It had been a perfect thing. "Rooftops" was the mantra. I will not name the main proponent of the deception - but more rooftops of the wrong kind can end up costing more for government services than they produce in tax income - unless the rates against assessed valuation are so high to prevent this, and that means the rates, being uniform, are that high for every taxpayer in Ramsey.
Now the Mantra has changed from instant gratification, taxwise, a gratification arising (or forecast to arise) automatically from the tax windfall of more Town Center rooftops [an effort as easy as baking a cake] to a presently convenient newspeak explanation, "In the long run ...". And, "Riverdale took xxx years ...". And, "Maple Grove took yyy years, etc."
I am waiting to hear, "Rome wasn't built in a day."
All under the rubric of that old classic, "In the long run ...".
John Maynard Keynes aptly said, "In the long run we are all dead." *
The Watchdog said, "Ramsey Spends $19 Million on Nothing."
That is a simplification. There is a building. It appears soundly built. It is inconveniently located for most of us compared to the prior Hwy 5 central siting.
It is big. It is under utilized. Staff will expand. Staff will fill the vacant space available for it's expansion. It is happening already.
The Watchdog should have said, "Ramsey Spends $19 Million and Gets Little of Value in Return in the Middle of a Weed Patch." That sums it up better. And taxpayers will be paying over the next decade or longer for the irresponsible mistakes of those in office who were making the bad decisions while promising "shoppes and restaurants" which we still await.
Surveys and all. Nineteen million dollars later, which shoppes and restaurants would you prefer?
Put aside the Kurak effort to advance Kurak land-holdings and dealings while on council and the Elvig effort to advance Bauer land-holdings and dealings while in office. That still leaves the other fellow-travelers on council, and their actions and choices.
If I had to sum it in one word, that word would be, "Irresponsible."
Next, I read of so-called "Public Facility Lease Revenue Bonds." Huh? Who is that? What is that? Who leases what from whom? Who owns what?
Then, I read about a bank ahead on the public records of the City's Master Development Agreement for the Town Center; and mischief involving dealings run through a suspect organ, a title company named Powerhouse Title, that was a Nedegaard operation, and I have the question - Does Ramsey hold good and marketable title to the land that the new City Hall and Ramp are built on?
If not, who owns what?
If owned, by Ramsey, how is it subject to potential rights or powers of divestiture, if any?
It is not the classic question, "Who runs City Hall?"
It is a step more basic, "Who owns City Hall?" And the City of Ramsey's answer is [... awaited]. Go down to City Hall and ask the question yourself. First, find someone to listen - our officials are good about that, they will hear you out - then ask, then wait to see if you get a credible answer and explanation of who owns what. Try it.
Even if title is good and free and clear; it was a bad investment of our citizens' wealth. But if title is not good and free and clear --- what then?
I have yet to see absolute reassurances and explanations from those in office, appointed, retained and elected, that the title situation is not problem free.
That is worrisome.
But an overbuilt palace and a ramp in the middle of a field that short-term could have been graveled at far less up-front cost - awaiting instead of prognosticating growth that did not happen.
Prudence.
Irresponsibility.
The words are like polar extremes, on opposite ends of a continuum.
Where do YOU, reading this, place on that continuum the official decision making regarding Town Center, so far, as it has been, as it has turned out?
Sure. You understand.
But, in the long run ...
*_______________________
In a context concerning the quantity theory of money, something we can leave to economists, the fuller Keynes quote was, "But this **long run** is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again."
Local politicians, in the "tempestuous seasons" telling us that "when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again," not only rings hollow and unsatisfying; it might be totally wrong.
In the long run the opening photograph may go years unchanged; or worse, it may be patched up and cobbled together in a way to appear less a vast wasteland; but "in the long run" a deteriorated blighted spectre may remain if too bad a move is made now. It is better to stand pat than to let egos look and feel better, in the short run - say, running to next year's November 2008 elections. There will be pressures to patch, cover, and recharacterize.
Short run irresponsibility got us where we are. So what expectation, what probability is there that short run patches and band-aids will get us into better shape? Stand pat, for now.
------------an added thought------------
If Powerhouse Title was involved and if title to the city hall land was not properly perfected; two very big ifs that exist because I do not hold a current title abstract; then is a lawsuit involving the City and a foreclosing lender showing failure to join an essential party; the Public Facility Lease Revenue Bond holder(s)?
If they financed a fixture placed on vacant land, and title to the vacant land might be at issue; they appear to have a stake in the outcome of the litigation. Did the bond holders have any claim or participation in the bankruptcy?
As to this entire line of doubt; if the city holds a current title abstract from a company besides Powerhouse Title showing my worries are groundless I wish they would advertise or publish the fact. This image comes to mind, regarding unnecessary complications and keeping things simple:
