This post was terminated two days early, July 18, 2011 at 1:30 pm vs July 20 at noon. The reason is the mood of the community is obvious. IT IS TIME FOR A REFERENDUM ON BONDING-SPENDING AND SUBSIDY OF THE OUT-OF-TOWN FLAHERTY AND COLLINS FISCAL MEANDERINGS.
The sampling ideally would have been greater, but the City is not interested in weighing citizen thinking. The council sees itself as doing the thinking for everyone in Ramsey. Father Knows Best. This is the best sampling available, whatever the criticism may be on methodology. It is clear - 35 responses. The bulk of opinion, two thirds of Ramsey, or 23/35 think subsidy of the ramp-wrap-rental is a bad idea, indeed that building it in any event sucks big-time. The remainder, 7 say let it happen if Flaherty and Collins pay the full freight, three say some subsidy is okay, three say plunge onward to catalyze momentum. I think the last three are joking.
REFERENDUM: In having supported Bob Ramsey's candidacy for mayor I was led to believe he was a fiscal conservative disliking waste, and that he had respect for the referendum process.
It appears I was wrong.
This question, of subsidizing one business big-time while others are fighting and scratching in a bad economy where the banking system is squeezing credit is simply WRONG. Hold a referendum. Find out what the people of Ramsey think.
There will be an August 16 special election in Ward 4. Easily and at less cost than one of Darren's big signs on Highway 10, a city wide ballot question could be put to the electorate on the same day. About bonding for a private sector adventurer, to take a second lien position behind a first lien of over 25 million. Whether that's wanted by the citizens. Even put the basic question, "Should the City of Ramsey want over two hundred rental units within a single building in the Town Center? Yes [ ] No [ ]" is not a hard thing to do. DO IT.
Note: a Gregg offered anonymous commentary on an earlier post about the fairness of subsidy; this link.
Every person on council, (the Magnificent Seven), especially the gang-of-four, that being mayor, Wise, McClone, and Elvig, are invited to post a comment as to why having a referendum would be anything but a fine, democratic, idea. Do not hold your breath for any such response, however.
It is crystal clear.
Nobody now living in Ramsey wants it
Especially if it is done as bond-and-lend.
The earlier poll post:
--------------------------------------------------
As with other open sidebar polls, this item shall be the top post during duration of the poll. Newer posts will be placed below this item until the poll closes, when normal sequencing resumes.
The genesis of this question is from a phone conversation, where it was suggested that if the mayor were pressed he likely could not find twenty people in the community that would put their name behind supporting the stuff he and McGlone are pushing on the rental thing, with Landform involved and being what it is, and with Flaherty-Collins having the status and track record they have; as well as the question of what is the proper reach of government and what is intrusive into the private sector such as investing into building projects as either a co-adventurer [taking active or passive equity investment role in a development project], or a credit source [comparable to what a bank might do, debt instead of an equity position].
Expanding the ramp in order to dedicate spaces to the Flaherty-Collins renters can be viewed as being a co-adventurer, granting a subsidy, or independent of either status. Bonding and taking a junior multi-million dollar lien position behind a larger first lien position of a private sector institutional lender would be extending credit, debt not equity.
All of that is the context in which the single question is posed. A range of feelings and responses of citizens is anticipated, which can only be approximated by a limited number of choices. Responses can roughly be viewed as described, between the dotted lines:
................................
Bad idea = even without subsidy, the instigation of a large number of rental units into the community at the Town Center site is disfavored.
Okay only if FC pays for it all = No city subsidies, no extension of city credit, no bonding, but rather the entire thing is done private sector - by FC and any bank, pension fund, REIT, or other entity that will fund construction and/or rollover to long term credit or equity positioning. Any future tax increase of any kind is intolerable if arising from this rental project. If the private sector views it as a good investment and goes ahead with it, fully financing it and carrying all hope of success and risk of failure as a privately funded and managed proposition, I would not want the city to stand in the way.
I like it, some subsidy okay = A positive attitude, and full trust in those on council to act wisely and prudently as necessary, to extend whatever subsidy they end up giving. If my taxes later go up because bonds have to be retired at city expense, not by the project repaying the city enough to carry the bond debt service and retirement, that's okay. I am willing to trust the judgment of those on council.
Absolutely essential catalyst to drive momentum = This is so essential to the community of Ramsey that the council and staff should unconditionally do whatever it takes to make it happen. The sooner, the better. This project is so essential to Ramsey that it would be a heartbreak to lose it and the opportunities it creates for extending tax base in the city.
.................................
Comments are welcome: It is understood that in setting vague word boundaries there may be some uncertainty in how to read poll results. Any reader wanting to comment on poll strengths or deficiencies is welcome to do so, but please name yourself in commenting -- put your identity onto what you have to say, or expect that moderation of comments will more likely than not weed out what you say. It is as simple as that.
