Hear, hear, John.
"...How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do..."
I am assuming that Housing 5000 was "necessary" to provide the City with
more revenue. "Build (sh)it and they will come," seemed to be the
o'mantra. And built (sh)it they have. Case in point: there is a new row
of homes on Scheffer in my neighborhood, and they are literally sinking
into the ground. The slipshod construction is not the only problem -
buyers who were led to believe that a new street would also be built still
have none. Their front doors open up to nothing but grass, which may sound
nice at first, but imagine telling your guests how to get your house, or an
ambulance. I believe there's something wrong with the fire hydrant there,
also. As far as I can tell, from nearly all respects the place is a
disaster. I will say one thing for it - it's not flesh-colored.
There is no excuse for this debacle, and I hold the mayor personally
responsible. He seems to think that all this housing is just wonderful, as
long as he makes his f^*king numbers. Go down Butternut and compare the
new homes to the old ones and ask yourself which one is more likely to last
another 125 years. How do their market values compare today? How do their
market values when built compare to their MV's fifty or 100 years
afterward? There IS value in quality, whether it shows up in today's
budgets or not. There ARE costs associated with poor development and
mismanagement, whether you count them in dollars or not. In more advanced
countries, unisolated ones, they consider the value of birds and trees and
air, etc.
Google "Centex lawsuit" and see how many people have been duped by them.
What price tag do you put on the loss of use of the non-existant riverfront
playground formerly known as Little Italy? To me, it's a three quadrillion
lira loss, at least.
And if it's not crap they build, it's places I can barely afford or
necessarily want to patronize: Kincaid's (been once), Fhima's (twice, and
I'm not sure what drew me back the second time...), Pazzaluna (twice), a
Rebours (never), to name a few. I'll bet $5 that most of the receipts from
those places are saved and given to the Tax Lady; i.e. it is you and I who
help pay for others' power lunches (and Wild tickets).
It's a damn shame when people who have the foresight to say/know that "a
huge interchange would be a mistake," or "Coney Island/Landmark Center
should be saved," etc. are called obstructionists and other such names,
only to be proven correct time after time. The mayor and the editors would
do well to pay attention to what the "ground troops" are experiencing.
Sadly, it's much like Rummy thinking he knows what is actually happening in
Iraq and thinking armor-free Hummers are good enough: "You develop the
City as you can, not how you might want or wish it to be." Well, I'm fed
up with the powers-that-be thinking they've got it so figured out when
obviously they don't. Where's the harm in allowing the citizenry to strive
for the City they want or wish it to be? But no, it's one damn obstacle
after another, battle after battle, just to try to improve our
neighborhoods with sensible, thought-out development ideas. And we're the
ones who are labelled the pains in the ass! It's not fair and it's not
right.
I'm tired of the lining of a few "generals'" pockets coming before "the
welfare of the troops." I'm tired of people saying things like "there will
need to be a million-dollar condo on the top of the Schmidt Brewery, and
there will likely need to be big box retail for it to succeed." "We have
to use vinyl." That is such a weak-ass, uninventive, business-as-usual
cop-out that I could puke. You can't put a dollar figure on how valuable
it would be for every man, woman, and child in St. Paul to be able to look
out over the fiefdom from the top of the brewery's tower. You can't
quantify how one's quality of life will be downgraded by having a Wal-Mart
on the banks of the Mississippi River, or trying to shove 60,000
suburbanites into a tiny corner of downtown for a dumb game. (Can you see
how the RiverCentre, in it's multi-functional role, is adapting to the NHL
strike? Do you think the same could ever be said for a baseball stadium?
Certainly not...)
"...Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul..."
http://bobdylan.com/songs/masters.html
(9/11 commentary deleted by Thought Police)
Oh, John, you've really struck a nerve, can you tell?!
AMH
"Brewerytown"
Fort Road
Andrew M. Hine
Corporate Research Materials Laboratory
3M Center 201-1W-28
St. Paul MN
55144-1000
USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (651) 733-1070
Fax: (651) 737-5335
Lab 201-W110
"John Mannillo"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ack.com> To
Sent by: "Tim Erickson" <[email protected]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc
forum.org
Subject
[StPaul] development at any cost
01/18/2005 04:17
PM
Today's Pioneer Press editorial is somehow using the future departure of
stem cell researcher, Dr. Catherine Verfaillie as reason to again attack
the Saint Paul City Council. I think this is a real stretch. The Paper's
vendetta against the "Gang of Four" and Eastside teeter-totters has lost
touch with what is sound and prudent public policy.
I think the debate which is really taking place is one of "development vs.
management" for the city. The Pioneer Press along with the Saint Paul Area
Chamber of Commerce and those city officials who were successfully elected
with the help of big business funding, are strongly allied for new
development... at any cost. In the case of some of our politicians this
may even mean a step-up to higher office. Unfortunately this is often at
the expense of residents of Saint Paul.
I really can't remember an example when the PP or CC didn't support any
kind of development, unless it was for an even bigger one. Our community
councils too often are put on the defensive in order to try to protect what
they like and want to save in their neighborhoods.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-development, after all I've been a
developer for over 30 years. But when we spend both private and public
dollars to improve our city, we shouldn't tear down and start over 20
years later.
I can't help but mention the Norm Coleman era for our city. He brought his
circus to town, set up his tent and almost everyone had a good time. Then
the circus left town and were left with unsustainable new development. This
becomes more apparent every year.
Now the Pioneer Press cites the need to solve our 25% vacancy rate. This
of course translates into a greatly reduced tax base. They don't however
seem to realize those same development policies they supported under
Coleman and since then, have been a substantial cause of the problem.
Good public management doesn't mean stagnant development. It just means we
should not destroy the good with the bad. Rather we need to build on the
good (often this means infill) by retaining what can't be replaced in our
community. We should then always look to get a greater return for our
investment of time and money we do make. This is good management and good
development is just part of the bigger picture.
John Mannillo
Downtown and Highland Park
_____________________________________________
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/
_____________________________________________
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/
