RAMSEY - Does it pass the Jim Deal test? Does it pass the, "Would YOU live there" test? Does it pass the, "Would you ever do this with YOUR own money" test?

Statue of Ben Dover, the Ramsey taxpayer.
Facing an eight million bend.

Jim Deal is nobody's fool. Not a dunce, nor an amateur. Hence, the Jim Deal test.

What's that?

I have seen people touting the letters, "WWJD" for "What would Jesus do?"

Same letters, add a "D" to get "WWJDD."

What would Jim Deal do? A good test since it is for things of a money dimension, (but not without questions of faith too, faith in who you are dealing with and how the future might unfold given the present).

Jim Deal knows money, and has not allowed himself to be hood-winked by some counterparty risk-taker getting out the "my financing woes are so burdensome" crying towel to sugar up a deal out of Deal's pocket.

Nor has Jim Deal, to my knowledge, let feeling overcome reason, by craving an outcome so much that he'd let that be so strong a feeling that it would overrule wisdom such as don't put yourself behind the eight ball.

Another way to say it is as John Demco, the Seattle lawyer I knew who prospered in real estate trading, "Some of the best deal outcomes for you are from the ones you walk away from."

And yet another way to say it is that "No" is as good a word as "Yes," and in some obvious situations better.

The point is: I move from within the comments to the sidebar poll post to here, below in its own separate post, the point and counterpoint existing in that comment thread, since it deserves everyone's attention with the mayor talking of a dislike for "dumb" things, and my "so you want some other question to chew on" response.

That exchange might be of interest to Ben Dover. And to you.

Here it is:

This is a serious set of questions. The pivotal one is, would a sophisticated individual like Jim Deal ever touch the position that some are suggesting the City of Ramsey should take.

Simply, ask him to.

If he says no, the obvious follow-up question is, "Why not?" And for that, hope he is willing to block out an hour and a half appointment so he can explain all his reasoning, in as simple a set of terms as necessary to get sense through to whoever it is he is talking to and the level of sophistication involved.

If BINGO! he says "Yes," then city council members, stand aside and hold Jim's coat while he steps to the plate and takes that second position for eight big ones where, if the thing tanks, he can foreclose the second position to get the promoter [claiming to be into it for about two-and-a-half million but check those books] out of ownership so as to own the adventure, subject to a first position of twenty-six big ones; with the terms and conditions there being, so far a black hole mystery but where the devil or a thousand devils will be in the details. Simply, it will not happen. In the simplest terms for simple minds, Jim Deal, as stated at the outset, is nobody's fool.

And what would it tell you if he says, "No, I don't think that would be a favorable position for me to assume"?

And Jim Deal, in all of that is within the private sector, where he owes no fiduciary duty to spend other people's grudgingly given tax money wisely. Wake up, Bob, Jeff, Colin, and Dave [and I guess Dave would be able to phrase the question substituting Jerry Bauer for Jim Deal and understand immediately an answer - Jerry Bauer not being anyone's fool either].

So that's it. The Jim Deal test, and on yes, stand aside and let him take that second position. That will happen and pigs will fly.

__________________________
One final point for adding a bit more context to assist the understanding of those who have not viewed a particular recent HRA broadcast - an email I sent last night, after viewing that broadcast (click the image to enlarge and read):

That puts the good folks running [ruining?] our fine city into a dilemma. Either they stonewall and refuse to hand over the smoking gun, if there is one, or they provide all they hold. Minnesota law says they have to meet a data disclosure request promptly, and in good faith. If they do provide all they hold, and have nothing to show on either request, then I cannot imagine a more damning and dismal show of inattention to even the most minimal norms of due diligence than that.