A lawyer, this link.
The credentials are sound, and FEC has a Harry Niska giving to GOP people and things. Wishy-washy things like this get to me:
Sensible Economic Development
Economic development will raise the standard of living for everyone in Ramsey, and the city should foster the creation of new places for Ramsey residents to work, eat, and shop. But development plans must be realistic and cost effective. We must learn lessons from the mistakes of the past (especially regarding Town Center), and together we can make Ramsey a great place to live, work, and do business.
Sir, beyond rhetoric and getting instead to specifics on the ground now in Ramsey, if you read this and I will send an email to your firm email address requesting you leave a responding comment, is this - and the cost of it, stupid or wise? Or do you defer to and agree with your friends?
________UPDATE________
I just sent the email. I hope there's no "spam trap" excuses or problems.
I do like the man's campaign website, because it says as much as the facebook item, but more directly, in fewer words.
http://www.harryniska.com/
We wait.
We see.
__________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Candidate Harry Niska sent this email yesterday, giving detail:
Eric --
First, thanks for mentioning my candidacy on your blog. I appreciate the work you put into it to dig into local political issues.
I also understand your criticism that my statement on economic development is somewhat vague. That is true, but it reflects two things. First, the statement is intended as an expression of high-level principles, not a detailed policy paper. Second, I am not running as someone who has all the answers, but rather as a problem-solver with certain principles (which I tried to lay out in the statement) and an open mind.
All that said, Ramsey Town Center is a tough nut to crack. We are not drawing on a blank slate, and we have to do the best we can going forward with the hand that we are dealt.
Though tempting, I don't see it as a viable option at this point to give up on Town Center. Not only has the city made commitments to property owners there, but it has skin in the game now by virtue of its purchase of some of the land out of foreclosure. As a result, all of us, as taxpayers, have skin in the game as well. Certainly not an ideal situation, but we have to make the best of the situation going forward.
All this is a long way of working around to the specific question you posed about the amphitheater and "East Meandering Commons Park." At the risk of sounding wishy-washy, it's a complicated question. It came up for many votes before the city council and I really can't say for sure how I would have voted on any one of those votes without looking at a lot more information. But let me tell you a little about how I would have analyzed the issue.
First, I am troubled by the idea that, if the city just spends enough money on parks and public buildings, private development will come later. We have several years worth of evidence now that that approach doesn't necessarily work. So there are fair questions about building this park at this time.
That being said, it's my understanding that some of the funds to pay for the park came from a dedicated park fund which developers (and indirectly, homeowners) had paid into with the expectation that the city would build a park. Just as I'm opposed to the government wasting taxpayers' money, I am also opposed to the government taking money while promising a service, and then reneging on that commitment.
Bottom line: like I said above, it's complicated. I will not tell you that the answers are simple, or that I have them all. But I do commit that I will tell you the truth, work hard, listen, keep an open mind, and alway put the interests of the taxpayers and citizens of Ramsey first.
Thanks for your involvement and your perspective. I would love to talk to you more about this and other issues in Ramsey. I hope I can earn your support.
Harry
It speaks for itself. I informed Harry, (and the mayor so far, now all readers), that I likely will not run for council this time, but if I do it would be for the at large seat. If so, it would be a low-budget and limited time commitment thing, as in 2006 running for Ward 1, but less so, and surely not as aggressive as 2004 when I ran for mayor.
Both times were unsuccessful, and I have no expectations that any run this time would be different. If I run, it would be against city waste and speculative consultancy dealings.
I wonder how the Tea Party view of proper government function vs. "socialism" would focus upon what City of Ramsey is doing, speculatively buying land and not leaving it to private sector developer speculation. Should cities do such gambling? Depleting reserves in the process, to be replenished if the gamble pays off.
There is "conservative" ideology and rhetoric, and then there is "conservative" reality.
The two might not always mesh, mirror and square with one another, one hundred percent. With some, perhaps. With others, less so.
New blood on the council might be a good thing for Ramsey and Ward 1. The Niska campaign will be interesting. Again his credentials are impressive. The law firm he is with is not numerically large, but it seems skilled, from reading online firm bio info.
The firm's homepage is a bit vague, mentioning "four lawyers" and presenting a picture of five people.
It reminds me of the Orson Welles film, here, who is the fourth man?
________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Niska identified the fifth person, the one not having a separate lawyer bio, as the firm's paralegal, Paul Mau. They look like a top quality, tight-ship firm. I expect they do well. With his having that responsibility to the firm, it is good Niska will commit to finding time for public service. Pro bono publico, legal latin, for the benefit of the public.