With the extensive financial analysis given by both Brian and Scott, I won't make a more feeble attempt to give my summary, but will just add a few points not yet made. First, at my instigation, (over ten years ago) the states Dept. of Administration Management Analysis Bureau did a report on renting vs. owning or building for state buildings. The report showed that renting was the worst and that buying a building that needed minimal remodeling was by far the best. (This seems to be the case with the proposed Park Board deal). This report is pre electronic format, so you probably have to check it out at the Legislative Reference Library. The politics of the situation was that state pols were afraid to buy or construct, but knew that nobody looks at rental costs so there was no political danger in continuing to rent. A truism proved once again by the extended diatribe on this list and by the John Erwin reversal (politically wise) but, in my opinion, poor policy. My first concern about the building was that it would be merely pretty office space, but I have been assured that the connection to the river will be utilized, even with the addition of the sorts of things the lake residents take for granted like canoe racks or boat docks. I've also been assured that other amenities like increasing the "Greenness" of the building, having WI-Fi space, redoing the parking area to be absorbent to take care of the water runoff problems will be done at some time, (or at least considered.) Instead of the City Councils counterproductive refusal to minimize the financial costs and the mayors politically approval getting veto, those guys would be better off to look at sharing the building and getting out of some of their rental space, showing a positive rather than a negative attitude to cooperation. If one wants to look at the cheapest solutions to space, the remodeling of the Council chambers should stand as the extravagance of the decade. Any info on the square foot cost of that could be added to this discussion. (I strongly supported that action and still do, even though , with the reasoning of some, the money could have been spent on police stuff or housing instead.)
Why can't I get any comments (more than one) on the dopeyness of the feel-good proposal from the Mayor to spend $500,000 to stop terroristic acts againest the city water supply? Phyllis Kahn State Rep. 59B _______________________________________ 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
