To the St. Paul Issues Forum:
With thanks to the City Attorney's Office, the City Real Estate Office
and the Farmer's Market, I now have an answer to the political action
question raised about the Farmer's Market earlier this summer. The City
Market is regulated under the the Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter
11:
"Sec. 11.13. No person shall distribute, without the approval of the
market director, scatter about or post on the city market any
advertising pamphlet, card, handbill or other printed matter; nor shall
any person, except as may otherwise be provided by this or other city
ordinances, beg, loiter, solicit patronage for any business, or sell or
attempt to sell, display or demonstrate any goods, merchandise real
estate, animals, vehicles or other materials or things whatsoever on the
city market."
In fairness to all political campaigns, the Farmer's Market has now
adopted the policy that even if permission is sought, the market will
not permit any political activity within the market. It should be noted
that political activity is always allowed on the public sidewalks,
across the street from the market.
Jane Prince, Legislative Aide to Ward 4 City Councilmember Jay Benanav
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/03/04 11:20AM >>>
Send Stpaul mailing list submissions to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Stpaul digest..."
-------------------------------------------------
Please - Take the St. Paul Job Shadow Survey
Just 15 Questions:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=70658501784
-------------------------------------------------
Today's Topics:
1. court ruling on tax credits (Mike Fratto)
2. RE: Gander Mountain Downtown St. Paul? (Tim Erickson)
3. Stpaul Digest, Smoking Ban Compromise - Mayor Kelly Vetoed
the Compormise (Dan Dobson)
4. RE: Gander Mountain Downtown St. Paul? (John Harris)
5. The real smoking ban compromise (Tom & Elsa Thompson)
6. Re: Gander Mountain Downtown St. Paul? (John Mannillo)
7. Re: So why not just compromise? (Tim Erickson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 09:26:28 -0500
From: "Mike Fratto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [StPaul] court ruling on tax credits
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
As we discuss the proposed incentives St. Paul offered Gander
Mountain to move to the First Trust building, a federal appeals
court yesterday struck down a manufacturing tax credit that Ohio
used in 1998 to help convince DaimlerChrysler to build its new Jeep
assembly plant in Toledo.
See:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040903/NEWS02/409030456
Mike Fratto
Payne Phalen
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:33:51 -0500
From: Tim Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [StPaul] Gander Mountain Downtown St. Paul?
To: "St. Paul Issues Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>A couple of fallacies here. Major environmental clean-up costs are
rarely
>borne by municipalities ...
OK - I'll agree, that that all of these issues are more complicated
than they might appear on the surface, but all of them are legitimate
factors in some way or another.
In terms of environmental costs. Whether or not the city is
responsible for the costs of clean-up, it is a cost factor for
businesses deciding to locate in a city. While the city may not
normally pay for environmental clean-ups, there is often no money
available from the state or feds and a business needs to look at
doing it themselves. A city subsidy might make that a more attractive
proposition.
I think its pretty clear that there is land in St. Paul that remains
underdeveloped because the costs of cleaning up the property are too
high to make it economical. Especially, when there is untouched land
in the suburbs available at cheaper prices. But, expansion into
suburbs isn't really a sustainable practice, is it, at some point -
cheap land will dry up. I know of one redevelopment project in the
Midway that failed because no one was willing to pay the costs of
cleaning up the site of auto garage (mechanic) - I'm sure there are
many more.
Social services - Much of our St. Paul property taxes come from the
county. Much of the suburban growth comes outside of either Hennipin
or Ramsey county, so this NEW development does evade the costs of
those social services. In addition, St. Paul schools have far larger
percentages of free lunch students, handicapped students, and
immigrants. This results in many costs that are not matched in
suburban school districts. Yes, there is also some extra state or
federal money to meet these needs, but I think its very unlikely that
these funds match the need.
In addition, the proliferation of social service agencies in the city
- does create cost burdens on the city, even if the city itself does
not fund the agencies. Law enforcement, property taken off the tax
rolls, other infrastructure....
