It is nice to see this source, but it doesn't appear to prohibit political canvassing, as long as no handbills are handed out. All of the restrictions mentioned in the quoted passage refer to commercial activity or distribution of printed material. It doesn't sound to me like this clause, by itself, could be used to stop people from soliciting political donations or signatures, or contact information, or keep them from asking people to support a given candidate on election day. Political speech and political activity operate under different rules than commercial speech.
If this is all there is, I don't think it establishes a right to forbid political activity at the farmers market at all. Jane Prince said: > > 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/ > > -- Bob Treumann, Saint Paul Please Note: Replies to this email address all go to the trash except where the subject line contains a recognized mailing list identifier, such as [TCMETRO],[StPaul], MP-N ... _____________________________________________ 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/
