Phyllis Kahn posts, in part: > When I first heard about the building purchase, I said it was a poor > idea unless it utilized the river site for more than an office view, > referring to a recent report done by the State Planning Agency on the > properties of the Urban Riverfront.... snip > ...and there was > remarkably little commentary from the list on this subject. IMHO, the > use of the river through the entire city is a much more fertile ground > for useful discussion than the Park Board rent vs. own.
[MH] Well, the issue being discussed was the purchase of site-specific property for a MPRB HQ... not some nebulous 'use of the river through the entire city' discussion. > I'll add my economics 101 (From Harvard...to recall a previous > discussion) to the comments of the other pseudo-economists. If you are > comparing rent versus mortgage payments done in the same time frame the > issue of the present value of $ is irrelevant, except that the part of > the payments that goes to pay off principle is positive for ownership. > As for the use of the Park Boards reserve fund, I would urge all critics > to look at the return on investment of that fund as opposed to the real > estate values in that area. [MH] As a taxpayer, I view the present value of annual cash outlays by government in alternate development scenarios to be a worth while exercise, since I'm paying the bill, and a lower present value means I pay less. I don't care if it is a rental or a mortgage payment, I'm interested in what the total cash outlay will be every year-- including capital costs AND the operating/maintenance costs associated with the project. Ownership entails costs, so to just say ownership is always better is not necessarily correct. And, I don't necessarily care if the land appreciates in the future; I don't think government should be in the property speculation business, and as long as the government owns the property there is no tax revenue (positive cash flow) going into the general fund to help run the city. When the private sector owns such speculative property and values increase, the tax base grows and the city enjoys a growing tax revenue stream (unless it's in a TIF district, in which case it's questionable over the long term). As for their use of self-insurance reserve funds to help finance the deal, what happens if there is need for those funds in a liability case? Aren't there minimal reserve-requirements associated with such self-insurance pools? It's time government decision makers start viewing these projects from the eye of the common taxpayer; those struggling to make rent and mortgage payments, maintain health insurance, auto insurance and monthly payments of all sort-- as families struggle in a weak economy, hoping they aren't the next to loose their job or hoping they will soon find one! Michael Hohmann pseudo-economist from Linden Hills > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Phyllis Kahn > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 12:19 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Mpls] Park Board > > > Each time I think I'm making my last comments on the Park Board > decisions, governance, lobbying, etc. Here is the next installment. > > When I first heard about the building purchase, I said it was a poor > idea unless it utilized the river site for more than an office view, > referring to a recent report done by the State Planning Agency on the > properties of the Urban Riverfront. Chief among the criteria for best > development is a connection to the river and a connection of > neighborhoods to the river. > > (From my previous post: "I would like to draw attention to a > study done by Minnesota Planning (at my instigation), entitled > "Connecting With Minnesota's Urban Rivers: Helping Cities make > sustainable Choices for the Future".... snip > > One of the best recommendations is the line in the design guidelines: > > "Seek out and give priority to river-related and river-enhancing > development opportunities. If there is no connection to the river, > there > is no need for a Riverfront location." > Have any Park Commissioners read this report? snip > > As an aside, the only Park Board person who responded showing > knowledge and appreciation of the report was Annie Young and there was > remarkably little commentary from the list on this subject. IMHO, the> use of the river through the entire city is a much more fertile ground > for useful discussion than the Park Board rent vs. own. I would love > Vivian Mason and John Erwin to devote their considerable intellect and > talents to this issue. > > If the Park Board does not follow through on this, I will join the > chorus of critics. I understand that the enhancements and developments I > want may have to be on a waiting list behind other needs. I ran by the > site the other day and it is a perfect example of unutilized Riverfront. > If the Park Board offices just open restrooms and fountains for runners > and bikers and boaters, it will be a big positive addition. Even the > parking lot for access to bike paths and river access and special river > events, water skiing and fireworks. > snip > I'll add my economics 101 (From Harvard...to recall a previous > discussion) to the comments of the other pseudo-economists. If you are > comparing rent versus mortgage payments done in the same time frame the > issue of the present value of $ is irrelevant, except that the part of > the payments that goes to pay off principle is positive for ownership. > As for the use of the Park Boards reserve fund, I would urge all critics > to look at the return on investment of that fund as opposed to the real > estate values in that area. snip > > 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