In terms of housing. The availability of affordable housing does
often correlate to age of condition of the housing stock. Cities by
definition have very old housing stock, outer ring suburbs by
definition have brand new housing stock. This is not an issue of poor
planning as much as a historical reality which in some ways works to
the disadvantage of cities. Blaming cities for fact that they can't
build 90% brand new houses on new lots, doesn't make sense. In 75
years, outer ring suburbs will be facing many of the same problems
and costs that St. Paul faces today. This ignores the fact, that
housing costs are also tied to the TYPE of housing. Some suburban
communities limit housing to TYPES of housing, lots size and size of
house, that virtually eliminates any chance of providing housing to
lower income families.
Anyway - there are other sides to this argument. Its not simply, but
its also not pure fallacy. Suggesting that higher taxes in cities as
opposed to outer ring suburbs is a matter of bad administration of
cities, is a fallacy or at least an oversimplification. In fact, its
much more complicated and we need to make sure we know what we are
comparing.
Just my humble opinion,
Best wishes,
Tim Erickson
Hamline Midway
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>most such costs are paid through a combination
>of state and federal funds.
>
>And social service costs are typically county burdens, not municipal
>expenses.
>
>Finally, availability of lower cost housing seems most closely
correlated
>with the age (and condition) of the housing stock.
--
=================================================
Tim Erickson http://www.politalk.com
St. Paul, MN - USA 651-643-0722
[EMAIL PROTECTED] iChat/AIM: stpaultim
=================================================
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 08:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [StPaul] Stpaul Digest, Smoking Ban Compromise - Mayor
Kelly
Vetoed the Compormise
To: Gail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ellen Biales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donna Swanson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jay Benanav
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jane Prince
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Tim and Gail -
Gee what am I missing here? Wasn't the first smoking
ban passed by the City Council a compromise? Kathy
Lantry put the smoking rooms provision in as a
compromise, to allow bars to have smoking in smoking
rooms.
However Mayor Kelly vetoed it! He said he he wanted a
level playing field with other Communities. Mayor
Kelly killed the compromise!
Now when the St. Paul City Council passes a bill
IDENTICAL to Minneapolis's and less strict than
Bloomington's, EXACTLY what mayor Kelly said he was
looking for, he's going to veto it A SECOND TIME!
When I predicted this a while back, that Kelly would
veto ANY BILL THAT BANNED SMOKING IN BARS people
accused me of being unfair to Mayor Kelly. Some people
even called him a leader for that veto. Where are
Mayor Kelly's supporters now?
I will say this for at least the third time. The
reason Mayor Kelly is vetoing the Smoking Ban has
virtually NOTHING to do with smoking and public
health. Mayor Kelly still holds onto his dream of a
Twins Stadium in downtown St. Paul, as firmly as he
hugged President Bush, paid for by a 3% bar and
restaurant tax. Bar owners have delivered notice to
Mayor Kelly that they will not support the 3% bar and
restaurant tax, for a Twins Stadium, if he enacts a
smoking ban. Charles Sinkler, owner of Fabulous Ferns
was quoted in the Pioneer Press as saying the stadium
tax was DOA if Kelly signed a smoking ban.
Thus Kelly is hiding behind the skirts of the Ramsey
County Board, who don't have the courage to enact a
full bar and restaurant smoking ban, so Kelly can
still play kissy face with the bar owners.
The four courageous City Council members; Thune
Benanav, Helgen and Lantry deserve our thanks ONCE
AGAIN for standing up to the powers that be.
I think Tim's and Gail's arrows are mis-directed. They
should be sent to the Mayor's office.
Dan Dobson
Summit Hill
--- Gail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Poor Tim. You're probably not surprised that the
> first (and probably next 20) responses to your idea
> of working up to a total ban were a resounding NO.
> The ban folks have been so unyielding that they
> can't back down. What has the experience been in
> Rochester and Duluth? Their bans aren't total, one
> has been tweaked, but how really are they doing? I
> think the terrible mistake that's been made here was
> that the movement took off at such speed there was
> no time to look at options. The smoking room option
> wasn't examined (in truth, they do work in some
> places), tax incentives to install high-tech
> ventilation systems were an option, hours of service
> or percentages of food business were an option -
> combinations of these and many others could have
> been studied. But no, it was all or nothing. Ahem
> - "You're either with us or against us." Where have
> we heard that before?
