Greg Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps the point I made was too obscure -- the nature of DeLaSalle is irrelevant to the debate over the stadium, so there's no point in arguing about it. The only meaningful question is whether there's a net public benefit, or not. (With the caveat that the benefit to DeLaSalle is not a public benefit). ML says: Greg, I think you answered your own question. Unless, of course, you consider the loss of public park land beneficial to the public. Matty Lang, Central __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
