Brian - yours below is all great stuff. I'd love that the list know about it. My last series of posts before our exchange were critical of the mayor; I'm not taking sides in the Greater Battle between him and the Park Board. As Scott Russell says, a journalist's job is to hold the coats.
I started this forum and put considerable work into it (for a $0 billable rate) to expand public knowledge. It's fine if you think it's tainted - many days, I do too. I asked Paul to submit an apology, but that's above and beyond the rules. I don't pre-review posts, either; I agree it was limp. The important this is, as per our rules, if he does it again I have grounds to expel him. I hate it every time a post like Paul's comes through. One of the biggest reasons I inveigh against personal attacks is so decision-makers and those with inside info don't have an excuse to flee the forum. ;) I'd respectfully submit you missed a golden opportunity here. However unrepresentative you think the list, it has some influence, especially in the media. If your facts are superior, there should only be gain, not loss, from putting them here. One reason for the scorn you perceive is that none of the proponents of spending $5 million were willing to make the case for it here - and the questions, by the way, were mostly respectful. That frankly looked cowardly. The nice thing about the forum is that the media doesn't edit your comments. I always find the accusation of bias to be laughable at a 900-member forum where we haven't recruited in four years. Can you win election without participating here? Hell yes. But the last mayor didn't. You're facing a popular mayor who knows how to get his message to the public - including on this forum. It IS a new day, and I'd submit if the Park Board wants to build public support, this isn't a bad place to start. As far as wasting your day, no one held a gun to your head. But I do regret that it took anger to motivate you to participate. Our rules (which we ask new members to read) say that complaints about another member's behavior be directed to me. Had you done that, I would have given you satisfaction and perhaps dissipated your anger so that your usually strong factual case could be better heard. I regret it didn't work out that way. Best, David > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Rice [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 7:24 PM > To: 'David Brauer' > Subject: RE: [Mpls] Board of Estimate announces move to Lyndale Farmstead > > I've done my 2 for the day. So I'll write directly to you with some offline > comments. It's laughable that you call this a civil city civic discussion. > Look at the apology from the guy who attacked emily and got me going. I > guess on the internet public employees are "characters" and I guess you can > set the rules one minute and write pieces like this the next. And then as > "list manager" discipline people and accept the limp apologies. For your > information Pat Born the city finance director told the Park Board staff to > get ahold of Dick Miller at Wells Fargo to figure out the financing after > the City council tabled the matter. Wells Fargo has done several of these > types of acquistions for the city and non-profits. In fact earlier this year > the MCDA of the HRA bought a building and property on the northside with > none of the discusion the Park Board has had. Where was the Mayor then? Dick > advised the Superindent and the staff that he didn't think the Mayor would > veto the plan. While he may not have any inside information his judgement is > usually good. The mayor , ostrow and barb johnson all said it was a good > idea originally. In fact Pat Born offered to have the city buy the property > and rent soome of it to the Park Board. So what politics do you think are > going on? If the mayor thinks we need a long term plan for city offices, > well then let him say so. Such a plan will probably take at least three > years to develop and knowing the city it won't include the park board. As > far as your insights into the rental market, they are simplistic at best. I > can't believe I wasted the better part of a day on this drivel. > -----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 Lyndale > 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
