It is a myth. It is somebody's brain-fart idea. Some one said "It's as impressive as the Emperor's new clothes." Somebody else said, sure, but neither of them moved from housing themselves and their families where they chose, independent of transit, independent of walkability.
And TOD is being pushed on everyone by whom? The bus company. The folks selling flushes tell us how sewer and water and TOD = warm fuzzy nice communities. For them it's fine as a theory, and it is job security, so, yes, it is productive. For them.
That however should motivate zippo among a disbelieving populace.
The developers get on board, the politicians get on board, the people are left in the cold. Ben Dover faces the elements. Bad Koolaid. Don't drink it. They say we want development oriented to their jobs, we want the privilege to pay SAC charges, to be close to a bus stop, whatever.
How many Met Council planners walk as they talk?
-------------------------------------------
There is every appearance of a procedural irregularity with very serious implications.
Simply put, who went behind other peoples' backs, and did what? How exactly was Lazarus reinflated?
Who moved, as the genesis of pushing Lazan from his belief the thing had [rightly and properly] died, and said "Get David Flaherty back here again, and push like hell to keep this idea on track?" What group or collection of officials was informed of that happening, what other group or collection was kept wholly in the dark? How did our city government "move," and was it movement in a way that was at all proper? That question has to be answered, no BS, WHAT HAPPENED? WHO DID WHAT, ON WHAT AUTHORIZATION, FROM WHOM?
The man said as much as "The back door was used."
That is an irresponsible way to conduct city business.
From when Ceasar crossed the Rubicon and was stabbed to death, we can say things done in aggressively irregular and dark ways have no good to come of them, and the consequences can be foreseen as divisive, disruptive, and costly. The next HRA worksession meeting needs a large public turnout, and all the dirty laundry needs to be aired. Folks have to explain and justify themselves.
It is one of the few ways credibility can be reasserted.
----------------------------
More credible than that, a referendum. Who wants the damned thing hung onto the ramp with parking spaces that cost dearly given away without justification beyond Flaherty will not do it unless we giveaway that AND finance what his bank will not risk, and which he too will not risk? Put it to a public test. Give me and those two nice DAR women who showed up at the meeting last night a vote. Give David Jeffrey who had to step off council a ordinary-citizen's vote. Give Margaret Connolly a vote. Give losing candidate Harry Niska a vote. The public is not a collective enemy. It is the sovereign. The opening sentence of the Minnesota Constitution is,
Section 1. Object of government. Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.
Those words ring. Dishonored in practice, they are bedrock truth, nonetheless.
Politicians forget that Constitutional language far too readily. And that's the better of them, the ones that don't hate the concept of the people being preeminent and their being where they are only to serve the will and interests of the people. They'd rather play Father Knows Best.
BOTTOM LINE: A referendum will wrongly not happen because the knot of unlistening Ramsey politicians pushing this pile along know that a vote of the people would kill the damned thing decisively, permanently, and rightly. And they "know better." Bullshit they do!
Hell will freeze over before this bunch gives us a referendum over the stuff they're pulling.
End with a simple question? Click the image, enlarge, and note the underlined language. Is it, with the underlining, credibly reassuring, at all and in any way, to YOU?
 |
| Online, here. |
It says, the deal can be done, "without referendum" since we guess the thing will be profitable and if not we will reach into other pots of money, rather than have a referendum on the "Bonding for Flaherty" game.
"Without referendum?" What is the goal here our elected officals are intent upon? Keeping us from having an effective voice and keeping us from judging what they are up to is the only way you can read those tea leaves.
"Without referendum" stated so glibly speaks volumes. How can we do it without the people having a chance to skuttle the skunkworks? It sucks.
___________UPDATE___________
Another way to say things is the ghost of James Norman haunts his Norman Castle, and nobody at the front table was elected and no administrator was appointed to be either King, Queen, or Rasputin.
_____________FURTHER UPDATE____________
Cramdowns stink. Let's have for us that referendum.
_____________FURTHER UPDATE____________
Highlights of front table brilliance at the HRA meeting, things that have to be shared.
Jeff Wise, "Everybody talks about risk. I risk everything I have in my business every day." Good point. If David Flaherty wants to do that with all his wealth, I do not think many are willing to stand in the way of David Flaherty doing exactly that. It is the normal course of business. The point, Jeff, this is not your money. It is public money. You have no place doing stupid risky things with it, that is the antithesis of your job.
He makes my point, as if it is supportive of his decision-making.
Wow.
Second, McGlone's saying, "People have to realize there is a cost to doing nothing." Colin, you have to realize there is a benefit to doing nothing. Especially when your hot-to-trot alternative is to do something both really, really stupid and out of line with government's function, and risky with money that is not yours but the public's.
There is a benefit to not digging the hole deeper. To not making the Ramsey Town Center more of an embarrassment by yet another failed step. There is a benefit to not being wasteful and full of hubris when it's not your own dollars at risk. Same story as with Jeff.
And, finally, there is a benefit, personally, to being cautious in your own affairs and being Tom Sawyer getting others to whitewash your fence. David Flaherty is a poster-child role model for that.