>
> Gail O'Hare
> St. Paul
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:08:54 -0500
> From: Tim Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [StPaul] Smoking Ban Compromise?
> To: "St. Paul Issues Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ;
> format="flowed"
>
>
> I try not to get too opinionated in the forum on a
> daily basis, but
> from time to time, I need to let something off my
> chest. Here it
> is.....
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> I have to say, that I'm a bit concerned about the
> attitude (at least
> what I perceive) in the Anti-Smoking movement, that
> suggest that this
> is an all or nothing proposal. I fear, that in St.
> Paul and across
> the nation, we are loosing our ability and
> willingness to seek
> compromise.
>
> It seems to me, that there is a very real
> opportunity to reach an
> amicable compromise, which would ban smoking in most
> establishments
> immediately and in all establishments within a
> couple of years.
>
> I've heard that opponents of the ban have been
> willing to discuss a
> total ban, if phased in over a course of several
> years - but, that
> opponents are unwilling to compromise.
>
> Since when, has compromise become a bad word?
>
> While, I agree that a total ban is the ultimate
> goal. I would be
> willing to wait several years for the full ban to
> take effect, if the
> ultimate outcome was that we could start now AND a
> general consensus
> could be reached so that portions of our community
> did not feel as if
> this issue was being pushed down their throat.
>
> I have lived with smoking all of my life, I am eager
> to see it
> disappear. However, I also understand that many of
> my neighbors feel
> differently - and, I for one, would be willing grant
> them time to
> adjust.
>
> As it is, we risk the possibility of doing nothing -
> because we are
> unwilling to compromise.
>
> Now, I'm not directly involved in this issue and
> have not been privy
> to negotiations. I'm sure, I'll be told that the
> efforts at reaching
> a compromise are all a diversion to prevent a
> smoking ban. However,
> it seems clear to me, that the smoking ban train has
> left the station
> and cannot be stopped. Smoking will eventually be
> banned in all St.
> Paul restaurants and bars, either through local or
> state-wide
> legislation.
>
> I don't understand, what appears to me, to be a
> complete
> unwillingness to compromise on the timetable.
>
> I would rather get a portion of the ban right now -
> than wait for 1-2
> years, to get the whole thing at once, while
> increasing the hostility
> and polarization of St. Paul politics in the
> meantime.
>
> Just my humble opinion.........
>
> :-)
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Tim Erickson
> Hamline Midway
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:43:27 -0500
> From: "Dennis Tester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: [StPaul] Smoking Ban Compromise?
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Ah, the 'ol boiling frog trick, eh? Sounds like a
> plan. After all, it's worked for everything else
> the left has tried.
>
>
> Dennis Tester
> Mac-Groveland
>
>
>
>
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:51:18 -0400
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [StPaul] Smoking Ban Compromise?
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Erickson),
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("St. Paul
> Issues Forum")
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> I thought that the anti-smoking folks offered up a
> compromise, which was a smoking room. As I recall
> that was vetoed and blasted as being unhealthy
> (ridiculed wouldn't be too strong of a word). Hmm,
> let's see, one offers up the only compromise so far
> and that proposal is ridiculed, the other side
> offers up absolutely nothing and the correct
> response is to criticize the only side that has
> offered any proposal.
>
> Ramsey County may well be offering up a proposal
> that bans smoking in establishments that sells only
> or mostly food, but wait until you hear the
> screaming on that one from the bar industry. Eagle
> Street Grill mostly food so smoking is banned, half
> a block away Vine Park mostly booze so smoking is
> ok'd. Mancinni's banned mostly food - 620 Club a
> block away mostly booze smokes OK. They will be at
> the court house with torches when that one comes up.
>
>
> I love the sweat and innocent people that believe
> that when it comes to any issue there is a happy
> medium waiting to be uncovered.
>
> Bar owners believe that when you drink you smoke and
> when you smoke you drink and if you have to get your
> butt off of the barstool to have a smoke you might
> discover that you have had enough and keep on
> walking. That is a legitimate fear. Why would they
> ever offer or accept a compromise? It doesn't
> matter if other states have been successful in going
> smoke free. They are afraid and they will fight it.
