Mr. Tester writes, "I have no doubt that if Norm Coleman were still mayor of St. Paul, we would be getting the new Twins stadium across the street from the X. . . . But Noooooo, the anti-business democrats convinced Kelly that we need that space for another monument to government or some such thing and he refused to enter the contest for the Twins. So because he was brow-beaten into toeing the party line on that one,... " If Mr. Tester checked his facts he would find that nothing could be further from the truth. First, in 1999, when Norm was still Mayor, the voters overwhelming rejected a 1/2 cent sales tax increase intended to bring the Twins to Saint Paul. Even Norm, with the help of the Chamber of Commerce and the support of a majority of the City Council couldn't put that over the voters. http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/199908/03_khoom_stadium-s/stadium.shtml Then in 2003 the legislature passed a stadium funding bill, that thru Mayor Kelly's skillful lobbying, froze the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County out of the deal, (The bill prohibited a City-County partnership and Minneapolis with it's $10 million Sports Cap, was not about to go it alone.) and essentially gave Mayor Kelly and the City of Saint Paul a clear shot for the Twins. Yet even though he did not have to bid against Minneapolis or any other City, Mayor Kelly could not close the deal. This proposal never came before the City Council, which at that time was still controlled by Kelly supporters, nor the voters of Saint Paul. Three weeks ago I debated Jerry Bell, the President of the Minnesota Twins, in front of the Minneapolis Rotary Club and I asked why The Twins did not reach a deal with Saint Paul in 2003, when the legislature passed this bill. Jerry Bell's answer was very clear, "The bill didn't give us enough money". He did not mention that the bill also had a cap on infrastructure costs, made the team liable for all cost overruns and revenue shortfalls as well. Lastly, in extensive discussions I have had up at the Capital with legislators and other lobbyists for the teams, I have been told several times that Carl Pohlad never had any intention of bringing the Twins to Saint Paul. He knows his team base is the western suburbs and believes that a large portion of Twins Fans would never travel to Saint Paul for a Twins game. Pohlad essentially used Kelly in 2003 to get a bill through the legislature and planned on getting a better deal in 2004, but the huge budget deficit killed that idea. The facts are the DFL had very little to do with the Twin's not coming to Saint Paul. Randy worked his tail off to get them here, only I believe he never saw that Pohlad, was using him simply to get a bill through the legislature. Dann Dobson Executive Director - No Stadiumk Tax Coalition Summit Hill - Saint Paul 651-227-4376
Dennis Tester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Let's get practical here for a minute. 65% of this town may call themselves democrats, but 35% call themselves something else. If the mayor is in office to truly serve the public (as he claims), then it stands to reason that he will occassionally do things that don't adhere to the party line, if only because it's good for the city. Believe it or not, not all DFL positions are formulated because they're good for the city (gasp!). The Excel Energy Center comes to mind. People in this area of all political stripes wanted pro hockey. Local watering holes salivated. Fans got pumped at the prospect. Even as a libertarian I supported it because to me, local sports trumps politics (;-). But key democrats (you know who you are, you weasels) opposed it for lame political reasons. Fortunately, Norm had already thumbed his nose at the opponents (some of whom no doubt now have season tickets) and now we have our hockey team and arena (no strike wisecracks please ... they'll be back). I have no doubt that if Norm Coleman were still mayor of St. Paul, we would be getting the new Twins stadium across the street from the X. I'm sure tens or thousands of St. Paul democrats, republicans and independents would have been thrilled to have the Twins in our backyard. But Noooooo, the anti-business democrats convinced Kelly that we need that space for another monument to government or some such thing and he refused to enter the contest for the Twins. So because he was brow-beaten into toeing the party line on that one, I won't be voting for Randy Kelly. See how that works? And because the alternative, DFL party endorsed candidate will be a left-wing nut, I probably won't be voting in the mayoral election at all. I don't want a mayor who's beholden to a handful of party hacks. And THAT'S the reason why we have low voter turnout. Lack of reasonable choices. Dennis Tester Mac-Groveland ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Driscoll" To: "St. Paul Discuss" Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [StPaul] Randy Kelly for all of us? In fact, endorsing organizations always expect a candidate/elected official to be beholden to them. That's why they endorse. The expectation is that, through endorsement, we own a piece of you, especially if with our endorsement comes money. If local elections were partisan contests like state and federal elections (and I'm not endorsing this idea), it would flush such nonsense out in the open and either force this mayor to ask for DFL endorsement, declare for the party that's paying his way - Republicans - or claim independence. It might not change the present scenario except that he