I finally caught the part of the rebroadcast of the Ramsey council meeting where Bonestroo was selected as planning consultant.

First staff requires credit for a prudent approach and an exercise of possibly far-reaching sound judgment, in recommending a firm other than Landform.

The agenda -- Read all about it.

Boonestro was chosen on a split vote. Read of that once meeting minutes are published.

Momma said, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

That makes sense especially when it looks as if one basket just sucks in eggs, with no chicks hatched. That is a separate story. One with Momentum and Catalyst and other highly offensive words that seem to be bandied about with little thought or purpose, but to justify and feel good at the council table over a consistent and substantial cash flow out of city cash.

The mayor, in his judgment, favored Landform. All the eggs in that basket. He noted they bid the lowest per hour price. Quality is hard to assess on price alone.

Consultant control of the time sheet with little city ability to disprove hours billed as valid, discounts any bidder's low-balling on the hourly.

Tossey had an interesting comment, the CEO of Landform sat in on all the other firms' presentations regarding RFP responses. To allow that of one bidder is highly irregular, and it was proper that the irregularity was highlighted.

Some thought was given to conflict of interest, were Landform to get that additional bonus perk contract assignment. Promoting the Town Center resuscitation effort, and promoting all other planning and development were seen as aims not wholly consistent; hence favoring splitting the general contract from the Town Center CORpse revival thing.

Bonestroo is not perfect. But better.

Bonestroo being chosen is something I am satisfied with, even though my impression is they horsed up the 2030 Comp Plan consultancy big time, with the Hunt family likely disagreeing.

I was unimpressed with Phil whats-his-name, who was the interface person on the Comp Plan, and would hope the new contract will involve a different Bonestroo interface.

But what mattered, anybody except Landform, was the consideration that in my view should have governed the contract. For that, Bonestroo qualified.

We can hope Bonestroo will do well, and can be fairly certain that however poorly it might perform, Landform would have been a lesser, worse choice.

The vote was to go with Bonestroo, the background being that planning is not a big activity these days, due to the market and developer reluctance and credit reality, so that the head of planning was released and a decision made to privatize planning now - if not forever - in Ramsey. Again the privatization decision was that the return on investment on a full time planning leader in this market was not there, whereas part-time consulting might work better.

Landform wanted a bigger plate, already having one that can be criticized as far too large, in terms of tangible return on investment. Use of the words "catalyst" and "momentum" has proven to cost a lot, and beyond words, what's there?

It was prudent conservative thinking to not put all eggs in one basket, especially one with a questionable record on hatchling productivity.

That gets to the rental thing.

First, note that some on council treated the Wells Catering commitment to build of all things, a restaurant in Town Center, as if it were a bastard stepchild showing up wanting a break.

That overlaps with those wanting to plunge into vast hitherto unheard of banking risk on the rental boondoggle.

Restaurants are what the people want.

Big time rental sucking up ramp parking spaces is something wanted by those other than people I know. I know of nobody not on council who has said, "This Flaherty-Collins thing will be an unqualified benefit to our town." I feel the opposite. I think it's stupid. Shared wall housing does not seem to be a keen idea these days, and the consideration of a humongo risk in a second position as something viable for a municipality to even think about is mind-boggling; for any thing, even something bringing high quality jobs. But for rental, WHY?

If a private sector developer-gambler does not want the gamble without that level of subsidy, or cannot get 100% of needed money from sophisticated banking sources and personal wealth, either the project is short on merit or the developer-gambler wants to game with untraditional money - city money - in a second lien position.

