Notes from the MCDA committee meeting are below, but first, regarding due process.
Here is a theoretical scenario - I am NOT suggesting that this is in any way representative of the current situation, just explaining why I feel due process is important: . . . contrived scenario . . . Someday, in the future, we have a City Council member who is a thorn in the side of some group, so this group decides to sink the CM politically. They decide on a crime to accuse the CM of and find someone who is willing to make an allegation - either for personal reasons or for payment. They then get an agent who is in their pocket to interview the CM. Several of our intelligence agencies have done a great deal of research into using manipulation, coercion, and drugs to put someone in a suggestible or controllable state and they use these techniques to secure a false confession. If this is not viable, the agent simply forges the confession and leaks it to the press. >From the public perspective, getting our information primarily from the press, this would not be very distinguishable from the current situation, and the group will have won (whether or not the CM is convicted, they're pretty much done politically unless they can prove the conspiracy). Part of the reason we have due process is that executive agents do not always act ethically. . . . end contrived scenario . . . Now, again, I am NOT in any way suggesting that this is the case with CM Biernat. Our judicial system is not perfect, but the protections provided by due process do need to be maintained (or improved). While the scenario was contrived, I am pretty sure that each specific aspect has been used at different times in this country for various ends. Now to look at the current situation. Because of my concerns about due process, I am not in support of asking the mayor to demand the resignation of CM Biernat. However, I do feel that it is appropriate to suggest to the CM that he should resign. There has been a call for people from Biernat's ward to speak out. Due to redistricting, I have recently found myself to be in that ward (barely). Here's a proposed letter: - - - Council Member Biernat, While we, your constituents, will not know the truth of your innocence or guilt until the proceedings are done, you are obviously aware of what actually happened. IF you are guilty of the crimes you are accused of, we will demand accountability and consequence. We will also demand criminal and civil accounting for the fact that you have lied to us about your actions. IF you are guilty of the crimes you are accused of, expect suit for the following: * Repayment of all wages, with interest, you have earned as a city council member from the time you were indicted and did not step down. * Damages from any businesses these actions adversely affected * Additional civil and punitive damages. As a member of the community you represent, be aware that if you are proven to be guilty, I will fully support any suits against you for these reasons. If you are not guilty of these crimes, I would still ask that you voluntarily suspend yourself from the City Council and cooperate fully with the investigation and proceedings so that this situation may be cleared up as quickly as possible. - - - Now, on to the MCDA committee meeting last night. I had not heard of the Boulevard project until I attended the committee meeting yesterday. I had not intended to go on list with this, but based on some of the discussion I have read, there are a few details I think should be pointed out. A lot of what I have to say is vague as I wasn't taking notes and didn't realize that this issue was a big deal, so if anyone can confirm or deny what I'm saying, that'd be good. I do not have the information or expertise to form an opinion either way whether this project should get TIF financing. I believe that the decision in front of the committee was not whether or not to approve TIF, but to approve $5,000 to do certain tests (details anyone?) to see if the property and development proposal was eligable for TIF. I am not certain if it was the city, the agency, or the developers who would be responsible to pay the $5,000, but the agency would be required to do the study. So I don't think that Lilligren and Zimmerman were voting to approve TIF, they were voting to approve further steps to see if the development was eligable for TIF. I believe that it is also significant to note that Zimmerman had made a motion (seconded by Lilligren) to postpone the vote so that there would be enough time to review all the materials presented. The other three committee members voted not to postpone. It seemed like the developer did not make a great case for themselves. They provided two documents - one was a three page summary which was lacking in detail while the other was a tome of data that would take the committee members a very long time to read. They did not have ready answers for several specific questions raised by the committee. There was also a question about a report that Benson brought with him that the other council members had not had the opportunity to review. Benson asserted that the report made the case against TIF, but Lilligren wanted more time to review it. He opinined that at first glance, it appeared to support TIF. CM Goodman seemed very hostile towards the developer for requesting TIF on this development. Based on snippets of conversation overheard after the meeting, it sounded like this was based in part on past discussions over this proposal - again, I don't have the full history. Part of the anger seemed to be because she felt that if the developer wanted to make the project go, they would wave the (~$300,000?) developers fee as has been done on other projects by other developers. The developer's response was something about the fee being waived during proposal on those other projects but then slipped back in on the final thing. CM Goodman brought up what seemed like a number of good questions, but I have to admit that her general demeanor during proceedings predisposed me to feel antagonistic towards her and support her opponents. I have made an effort not to allow that to color my perspective of what was actually discussed. Ostrow, Benson, and Goodman raised a number of good questions regarding the development, some of which were not able to be answered immediately and others of which seemed to support their concerns. Zimmerman and Lilligren seemed to want to postpone the vote so these questions and others could be looked into and answered, but based on their votes, Ostrow, Benson, and Goodman seemed to feel that the issue had been discussed enough and wanted to vote to deny the request. One thing, I'm not sure about in the article was that I thought there were 10 subsidized units in the building rather than 15, but I'm not sure about that. One thing in regards to the question of 542K for 15 units being a $36,130 per unit subsidy. There were a number of other public monies already being made available to the project (there was a very odd discussion over whether or not a specific type of funding was public or not - maybe someone else can fill in the details on that). I believe the figure came out to at least 1.7 million dollars of public money going into the project. I'm not sure if that included the TIF or not. One of CM Goodman's objections was that the other funds were already provided to make the housing affordable so what was the TIF going to be used for? Anyway, based on the meeting and the discussion on list, it sounds like this development would be a good thing and hopefully the developers will find a way to do it either by raising funds, cutting costs, or ???. In my opinion, if they intend to pursue the TIF further they will have to prepare a better presentation at their appeal with more specific data regarding which aspects of the development make it appealing for public funding (is there more than the affordable properties?) and how much public funding per square foot/per bedroom is going into the project. They should also be armed with figures comparing development costs in various neighborhoods and how that figures into their costs for this project. I think it may have been for the best had Zimmerman and Lillegren's proposal to postpone the vote pending further review had been passed, but I really don't know enough about this one to be sure. - Jason Goray, Sheridan, NE (who doesn't like posting on stuff he doesn't know much about, but felt that the additional figures and details may be useful for the conversation at large) Note to self: Next time, bring a notebook. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.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
