--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 3. What other issues enter in to the decision "rent" > or "Buy" for the Park > Board -- other than the narrow "rent or buy" > question?
Though some have argued that now is not the time for this purchase the price of money currently(historically low interest rates) would indicate that there could not be a better time to switch from renting and take on a mortgage if you are able. This is a large part of the reason that private property sales have been near or at record amounts this year despite the down economy. This type of property is also far more affordable now in the current economic environment than it would be once the economy warms up. Again, that is an argument that now is the fiscally responsible time to do this especially if it is fiscally neutral(and from the limited information that I've seen in this forum- create an income stream making the park system costs more "sustainable"). The approaching end of a lease period could give the property sellers or landlords extra price leverage if the PB delayed it's decision and looked indecisive. After all, they have to be somewhere. It seems to me that these factors that would strongly influence any private decision whether to purchase property or not also apply to this context, particularly in regards to the timing. Add into this equation the clear need for more space for some of the Park Board functions as demonstrated by the rental trailers at the Lyndale Farmstead property and it seems to me that there are sound reasons to do this purchase at this time. These arguments may not address the issue of city/park board cooperation that seems to be at the heart of the dispute but they do counter the argument that the PB is not looking out for the interest of the tax payer. This is particularly odd coming from those on this list who have repeatedly said that the public services should be "run more like a business". The other thing that is weird to me is folks comparing this situation to Block E or the "Great Wall" of Target subsidies. This is not an act of corporate welfare. It is taking money that is already being spent to provide the space necessary for the park board and reallocating it in a manner that is fiscally more responsible from almost any angle. Okay, the other issue is adding debt to our already heavily leveraged comprehensive tax base that has been damaged by all the bad corporate welfare choices of past city councils. Not all debt is created equal. Debt that is fiscally neutral or creates a stream of income, stabilizes future costs and removes the potential of future increases in cost, and helps build equity for the public while simultaneously helping streamline and arguably improve the delivery of governmental services is VERY good debt, IMO.(and most likely in the opinion of any bond rating firm worth it's salt). Debt, such as the TIF financing provided to downtown projects, that is basically a bet as to the economic success of a private developers enterprise and is fiscally negative for a guaranteed period of time out into the future, removing money generated by the property from the revenue stream for a guaranteed period of time. Such debt is speculative by nature and increases financial obligations and risks to the city as opposed to reducing them as the much discussed Park Board expenditure does. Therefore, the Park Board building purchase likely improves the collective financial footing of the city in the eyes of bond raters and others and should not be beaten down simply for being an additional debt burden. Remember, there's good debt and bad debt. Not all debt is created equal. Just a few thoughts, David Strand Loring Park __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com _______________________________________ 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