Some have said they like the rental thing, but are hesitant on the notion of extreme city risk in making it happen. That seems to be how Backous views things at this time. Tossey has indicated if 100% of it can come from the developer, Flaherty-Collins, together with private lending, go for it. One view, liking it and hoping it happens but hesitant to put the city into a big-money gamble; vs. allow the private sector to determine what may or may not work, and stand aside; represent a prudent leadership viewpoint first, with the second being more of a prudent libertarian view. A prudent citizen's view, mine, is the whole shared-wall rental thing is a mistake and likely another failed mess at a failed mess site, and should be shunned and discouraged in the strongest fashion. I think I indicated to Tossey an agreement with the libertarian viewpoint, but that is only to the degree it prevents city folly with public money. I don't see merit to the thing, I believe it is failure prone and to use the bandied words; backwards momentum, and an inhibitor rather than a catalyst. Moreover, what brew of development might be catalyzed is a worry I see, but one apparently given little attention on council.

The standard litany is without more Town Center rooftops the restaurants will not come. People cannot have restaurants without first even more of the same.

Okay. We can do without restaurants. If the cost is that great, it's a no-brainer.

That's where automobiles are helpful. Getting to where restaurants are, if the truth is the restaurants will shun Ramsey.

It is wholly absurd to say risk up to eight million of city money loss into a questionable venture, because it might lead to a restaurant or two.

That is especially so when the intermediary in the theory, the high-risk rental thing, was not needed to bring Wells Catering to taking a risk, with the council at least in part, McGlone speaking against financial help to it because other restaurants might want a fiscal boost too and a fiscal boost was needed to get the first Acapulco commitment, with the slippery slope his worry. Every new restaurant proposal may come with a request for a boost.

Okay, this is the same McGlone consistently wanting to start that slippery slope with Flaherty-Collins, with big-ticket costly high-risk stuff, and happy with the FC disdain of including a mere 3000 sq. foot. of retail, likely restaurant, in their building's footprint.

A slippery slope gung-ho wanting to start, with big time millions of money for something citizens don't really want badly vs. a slippery slope hesitancy for small spending on what's wanted, seems to be a Mad Hatter's Tea Party view of leadership.

BOTTOM LINE: Boost restaurants, if available. Shun big-ticket big-risk second lien positions where professional lenders will not fully commit.

And in terms of what a second lien looks at, PNC, the purported first position institutional lender, has this set of representative primary-lender term online, what almost any first position lender would impose, leaving no meat on any bones to be picked by a second position if a venture dies:

(click the image to enlarge and read).

With Bob Ramsey so supportive of Landform that he'd put all the eggs in that dubious basket, and so supportive of Landform's "deal" for the city with Flaherty-Collins, he gets my award as "Big Muddy Mayor."

For showing a "Big Muddy Mentality."

Push on deeper into the Big Muddy? Retreat and regroup? It is a judgment call, and later being able to say, "I told you so," is not that great a comfort or an alternative to being heard saying, "Don't do it, taking imprudent private-sector risks with taxpayer money is not being near the fiscal conservative expected back during election times."

Put another way: These days, it's risky to expect a Republican to act like one.

And in my view Bob Ramsey is quite well intentioned, but is reliant on advice from Landform people, Darren and Mike, and the legislative wizard, while wholly unimpressive so far, would in my view not be a justification for the regular cash flows to Landform, even were effectiveness to arise within the confines of special session horse-trading.

I just do not like Landform, nor see any value to them. Opinions vary, but consider the track record so far, and consider it especially after the special session's over together with what's to show for the cash flow beyond a luring toward an unreasonable city risk position in a private sector high-risk, high-uncertainty, rental thing where community charm and value is not as with restaurants.

There is nothing wrong with buy-and-hold, now that the distressed land's been bought, with a chance to sell the bloc of it later, even at a loss, when the general market is not what's out there now. It is more sensible than big gambles in a contrarian direction, where the market can really punish stupidity, unjustified optimism, and hubris -- especially when at least the last two of the three exist together in one key person at a town council table. (Arguably with all of the three traits rampant in differing amounts among the consistent four-vote town council majority.)

2012 elections will have three of the four seats in that majority bloc up for citizen review.

Vote smart. The cash you save may be your own.