-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 16 August 2002 14:33, Brian Rice wrote:
>                                     About two weeks ago I enrolled in
> the Forum. I'd heard about it from State Representative Phyliis Kahn and
> Park Commissioner Annie Young, two committed public servants whose
> opinions I respect. I thought I would become better informed and find
> some thoughtful and well reasoning minds. For the most part I have been
> disappointed. Members seem to instantly write about things of which they
> know little, form opinions with very little reflection and occassionally
> descend into a smug state of snideness as evidenced below.

Both Ms. Kahn and Ms. Young have been on this list longer than I have 
(several months now) and I've never seen either of them take the list to 
task in this way, nor do they seem to have given up on the list. 
Personally I think two weeks is a bit scant to make such a broad 
judgement.

I respect the Mayor and his opinion and he vetoed this proposal. So unless 
you want to assert that the Mayor is not "thoughtful" or "well reasoning", 
you might want to recall that he and his agent both posted emails to the 
list on this topic that were informative..

One also should note that at least one Park Board member voted against 
over-riding the veto, and stated his reasons quite clearly on this list.

So while it is unfortunate that the list is an open forum with its share of 
rants, raves, and just plain bizarre, it's also got some real meat to it. 
It's certainly keeping me better informed than the combined efforts of the 
City Pages, the Pulse, and the Star Tribune (I gave up on TV news over a 
decade ago).

>                                                                I also
> think that to understand the issue Forum members should have the
> financial analysis that the Park Board staff prepared. Contrary to many
> statements made on the issue, the planned Park Board headquarters will
> be revenue neutral. In fact, the Park Board has already received several
> inquiries from both public and private entities about leasing space in
> the building. Should that occur the the building will serve as a profit
> center.

First you say the new HQ is "revenue neutral", then it is a "profit center" 
two sentences after that. Which is it? And can you explain how the Park 
Board, which can't seem to run concession stands at a profit, is going to 
run an entire office complex at a profit? How much do they stand to lose 
when rents they expected to collect are in default? It seems like a common 
enough practice among other tenants the city takes on.

Personally, I am not interested in any agency of the government at any 
level making any revenues that are not related to license or usage fees 
directly related to the programs they administer or from taxation. This is 
not the purpose of government, for better or worse. In fact, I find it 
alarming that this is somehow legal under the Park Board's charter. Who 
knows what's next? Will they be buying up the industrial real estate just 
north of their new HQ to develop luxury condos? (Yes, hyperbole, but just 
how slippery is this slope?)

I certainly hope the Park Board will give priority to other City and County 
agencies, then to park-related non-profits, before renting to just anyone.

I'd have to agree that no city agency should be leasing under any 
circumstances. How it even got to such a state is beyond me. The timing of 
the switch, however, is unfortunate-- and the whole deal didn't seem to be 
subject to a lot of public input. In fact, the research seems a bit slim 
on their side as well as ours. Shouldn't they have proposed a couple of 
different sites? Researched their rental options? Gotten bids from 
building management corporations for partnerships which give the park 
board priority tenant status in a building but relieve them of the job of 
being landlords as well?

So, here's my hope: the Board listens to the Mayor's proposals and takes 
them seriously, since they also involve saving money (as the Board 
purports this deal will do). As to getting City government into that part 
of North Minneapolis, that part I actually like quite a bit.

>                                                               I've
> represented the Park Board for nearly 20 years, the acquistion of the
> Riverfront property for a headquarters and operations facility is the
> smartest thing I've seen the Board do.

Really? That's a pretty sad commentary on the park board for the last 20 
years then. I also think that your close involvement with the Board is 
clouding your judgement. I can already hear the coins filling your coffers 
as legal documents related to this purchase and the subsequent activities 
require legal review. Seems like a very big conflict of interest to me.

> the Hennepin County Government Center. That decision, however, was
> trashed by the talk show predecessors of Jesse Ventura (and perhaps the
> same predecessors of this Forum) and after much hubbub and blatherskite,

You should know that this sort of characterization ill befits those in 
public service and also those who are closely associated with them. Is it 
any wonder the voters elect mavericks like Governor Ventura and Mayor 
Rybak instead of political insiders? Whenever insiders speak in this 
manner, a disdain for the "common man" is evident. But a lot of us 
commoners vote...

>                                                                While I
> understand that the internet and this Forum is designed to exchange
> information and opinion, I find it less than helpful when satiric pieces
> such as the one produced by the list manager are published. This is

Just because he has a role in moderating the forum does not mean he is 
disallowed from also expressing an opinion. I'd be glad to hear (offlist) 
from anyone who thinks Mr. Brauer is not even-handed with his role as list 
manager. As to his post: Satire is a timeworn tool in rhetoric, and this 
one wasn't bad.

  -michael (Ward 4/North Mpls)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Michael C. Libby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
public key: http://www.ichimunki.com/public_key.txt
web site: http://www.ichimunki.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9XX8I4ClW9KMwqnMRAtZ0AJ92qnh6LxEMqU5cJ81RwDNpgjbKkwCggrcu
8Ydf4xV5ROmLJ0w+68NU7is=
=jfzw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________
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

Reply via email to