Here are some additional facts that the list may wish to consider regarding
the financing of the property the Park Board will acquire.
1. The
Park Board's lease expires on April 30, 2003.
2. Leases for spaces
of 25,000 square feet or more in downtown typically have a five year term.
3. The current Park Board rent is $14.00 per square foot--that rent is on
the low side of rents currently because it was negiotiated 10 years (not 20
as the list manager claims) ago when the last downtown real estate slump
hit. 4. The
owner of the building qouted a renewal price of $16
square foot, undoubtedly knowing while the Park maybe could find a lower
rate, the Board would have to incur the added expense of a move
(transportation, disruption and remodeling) to get that lower rent.
5.
The Park Board is in effect currently paying property taxes as part of its
rent because the building is privately owned.
6.Bob Fine is a
real estate lawyer who negotiates real estate deals all the time and I, to a
lesser degree do as well, we both felt that the rent would be at least $16
per square foot. 7. A new rental agreement would lock the Board into at
least a five year period, meaning any consolidation of Park Board services
would be delayed. 8. The
new building will be used to move the
Northside maintaince operation (which serves North and the Eastside) from a
remote location near Webber Park to one virtually in the center of the area
thereby reducing travel time for employees and resulting in better services
to users. 9. The transfer of the north service area will save the Park Board
$500,000 in bonded indebtedness in CLIC's 2003 program.
10. The
southside service center is overcrowded; the Park Board spends $10,000 per
year on trailers to house the environmental services group and the rest of
the Lyndale Farmstead is packed. The Park Board needs additional space
somewhere and with efforts to streamline management and operations the
co-location of management and operational functions presents an opportunity
to make those plans a reality.
11. When you pay rent its gone.
The Park Boards estimates show a total of $90,000 in the first year going to
principal payments. Those principal payments are in the estimates the staff
provided. In other words the Park Board will be keeping $90,000 plus of the
taxpayers money each year for 20 years and saving it in the building instead
of paying a landlord l2. The Board will not pay property
taxes as part
of its operating costs which is generally about $2 per square foot--this
also saves the Board money. 13.
Contrary to the suggestion that the
deal changed from the time the Board approved it to the time the Mayor
vetoed it, the deal did not change. The Board voted on the same deal when it
overrode the Mayor's veto.
I
appreciate humor as
much as the next person. But I don't find snide attacks on public servants
to be funny. One of the members of the Forum pointed out the demeaning
response issued to Emily Ero Phillips post. Emily is a decent, compassionate
and hardworking public servant. She is not Bill Clinton's handmaiden.
The Board of Estimate and Taxation has I believe one full time employee and
one half time employee. The Park Board has 500 full time employess and at
least that many part time and seasonal employees. The Board of Estimate has
no land to manage, no vehicles, no trash to pick up, no collective
bargaining agreements and no lawsuits to defend. To analogize the two is
sophomoric at best and in the context of the other attacks I saw today on
the Park Board on this issue adds absolutely nothing to informing the Forum
or furthering the understanding of the issue. Yeah its cute, yeah its flip,
yeah its cool, but yeah its shallow, lame and weak at the same time.
Especially when the author apparently wants to stir the Forum up against the
Park Board.
As
to why there hasn't been more
information posted by the "pros" on the issue I can't answer for the Board.
For myself I was stirred into action after I saw the derogatory piece on
Emily. Obviously some members of the Forum have made up their minds and the
truth be damned and let's insult the messengers who try to bring it forward.
Given the responses to my first posting I think for list manager to claim
that those comments of a few people represents the "hoi polloi", in Greek
meaning the people or masses, is quite an overstatement. I posted my earlier
e-mail personally. I identified myself as the Park Board attorney so readers
would know what my background on the issue was. I certainly don't object to
any public input on any matter. And I for one think the Park Board's
decision was very wise and will stand the test of time. I also think the
list manager's view of the comments to date on the subject of being
representative of the masses is absurd at best. I respectfully submit that
those views been less than well informed. And when others, like myself and
Emily, make a good faith effort to inform the list we are meet with scorn
and derision by several of the memnbers, what are we to think? Even the list
manager's latest posting takes the approach that every word should be
suspect and the masses should rise up. What an approach.
I apologize to the Forum members who have not posted on this issue and who
found my comments in anyway demeaning to you. As to those who did post with
the exception of Mr. Strand I offer no apology. I thought I was trying to
provide some illumination. But I guess some of the list members they would
much rather give than receive. And they would much rather view their own
thoughts and insights as being those of only the most informed. And the list
manager himself seems more than willing to set the thoughtful and respectful
tone which I have seen today and on other days this week, like the comments
about Steve Brandt. I reiterate, Phyllis and Annie told me this was
worthwhile. They didn't tell me I was Alice about to fall through the
looking glass. Now that the rules are perfectly clear it's time for tea.
Brian Rice
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
David Brauer
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 4:48 PM
To: Mpls list
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Board of Estimate announces move to Lyndalell
Farmstead
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
_______________________________________
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
