Jason Goray writes: > What I want is greater accountability and transparency > from any who make decisions for the public or have > positions of power. I expect policy makers to make > decisions that are well reasoned, consider all facts > available, are in the public interest, and do not > contain the taint of private enrichment and I want to > be able to verify that they are doing this.
BN sez: I don't think it could be better stated. All the arguments that I have seen on The List thus far give details without appropriate context because we have not seen the actual financial analysis. Just as it would be irresponsible to arrive at a judgement as about the goodness or badness of the PB's decision without seeing the financial analysis and it's assumptions, it is equally irresponsible to evaluate the PB's decision outside of the context of the overall debt load of the city and the implications that has in terms of future tax rates. Twice I have asked where we (the public) can see the numbers the PB used to make its decision -- I even wrote Brian Rice off list to see if he could clue me in about how to get them, but I have not received a response. Why hasn't the source of the numbers been forthcoming when figures have been flying fast and furious? In my experience, the usual reason this happens is because the analysis wasn't comprehensive and the assumptions (at least some of them) were questionable. I mean, any MBA or accountant worth their salt can make anything look good by selectively choosing assumptions and pieces of the pie to analyze. What doesn't make sense to me is how the interest rate went up and the loan term was shortened-- how can the deal suddenly look more attractive unless cost assumptions were drastically changed (improved)? In lieu of getting the financial document to peruse, several times the simple question has been asked: did the financial analysis use a discounted cash flow and evaluate alternatives using net present value? A simple yes or no would suffice, but no answer has been forthcoming. Apparently the city did it's own financial analysis. Is it possible to see this analysis? Phyllis Kahn says: > 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. BN sez: I fail to see how a state study of buy vs. rent applies to this issue. Yeah, sure, a good heuristic is that it is smarter to buy than to rent, but there are the pesky circumstances of context that need to be taken into account. Sometimes it's better to buy later and rent now. RT Rybak writes: > 2. I challenge whether this is an efficient use of public > resources: > * The chief financial officer for the City questions whether there > are > any savings to taxpayers. > * No RFP for competitive bids for property or other options. > * The site in question has limited access to mass transit. > * There has been a lack of public consultation with neighborhood > groups in affected communities. BN sez: I will comment on each point separately: Savings to taxpayers: Should this be the over-riding purpose of capital expenditures? I question that assumption. There might be very good reasons to have a new facility with new spending that would make sense for the City and PB, although I have yet to hear any in conjuction with this issue. No RFP for competitive bids: This is just common sense. I mean, do you go out and buy the first house you see because you have always wanted to live in that neighborhood and you're sick of renting and afraid the landlord will increase the rent? Maybe some do, but I think a logical path might include talking to the landlord first to eliminate the guessing about what to expect, and then looking into ways to collaborate and find synergy amongst functions. Why settle for the status quo? When one is taking on all the costs of a move, why not use it as an opportunity to create better delivery of services so that the new space can be optimized? Access to mass transit and neighborhood consultation: These are questions of policy. Do we want government agencies to be easily accessible? Do we believe that neighbors concerns may have validity (not to mention that it is politically smart to be consultative). Brian Rice did make a thoughtful post yesterday, with several good points, but it left the question of the quality of the financial analysis open. There are far too many unanswered questions and too little data in all of this discussion to make an intelligent, informed judgement, and the big question is: Why haven't the members of the Park Board (with the exception of John Erwin) gone public with an explanation and/or answers to the specific questions that have been raised. Barbara Nelson Once and future Minneapolitan living in Burnsville for the time being _______________________________________ 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
