Vicki's data is interesting and worth double-checking. However, journalists are on it. Here's another source:
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/entertainment/performing_arts/900 6136.htm (The PiPress broke this story and their info has been more complete.) According to the story: "The city acquired the old Hirschfield's Paint & Wallcoverings on a contract for deed for $500,000 in 1995 to prevent it from being purchased by a company that wanted to convert it to an adult entertainment establishment. "The city then invested nearly $900,000 to stabilize and renovate the building. Hey City signed a 10-year lease that same year, calling for rent of about $11,000 a month." DB: Given this is a LEASE dispute, it appears the city owns the building and Hey City was a tenant. (The city and county's web site appear to have a flaw listing single private tenants of publicly owned buildings as taxpayers. As I recall, Target Center has the same flaw. But it is a flaw. Ask yourself - why would Hey leave a building SHE owned?) Vicki writes: The Minneapolis property records show Hey City Stage as the taxpayer and the CURRENT TAXABLE VALUE AS ZERO - SINCE 1994. DB: That would make sense if the city is the owner. Vicki: The same report shows "estimated market value" of $268,000 for the building and $557,000 for the land. Further research on the City website shows a building value of $940,935 in 1995 when the building permit was issued. Subsequent permits were issued for remodeling worth $370,000 in 2000 and 2001, which would increase the building value to approximately $1.3 million, plus land. In other words, the current property value of 824 Hennepin should be around $2 million. DB: I think the math is a little cockeyed. The city paid about $900,000 for the site in 1994. If they paid for $370,000 indicated by the remodeling permits, that amounts to about $1.3 million. If Hey City's rent was $11,000 a month for 10 years, it paid $1.32 million over time. So (ignoring the time value of money for a moment), the city's initial investment has been paid back in rent - proving the dictum "it's better to own than rent." (Which is probably why Hey wants out.) All this said, the public did "lose" money a couple of ways: Hey City didn't pay property taxes, so you have to figure in that lost revenue to local governments. Also, the city mostly paid for the building in 1994 dollars, which are worth more an equal number of Hey City's rent paid between 1994 and 2004. Still, figuring both those factors in, the city/taxpayers are "out" no more than a couple hundred thousand dollars. And that "gap" could be easily wiped away if the city sells its asset (probably worth much more in the currently hot Downtown economy than it was in 1994) or finds another renter. I'm not an advocate of publicly owned entertainment, but in this case, it appears the city made a good deal for the taxpayers. Whether it was too generous to Hey City, I can't say. David Brauer Kingfield REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