> Beyond that they are never going to be OK with the
> guy down the block being able to do something they
> can't do. So, what would be the happy compromise?
>
> JMONTOMEPPOF
>
> Chuck Repke
>
>
>
=== message truncated ===
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 08:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [StPaul] Gander Mountain Downtown St. Paul?
To: "St. Paul Issues Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I'd like to add on housing and people living near their jobs. I think
that the
public perception is the city is a dangerous place to live. i know
when
someone asks where i live and i say "North Minneaoplis" they instantly
think,
most people, that I live in a war zone. They ask if I have had
anything stolen
yet or have I seen anyone get shot yet. That isn't the case where I
live.
Same with where I grew up on the East side. I don't know the reasons
or
solutions for that perception but breaking down that wall might go a
long way
to getting new families to reinvest in the city. The housing is old
but there
are a lot of great properties out there that in my opinion have a heck
of a lot
more character and care in construction than a suburban development.
That, in
turn, may eliminate an excuse employers can user for not locating in
St. Paul.
John Harris
webber-camden of North Mpls where it isn't a war zone and i don't wear
riot
gear when i leave my house.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:14:32 -0500
From: "Tom & Elsa Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [StPaul] The real smoking ban compromise
To: "stpaul forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I guess it depends on what side of the fence you stand, whether you
believe the smoking ban has
had compromise.
Some write that Lantry compromised by putting in the smoking rooms.
And proponents of the smoking
ban say that this was the only compromise they were willing to make,
and are now rescinding it, because
some other communities passed a different version of a ban.
Opponents of the ban want bars excluded with 50% or less food. The
proponents of the ban won't
even consider this to be voted on, so it had to be pulled.
Seems to me only the opponents of the ban are talking compromise.
Since any talk of ANY ban is a compromise
to the opponents. So to me the only ones not willing to compromise and
taking the low ground
are the proponents. The proponents are taking an all or nothing stand.
This may win, or it may
lose. The next elections are going to be fun to say the least.
So any talk of the opponents of the ban being unreasonable to me is
totally partisan. The opponents
are the ones making the biggest compromises by even talking about
supporting/allowing some sort of a ban.
Both sides need to take a step back and look at what is best for St
Paul.
This is not a public health issue as some want to say. It's an issue
about some people wanting to control the behavior of others. That may
not be a bad thing, but why ban smoking in bars and restaurants? Why
not ban tobacco products all together. If this was a public health
issue, it wouldn't be about smoke free bars and restaurants, it would be
about a smoke free America. Even OSHA has said that the levels of
carcinogens in second hand smoke in bars/restaurants is not above
accepted levels. Where is the public health issue? It's not a public
health issue, it's about controlling people's behavior. Until opponents
of the ban start fighting back with the fact that this is not about
public health, but behavior control, the opponents are going to continue
to lose.
This is the same as the gun control crowd. They said at first they
just wanted to control certain types of guns.
Then it became ammunition, then it became all guns. This is going down
the same road. Let's just start
at the end game. Either the proponents start going to go after making
tobacco/nicotine products illegal, or
let it alone altogether.
Tom Thompson
Como Park
h
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:23:17 -0500
From: "John Mannillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [StPaul] Gander Mountain Downtown St. Paul?
To: "List Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "St. Paul Issues Forum"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
As a Downtown office building owner, I may have an obvious bias with
subsidizing the private sector...but I've been the most vocal critic
of
corporate welfare. In my opinion, this kind of subsidy is not
necessarily
bad for the taxpayer or the City in general. The devil is in the
details.
We have had many years of "bait and switch" proposals from our recent
Mayors
and some City Councils. What we were told we were getting, was much
different than reality. When the Mayor's real intent is to funnel
public
dollars to his private sector friends, the public's interest suffers.
If
all the Coleman subsidies worked, we wouldn't be in the worst shape
we've
ever had.
The Gander Mountain proposal is to subsidize for filling a vacancy, not
to
build new unnecessary space, not to move people out of the core, not a
simple give-away for nothing in return. At least I hope that is the
case.
Once the City makes the financial commitment we need to see they
enforce the
deal and make sure Gander Mountain delivers on their promise. Unlike
US
bank or Principal Mutual or Conseco etc.
