You know, I can read, and process information quite well, thank you. Did you miss this, Vicky?
"The group would be expected to pay cash for the building. The city's cash proceeds would go toward buying down the principal on the $6 million in bonds the city used to renovate the building, and the outstanding debt would be converted from short term to long term. The city has a balloon payment of $5.6 million due on Dec. 1, 2006. In the deal, the city would retain possession and revenue streams of approximately $90,000 annually from the billboard on top of the building through the expected 17-year debt service on the new bonds." Oh, so WE'RE the one's who can't "process information," eh? In other words, the city saved a historic building, renovated it, and found a way to make that revenue neutral over the long term. Not a deal that a real estate speculator would be proud of, yes, but not bad when the objective is to maintain the character of an important thoroughfare. The point of such city-led development is not to turn a massive profit. I'm relatively happy with the deal that they negotiated. Your strident posts are having less connection with the texts you claim "prove your point" every time you post. aaron klemz cooper __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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
