-to-high double digits.) With downtown vacancy rates being the highest they've been for 20 years, a jump of that magnitude seems unlikely. And even if the current landlord hung tough, there was no shopping for a better rent deal elsewhere. And that hefty one-year rent prediction formed the baseline for the future-year comparisons - skewing the numbers in favor of ownership. I do not want to attack Brian personally. But as a representative of the Park Board, I do think his attitude is troubling, as if he is saying "how dare the hoi polloi venture an opinion in these matters without, say, being an elected official or bond counsel." This is an attitude, frankly, that led to the defeat of many of the last city council's powers. I think there is new and welcome scrutiny of the Park Board. Brian chooses to believe this is a harbinger of talk-radio government; I think a more likely outcome is that an active, engaged citizenry will produce better and better-supported public policy. Finally, for any criticism of the forum: proponents - until Brian's post - have simply not gotten in the game. If "antis" dominate here, it is because "pros" have not exposed their arguments to this forum and thus have conceded a walkover. That is not the fault of those who disagree with the Park Board's policies, in my opinion. David Brauer King Field Park user Willing taxpayer _______________________________________ 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