couldn't credibly claim to be a Democrat while running as an independent. Many DFLers, especially East Siders, remain in Kelly's camp as they did for Norm Coleman came clean and switched parties. Those same DFLers are quick to attack challenges to their endorsed candidates as deceptively disloyal. And they are rewarded with seemingly endless terms on important bodies like the Planning Commission, the Charter Commission, the Human Rights Commission and any number of boards and commissions that help run this city. Yet, when it comes to actually serving, incumbents generally thumb their noses at their party platform to which they theoretically pledged allegiance by asking for the party's blessing. Does that prevent their re-endorsement when caucuses and conventions signal the next election? Of course not. "S/He may be a bastard," goes the old saw, "but s/he's our bastard." That illusion persists as though another candidate more likely to stand for the party platform could not be elected. It's the illusion that incumbency is more important than integrity. Thus do we find incumbents growing increasingly arrogant and independent from their constituents' and the public interest. If a candidate challenges the endorsee of his or her own party after asking for the endorsement and not getting it, all will be forgiven if the challenger wins. But woe to the challenger that loses. The hypocrisy rampant in party politics is a major reason why we've seen such a precipitous plunge in party process participation and a concomitant drop in voter turnout. The disgrace we call local elections (in which little more than 10-15% of eligible residents bother to vote in primaries and, perhaps, double that in the general) screams for major reforms, not the least of would be honesty, consistency and inclusiveness in party politics and a greater recognition of the need for broader citizen involvement in local governance. The absence of those attributes contributes significantly to the generally mediocre leadership and low numbers of qualified citizens stepping forward to serve their city, their county and their state. But never for a minute believe that endorsing organizations don't have the highest expectations that their endorsed candidate will be "theirs" throughout the incumbent's term, and they press for undue influence based on that notion. Too often, the office-holders are, indeed, unduly influenced by them, leaving citizens feeling disempowered in affecting public policy that affects their lives. For all the flap we hear about Kelly and Coleman and Bush and the rest, we have only ourselves to blame if likeminded voters aren't voting. It takes some serious organization, not insider baseball and deluded power brokering to yield competent and accountable government and the elected officials that we send to represent us. Andy Driscoll Crocus Hill/Ward 2 -- "Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity." - Lord Acton -- Visit our weblog: http://newswired.blogspot.com From: Eric Mitchell --- Jacob Dorer wrote: > I just got a letter from Mayor Kelly today, which some of you will get > too. He > mentions others running for mayor have disagreed with the DFL and endorsed > candidates in the past. No he doesn't. He went after one in particular. He sort of dismisses Ortega and says he's not sure if he has always supported the DFL endorsed candidate and goes on to say some marginally nice things about Ortega (we haven't always agreed, but he knows his heart is in the right place, he's worked hard on the Ramsey County Board or something like that). He takes some serious shots at Coleman. He mentions the endorsments and other stuff. Clearly, his sights are set on Chris Coleman. For the average person, it reads as if he's showing respect for their likeness, but in reality its informing people of what he thinks are weaknesses for a candidate seeking party endorsement. He does state clearly that he is still a Democrat. He says he's not seeking endorsement because he wants to serve all of St Paul, as if a party endorsement means you're beholden to a group of people instead of ideals. Oh well. There was also a pledge to run a clean campaign and a promise to be accountable for his campaign activities. That was different. To sum it up, the seven or eight sheets of paper I received said: "Hey, I'm running. Look at what I've done. This is what I want to do. The DFL is too narrow. I can reach across party lines. Bush ain't so bad. Rafael is OK, but nevermind. Chris is much like me. Vote for me." The font was too small. The information, was on front and back, far too much. The campaign pledge was different and caught my attention the longest (shock). Eric Mitchell Payne Phalen ------------------------------------------------- JOIN the St. Paul Issues Forum TODAY: http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/ ------------------------------------------------- POST MESSAGES HERE: [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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 4/1/2005 ------------------------------------------------- JOIN the St. Paul Issues Forum TODAY: http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/ ------------------------------------------------- POST MESSAGES HERE: [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/ ------------------------------------------------- JOIN the St. Paul Issues Forum TODAY: http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/ ------------------------------------------------- POST MESSAGES HERE: [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/