The only reason Gander Mountain is looking at Saint Paul is because
the
rental rates are so cheap. Again remember that was the City's own
doing.
If we begin to fill our office space, rates will increase along with
property valuation. That means an increase in tax base.
To answer the question of what else can be done to attract new tenants
and
investment: Invest a healthy amount of money in infrastructure i.e.
streetscapes, parks, lighting, skyways, District heat and cooling, then
keep
the streets clean, maintained and safe. If we spent the $200 million
Coleman gave away to a handful of corporate supporters, we would have
the
most attractive downtown rental market in Minnesota and probably the
country.
John Mannillo
Downtown and Highland Park
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:19:53 -0500
From: Tim Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [StPaul] So why not just compromise?
To: "St. Paul Issues Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
First of all, I'd like to respond to the concerns that I've singled
out the pro-ban folks as unwilling to compromise. I did, but only for
effect. Most of the traffic in this forum is pro-ban. BUT, the
inability to compromise appears to be a universal trait.
I've seen willingness to compromise by a FEW folks on either side of
the issue, but even more unwillingness on all sides. Clearly, both
sides have made some gestures towards compromise, but neither side
been willing to bring it to a conclusion. I'll redirect my "arrows"
in ALL directions, but I don't like to think about them as arrows,
just opinions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'd also like to thank Jeanne for all of her work on this issue and
her very thoughtful response. I agree with much of what she says, but
respectfully disagree with a few points.
>From a public health perspective it is not really possible to
>justify protecting some workers and failing to provide protections
>to those most heavily exposed and most vulnerable. Perhaps
>politicians can do that in the name of getting things done but
>public health professionals can not easily sacrifice those least
>able to protect themselves.
Its an old cliche, that politics is sloppy and messy. But, its true.
We will be compromising on health issues, if we allow our insistence
for an full ban, right now, to mean that in fact, NO BAN is
implemented.
But, we'll be transferring blame to the politicians while reassuring
ourselves that we fought the good fight and lost.
If in fact, a compromise might make some workplaces safer immediately
and others safer in the long run, isn't that better than leaving all
workplaces as they are today.
Contrary to Jeanne's opinion, I would argue that compromises on
health issues are made all the time in the name of public policy. As
economics, practicality, and differing perspectives require.
We make arbitrary judgements about when to enforce DWI laws, rather
than just insisting that no one be allowed to drink any alcohol and
drive. Seat belt laws were phased in. Traffic enforcement as a whole,
is full of comprises to public safety based upon the amount of risk
that we as a society are willing to tolerate at any given time.
If a building material is deemed unsafe, there is usually a
transition period of time, in which the material is taken out of
commission and remediation implemented. We don't simply ban the
material and insist that every building replace it NOW. Economics and
practicality make that impossible.
We have known that second hand smoke is dangerous for 20 years, but
we have compromised safety and allowed it to continue. There is
nothing magical about this year, that requires that we solve the
entire problem today.
Public policy isn't about what SHOULD be, its about what agreements
and compromises that we are able and willing to reach as a community
at any given point of time.
We should take pride in the fact that we are finally making progress
at addressing an important public policy issue. We should be clear
about the goal and make sure that progress continues.
But, in my opinion (just my opinion), we should not sacrifice the
prospect of making some progress, to some ideal notion of how we
think that things SHOULD be. Things are almost never as we think that
they SHOULD be, because we all have different ideas about what that
is.
Now, maybe the public health officials out there SHOULD keep up the
good fight and insist on a full and immediate ban - that's their job.
But, then maybe some of the rest of us, SHOULD address the reality of
the situation and accept that some progress is better than no
progress - and that we have neighbors and colleagues in this city who
see this issue differently than we do - and that their concerns and
opinions NEED to be considered.
Once again, this is just my humble opinion.
Best wishes,
Tim Erickson
Hamline Midway
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
=================================================
Tim Erickson http://www.politalk.com
St. Paul, MN - USA 651-643-0722
[EMAIL PROTECTED] iChat/AIM: stpaultim
=================================================
------------------------------
_____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
_____________________________________________
For state and national discussions see:
http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
End of Stpaul Digest, Vol 9, Issue 6
************************************
_____________________________________________
To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
