Peter, I think you reached the right conclusion. My posts pointed out the questionable nature of the analysis the Park Board used to justify its purchase. There was no rebuttal of the points that I made. While I questioned assumptions and methodology, other posters pointed out the specific numerical inaccuracies in the justifications of the Board's position.
Park Board apologists made two points the crux of their argument: 1. It is better to own than to rent; and 2. Future generations will thank us. Both are specious. RE point 1-- there is no universal Truth about owning vs. renting -- each can make sense depending on circumstances. You've got to get the timing right. With the market for commercial office space the way it is (rents are dropping according to a commercial landlord on the list) the claim that the net yearly outlay saves the Park Board money is highly questionable. The idea of acquiring an asset for its own sake, thereby adding to the value of the parks, is also feeble because the parks themselves are not enhanced, the board is merely acquiring office space which could be gotten more cheaply in the current market. It really doesn't matter if the Park Board offices are not in a park-like setting because the setting of the administrative offices doesn't material affect the functioning of the parks. The salient feature of the administrative offices are their accessibility, not their ambiance. Moreover, this transaction took particularly desirable land off the city's tax rolls, presumably in perpetuity. Finally, if you believe that government should be run efficiently, at some point in the future acquiring office space might be prudent (when rents are higher than the cost of owning/maintaining), but not now, particularly when there are unmet park operations and maintenance needs. Beyond all that, the symbolism of the Park Board expanding its holdings whilst the city is tightening its belt doesn't accrue to enhance the Park Board's reputation as good managers, or as team players, or promote goodwill toward the Park Board -- another asset worth maintaining. RE: point 2 -- future generations will "thank us" -- I'd like to know for what? For siting administrative buildings on a highly desirable piece of real estate that could garner a high level of tax return to the city? For giving bureaucrats breathtaking views? For creating a permanent headquarters? Again, a headquarters building does not enhance the park system. If this is the best argument the park board can muster in its own defense, it shows a complete lack of critical thinking ability and the fatuous nature of their reasoning. IMHO it is regrettable that the discussion -- and I hesitate to call it that because much of it was name calling -- included so much invective. I have always been a believer that strong words mask a weak argument, and that if there is something worth saying it will be most powerfully presented through the use of simple, civil language. I concur that there was never a clear, civil, solid argument put forth to refute the mayor's veto, and furthermore I'd add that the arguments that were put forth in favor of the purchase were flawed. One hopes that elected officials respect each other enough to consider each others proposals and communiqu�s seriously. With their quick veto, the Park Board spurned the mayor's sincere effort to put Minneapolis' overall financial house in order and cast aside his ideas to ease the Park Board's costs, in the process raising questions about the seriousness with which they take their fiduciary responsibility to the overall city. If they had deliberated over the mayor's proposals, and rejected them for good reasons this would not be the case. Given their behavior in this matter, there is scant hope that the Park Board will reconsider its decision. I do hope that in the future they will demand a competent financial analysis and more thorough research as part of their decision process. Moving forward, I hope that they will take their duties seriously enough to examine and act on at least the cost savings offered by the mayor in his veto message. I commend Cmmrs. Mason and Erwin for their thoughtful dissent. Barbara Nelson Once and future Minneapolitan Living in Burnsville _______________________________________ 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
