Sigh. Most of what Chris writes has nothing to do with the issues Vicky
writes about. Vicky has gone way out on a limb in numerous posts to
disclose personal information in order to make very significant points:
that the tax code is taken advantage of by both sides, Rs and Ds, rich and
not rich, and that the people suffer accordingly. The accusations made
against her, the attack on her character, and the twisting of what she has
said is neither fair nor civil discourse. How will the politics of personal
destruction solve the problem? Many landlords on this list have made the
same points she has made about the code. The issue is a tax code, Federal,
State, City, that both parties use to favor their supporters. Think of the
"mark ups" at legislative reconciliation sessions not to mention the end of
the year "Christmas tree" additions by legislators. The government cooks
the books far more than corporations. And when corporations do poorly, they
go out of business. Over half of the Fortune 500 corporations of the 70s
are no longer in business, either absorbed by others or dismantled and
broken up for no longer being able to prosper (look at how close IBM came to
going under not so long ago). Cedar-Riverside, by the way, was a project of
HUD's new town program (Jonathon, Mn was too). I remember visiting both
projects in the 1980s. The feds wanted to build new towns all over and had
this program. I love new towns, have lived in them (Columbia, Md, Reston,
VA), and wished that there were more. But the more sites I visited the more
I realized they were doomed because of the excessive strings attached to the
monies and lack of knowledge about what real large scale complex
developements were about by the government bureaucratic overseers, including
these two in Minnesota. We should do more new towns, but the best are done
privately, not by government design ("Celebration City" in Disneyworld is
the lastest attempt). I was even involved in a proposal for one in Indiana
that would have benefit workers, but the hoops required by government killed
it, hurting not the land owners but the workers now denied the housing that
would have resulted. Many in HUD, although well intentioned, nonetheless
have projects that were ill conceived and ill considered (think Holmanns and
the law suit against HUD).
Governments don't go under: they just raise taxes to cover their mistakes.
The best argumentation for privatizing government services is not for some
conservative ideal but so that when no longer needed, they can be done away
with. Too many government programs, once in play, work to stay even if
there is no need for them as they become transformed into jobs program for
the middle class (in NYC, over 1/4 of the people work for the city).
Wendy's "Neighborhood Association follow the money" is a good example.
Vicky has provided plenty of others. I'm the last guy to point to Russia as
an example, but fair is fair. Putin eliminated the tax code and implemented
a 15% flat tax. People immediately stopped wasting energy trying to
hide/divert funds, paid their 15% and got on with business, resulting in a
tremendous upsurge of tax revenue. Taxes get out of hand. We need better
memories. The government's thirst seems unquenchable at times. The
programs Chris understandably derides came about because the U.S. income tax
rates had gotten as high as 70+%. Ingmar Bergman, the great Swedish film
maker of the 60s and 70s, left Sweden because his income placed him in a tax
bracket that was over 100%. When governments are taxing at that rate it
kills incentive and only inspires new laws to counter the confiscatory ones.
No one minds taxes. What they mind is confiscatory taxes.
Chris' comments without this historic understanding is very misleading.
Both Chris and Vicky want the same thing: fairness. But Chris' approach is
unfair to both Vicky and the list as it obscures the real lessons Vicky
provides that could help in ending the unfairness to developers and citizens
and tax payers. And although I appreciate Chris's concern and frustration,
it won't be solved by attacking someone who is trying to work along side him
on the list to correct it. Greed is working in every sector, rich and poor,
Black and White, city and suburb. Wherever, in other words, two or three
people are gathered together. What I have read from Vicky's posts is not
anger at not making money but her anger at the unfairness to so many others
of Minneapolis that the city and state policies are taking advantage of
which she shows is not good for the city and thus not for its citizens, rich
or poor. With the common cause of trying to make Minneapolis better, we
don't help matters with personal attacks. The problem is systemic, the tax
code, and the differing ideological assumptions behind it, not the
individuals caught up in it (which includes all of us). I would like to see
Chris address the systemic problems Vicky no clearly outlines and how to
resolve them rather than attack her character or anyone else, which does no
one any good. Chris and Vicky share common ground. That is where they
should stand together, on the common ground of the community and then try,
not only in their own different ways, but together, to include more and
more. The approach Ron Edwards lays out in Chapter 17 of his book outlines
ways to do that, in my view, that I believe would be acceptable to all sides
on this list who are interested in "community" that is inclusive and fair.
Peter Jessen, Portland, publisher, www.TheMinneapolisStory.com.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Chris Johnson
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 8:45 PM
To: Mpls Forum
Subject: Re: [Mpls] What Ever Happened to" Community?"
Victoria Heller wrote:
> Cedar Square West was built thirty years ago - long before Minneapolis
> gave public money to real estate developers. The land assembly on the
> West Bank (350 separate parcels) was the largest PRIVATELY FINANCED
> acquisition in the history of the United States. Property rights
> meant something then - cities didn't use eminent domain to take
> property from one citizen and give it to another. Those were the days
> when real estate developers lost their own money - not taxpayers'.
Those are some heavily rose-colored glasses with which you are looking
at history.
Until the tax code was greatly revised in the past few years,
partnerships like yours which "lost money" were the favorite investment
vehicle for wealthy people who wanted to reduce their taxes by having
large "paper" (but not real) losses. Every dollar not paid in taxes by
those people was taxpayer money lost. Despite our tax code being still
full of all kinds of preferential loopholes for clever wealthy
individuals and corporations, this particular one was so egregious that
Congress finally did away with it.
I'm sure a little digging could find counter-examples to prove your
statements about public money and eminent domain wrong, too.
I don't have a investigatory report full of facts at my fingertips, nor
do I care enough to bother doing the extensive research necessary to
back this up, but what I remember reading in numerous articles in the
press the past 24 years, which would include dates up to 1982 is this:
Cedar Sqaure West was full of questionable, deceptive, ethically and
legally questionable manuevers from planning to building to selling to
foreclosure. The muck from that mess splashed far and wide. From where
I sit, it now appears your shoes are covered with it, Vicky.
> Our partnership lost control of the property in 1982, and in 1986,
[snip]
> this. I married Keith in 1995 and he died in 1998. During the 70s,
[snip]
> So contrary to urban myth - our partnership lost millions of PRIVATE
> dollars in Minneapolis. Bad management? Maybe. For whatever
> reasons, it was a failure, and that means that our partnership must
> take responsibility for it.
>
> Over these past thirty years, our companies have paid more than $35
> million in property taxes to the City of Minneapolis. To my
> knowledge, we never asked for or received anything from the City.
Make up your mind. Which is it? First you say you lost control in
1982, the property is about 30 years old, and you were only married to
Keith for 3 years. Then you say "over these past thirty years, OUR
companies paid" -- so, either you were involved for only a few years, or
it was 30 years, or do we split the difference?
If you really did lose money, something I will not take your word for,
then it sounds like you are really sore that a speculative real-estate
gamble did not pay off handsomely for you. Sometimes you win, sometimes
you don't. A winner picks themselves up, calls it a temporary setback,
learns from it and goes on.
You continue to complain in this forum about how Minneapolis was so
unfair to (landlords like) you. It is as if you are lay the entire
blame for not becoming ridiculously wealthy from Cedar Square West on
Minneapolis and its citizens.
Chris Johnson
Fulton
TEMPORARY REMINDER:
1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change
the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.)
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
TEMPORARY REMINDER:
1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject
(Mpls-specific, of course.)
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
