Top Ten Problems with Lobbyist Rice's Post (The thoughtful version)
1. Violates the rules: What neighborhood and ward does Lobbyist Rice live in? This is a list of citizens -- not professionals. On this list we can not hide behind our jobs or titles, but are brought "down to" the level of every day citizen 2. People who disagree are stupid: Rice assumes everyone who disagrees with him is uninformed and stupid. Now, I certainly may not like what people on the list think/say on different issues, but I certainly wouldn't call them stupid for not agreeing with me. I am sure if Lawyer Rice tried that argument in court -- it would be thrown out. 3. David Braur posted a satirical piece -- not the list moderator. David often participates as a fellow citizen with opinions and that is fantastic. With a separate email account and addy he moderates the list. The moderator doesn't post opinions, just like David doesn't police us from his personal account. I like that. 4. "Smug Snideness". I know everyone interprets the last election where many of Rice's friends (and clients) were thrown out of office in a different way. My perception is that one of the reasons that there was such a dramatic statement from the citizens is that they were tired of a group of people who thought they knew more, were more important, and didn't need to listen to differing opinions. That is clearly the situation both with the Park Board and their Lawyer. 5. No Details. I read Ms. Phillips information which Lobbyist Rice proposes details the factors that lead to the Park Board decision. I only saw two factors: earn equity, and rent neutral. It doe not address any of the concerns raised on this list, by the city staff, the council, the mayor or the dissenting members of the Park Board. There is absolutely nothing in the provided information which supports Rice's proposition that it would change our uninformed judgments. 6. Incompatible Information: The numbers I have seen don't jive with Rice's contention that if someone leases space the site will be a "profit center" This is a big decision and has a long term impact on the future of the city. There clearly is not general agreement on either the facts at hand -- or the proper course of action. 7. Long Term Planning: Lobbyist Rice comments that "Unlike the County which has a long term space plan and strategy, the City has given relatively little thought to its needs." He is correct. Under the previous administration and council to which Lobbyist Rice was closely affiliated there was "an-act-now-think-later" mentality. It was the new administration and council that put on the breaks and started a process of budgeting which took the entire financial health of the city into consideration. It is within this perspective -- not in spite of it-- that they vetoed the Park Board's misguided request. 8. Irony: Rice credits the City Council's initial vote against the bonds for forcing the Park Board to come up with a creative solution to finance their White Elephant. Great! If that one week allowed them to come up with a better solution -- think what a couple months addressing city staff, council, mayor and resident's concerns could do! Perhaps there would be a solution everyone could support. 9. Independence: The Park Board often points to its independence -- an independence that they as elected officials and we as citizens have historically supported. Recently one of the Park Board's "greenest" members said that the attempts to cap property tax increases in Minneapolis was an attempt to "take over" the Park Board. My limited understanding of environmental (and Green Party?) philosophy is that nothing is independent -- things are interdependent. The critics of this proposal have repeatedly raised concerns based on the recognition that the independent Park Board is actually Interdependent with the other aspects of the city. Unfortunately, the Park Board majority has been un-willing or un-able to address the concerns and prefers to view it all as a great conspiracy to take away their independent status. 10. Credibility: I would still love to hear from the majority of elected officials on the Park Board that voted in favor of these multi-million white elephant. We know many of them are members on this list. We have seen their posts frequently. Their silence is noticed. That their controversial lobbyist, with a track record of bad deals (think Minneapolis Police Federation Retirement Fund), is a public spokesperson on this issue does not build my confidence that this in the public's best interest. In the last election the -- Target Store Boondoggle during an affordable housing crisis -- mobilized many people to change the City's leadership. I can only guess the impact a -- Riverfront White Elephant during a period of austerity -- will have on the leadership of the Park Board. Joseph Barisonzi Just a regular voting tax-paying citizen Lyndale, Ward 10 Proud to be a Mpls-Issue-List-Uninformed-Unwashed Participant Supporter of an Independent and Accountable Park Board _______________________________________ 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
