Bob, Thanks for all the specifics on those sites. I think a big difference we have seen with the last two administrations is we now have development policy based in politics. In yesterdays editorial, Pam Wheelock said Coleman supported a sports arena when it was politically unpopular. I would suggest his support was because of politics, not in spite of it. Coleman saw enormous financial support coming from big business and expected support from the public as well. To Coleman's surprise, he was clearly wrong concerning the stadium.
The editorial board has now acknowledged that the only problem Downtown is with our 20% vacancy rate. Even by isolating it and minimizing the rate, this is no small problem. But the real problem is our shrinking tax base. A major contributor to this is our vacancy. Coleman actually boasted that he reduced the City's tax levy in his last State of the City Address. Both newspapers thought this meant taxpayers were paying less. Actually this meant taxpayers all were paying more, only for reduced services. That tax base continues to shrink with every TIF deal we complete or tenant we lose. Fewer tax dollars, means our quality of life (which the Editorial Board is so proud of) suffers. So the renaissance that I'm tired hearing about has become very old. During Latimer's time in 1986 there was a coffee table book published called "The Renaissance Of St. Paul", when ather was actually more developed in our Downtown as well as the neighborhoods. The downside of political over-hype is a loss of direction to where we want to go. John Mannillo Downtown and Highland Park ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Spaulding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "St Paul Issues Forum" <stpaul@mnforum.org> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [StPaul] Twins stadium and its renaissance > > Wow, the bluster (and spin) of the Editorial page in yesterday's > Pioneer Press is something to behold! (see > http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/11465650.htm) > > A *tremendous* thanks again to John Mannillo, who in addition to being > one of those individuals most knowledgeable about downtown history, is > one of the most willing to share his knowledge for the public good. > John wrote: > > > There has been little focus on cost or opportunity lost. There is no > > acknowledgement of poor public policy or long > > term investment concerns when it comes to development. Perhaps this > > is because the Editorial Board and the Chamber Of Commerce don't pay > > much for these developments. > > For years, the shadow of the stadium has loomed large over the future > of downtown. Much evolution and growth in downtown has been delayed > for the stadium proposals. To add a little depth, I thought I'd list > projects which have been hindered by the stadium proposal over the > years. > > A) WACOUTA COMMONS/NORTH QUADRANT. An entire neighborhood was delayed > years because of the stadium. During much of Norm Coleman's term, he > wanted to build a Twins stadium in what today is the Wacouta Commons > neighborhood. Downtown was a little slow to latch on to the housing > boom, in part because this neighborhood, one of the first phases of the > housing expansion, always rested under the shadow of a possible > stadium. Finally, around 2000, the idea of a stadium there was > dropped, and now there's hundreds of new condo and apartment units > there, along with a new park. Developments like: The Essex, the > Dakota, Sibley Park, Sibley Court, 9th Street Lofts, and Printers Row. > > B) CLEVELAND CIRCLE. Norm Coleman helped develop two proposals for a > retail/entertainement complex on the Cleveland Circle (Ice Palace) > block. When Randy Kelly came into office, he put the kabosh on the > proposals, because a stadium had significant impacts on the site. Not > the least of which was that the roof of the stadium was to travel > across 6th Street and hover about 20 stories in the air over the block. > So the area has sat undeveloped now for an additional four years. > > Further, St. Joseph's hospital has made decisions about how to expand > based on the possibility of a stadium. St. Joe's wants to build a > building over 10th Street rather than expanding within their own > property to the west, in part because of the possibility that a stadium > would go there. > > C) LOWERTOWN. A major plan to develop the area east and south of > Lowertown has sat shelved for years, while the site was considered for > a stadium. The "River Garden Plan", which ties Lowertown, Union Depot, > riverfront, and Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary together, is finally a > possibility, and some long-term planning can begin. > > D) WEST SIDE FLATS. A stadium set back the Bridges proposal a.... > Well, maybe lost opportunity costs aren't always entirely bad. > > Bob Spaulding > Downtown > > ------------------------------------------------- > JOIN the St. Paul Issues Forum TODAY: > http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/ > ------------------------------------------------- > POST MESSAGES HERE: stpaul@mnforum.org > > 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: stpaul@mnforum.org 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/
