consultants are sandburs

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

RAMSEY - Huh? TIF is not rocket science. Yet, it appears obfuscation is the equivalent of rocket science.

Review of today's City Council Worksession Agenda, Ehlers on TIF, this image, what exactly does it mean:

Click the image to enlarge it for better reading.

The only sense I can make of it is our past voted-out council hung a note around the city's neck to pay money to Flaherty's for-profit adventure. Why that was done, go figure. Somebody had a Flaherty job, but that may or may not have been a factor in what seems very strange.

Ehlers should be in the rocket science business. The firm has a future there. What does this gobble-degook, (the Ehlers part), mean?

_________________
Comments are welcome, but only if on point and illuminating of what looks like a trickle of city income from all that HRA/Town Center expenditure, and then of that mere trickle, the lion's share is going to be given Flaherty. Yes/no? Flaherty is not a lion, but surely seems (one way or the other) to have gotten the best of past negotiations with our beloved City tiny town.

That Worksession is this evening, see this general link. Perhaps light will be shed there that removes all uncertainty and concern.

___________UPDATE___________
What about these two Ehlers hummers? Especially the blue land? The caption says, it does, "City and HRA Owned Land,"
but then blue means, "57 parcels privately owned." Alice seems still trapped down the rabbit hole, unable to understand Topsy-turvy. What is sacrosanct/special about all that blue land? Especially the blue marked land west of Armstrong? What's history on that? Who did what, when, why? How come that blue land, unlike the green marked stuff, remains in TIF 14, with the green stuff out?


It looks as if some land gets favorable TIF treatment [again Wonderland prevails, i.e., favorable TIF treatment of private land is defined somewhere in the torturous documentation, I believe, as not a subsidy]. Why, exactly, not? Isn't that making a mockery of the word "subsidy?"

Am I the only person in Ramsey who is suffering a major mind boggling out of all this? The only one to smell smoke? To see mirrors?

As headlined,

Huh?

_____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Further Huh? The below page and still working on only the Worksession agenda; with Northern Starz [sic] being "a children's theater" who are the Pied Piper adults who'd be signing a contract, were a contract to ever come of this?

How can a presentation be made, cogently, credibly, without identifying the actual players? Is this an LLC, a statutory nonprofit, Bradlee Dean's enterprises, a pirate band, wtf? This should be turned down, immediately and outright. It is a subsidy to some ill-identified private sector player(s). Get real. Get professional. Spike it.


ADDITIONAL THOUGHT ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL: How many children - child-actors would benefit? How would they be chosen? Would there be open talent trials for all children in the community to have a shot at enjoying participation? Who'd be the talent judges, were it to be a meritocratic adventure for potentially all Ramsey's children? If shows are presented, would they be free and open to the entire community, or would an entry fee be charged, and if so, how set? It just has a look of a pack of parents wanting their dear little ones to have the experience of a children's acting/theater participation, but unwilling to pay market rate for buying that for their kids. Why should we all, or our representatives, think that a sound public goal? Much, too much, is left unsaid.

Perhaps better than simply spiking it, table it, and demand that those behind the proposal step forward to identify themselves and flesh it out so it can be sanely judged, as to whether there would be any public purpose whatsoever served by allowing this thing to happen in any way, shape, or form.

____________FINAL UPDATE____________
Franchise fee deliberations are a part of the Worksession agenda; see tail end of pdf doc package, here. The debate will likely be about checks and balances upon use of a franchise fee for road upkeep purposes, what's reasonable or not, and will not consider a flat denial of franchise fee imposition for that purpose. This screen capture thumbnail image is for those not wishing to follow the link to review actual proposed ordinance text, i.e., for whom summary info suffices:

click the image to enlarge and read

No comments: