Ramsey's bonding? Ask City Hall. Ask your Ward council member, and ask how he/she voted. With every seat up for an election this cycle, ask each candidate; "What about all the bonding? What about all the Landform?"
And in passing, Monticello has been reported as running a town owned retail liquor outlet and has used its profitability in the past to cover for the fiber network. In Ramsey, that income stream is left to the private sector. With a liquor store owner on council that is unlikely to change unless and until the make-up of the council changes. Then what? Well, ask the candidates. If you cannot get a logical and sincere answer, figure whether that will affect how you vote. City minutes note Councilman Wise (in commenting on an exclusivity agreement proposal re "grocery-related items" in Town Center) openly noted on the record how he'd been trying unsuccessfully for years to get a constraint on permitted liquor retail outlets. That sounds fairly anti-competitive and pro-regulation for one professing Republican allegiance. It is as if the free market working it's invisible hand balancing act is fine, in the abstract. While that is ideologically interesting, it is clear Wise has not wrongly kept secret his preferences re the health of his business against levels of competition.
 |
| Click image to enlarge. Here, for agenda context. |
Another excellent question for candidates, incumbents with a voting record as well as challengers, "How do you foresee Flaherty and Collins hiring for the jobs it creates in a way that is honorable and above reproach?" And if there is a response that such a thing is wholly a private sector thing that citizens need not look at, a fair followup question is, "Is there anything special anticipated to be in it for you or family?" Or, specifically, "Do you are any close family member(s) expect to secure employment with the Flaherty rental operation?" Not that a problem can be proven to exist now, but the ideal is that no actual or potential conflict of interest should be tolerated, so that such questioning from citizens remains wholly valid, even if it is a public-interest question in the abstract, i.e., presently a hypothetical concern vs. some probable thing at present. Such questions arguably are more pertinent to present council members where much was done on 4-3 votes of the council, and where those in the four-vote majority bloc should be the ones most careful.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Some conflicts of interest are unavoidable, such as the one caused council member Wise, via plans for the Armstrong-Highway 10 realignment and the Sunwood realignment (in Town Center). It is evidenced by an eminent domain or agreed buy-out need, for the retail business Wise owns [e.g., below images from pp 277-278, of this link]:
Again, that conflict of interest caused by roadway planning in the City is unavoidable.
The only aspect of things that might matter to voters is whether the City and Wise contemplate his getting a highly preferable "sweetheart" relocation site, at Town Center or elsewhere, granted from the city, as part of any non-cash buyout arrangements. It appears to me that Wise has properly disclosed an intent to consider relocating in Town Center, where circumstances beyond his control demand he relocate somewhere; i.e., with Wise not being at fault at all for how he so far has handled disclosure.
An example of what Ramsey voters should or might ask council candidates about possible future conflicts of interest, consider Ward 2 where two of the candidates are business owners; incumbent Colin McGlone owning a contracting business, and challenger Mark Kuzma owning a printing business.
It is wholly valid, indeed arguably desirable for citizen-voters to ask McGlone whether if re-elected he would ever again bid upon and do contract business with the City; and to ask Kuzma if elected whether he would decline to bid on any commercial printing services the City might need while he is in office. (McGlone has done nuisance abatement business 2009-2010 for the Ramsey Police Department, yet the question is one of future intent more than past practices.)
While some may argue that such a consideration is largely irrelevant to a voting choice, each voter has his/her own criteria, which are protected by secret ballot so that a voter can use any criteria that voter, personally, deems relevant.
___________UPDATE___________
As best as I could determine, Colin McGlone owns an auction business, but has not done any business with the city through that firm. Hence, so far he is free of any conflict of interest worry that way.
_________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Palo Alto is reported to be abandoning a fiber-to-the-home initiative; this link. However, note this comment:
ZacharyGuidry | Smack-Fu Master, in training
Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:36 pm New Poster
I have FTTH in my town - Lafayette, LA. It is a great service and costs me about $50 / month for basic cable and 10Mbit internet. Sure, they got sued by every cable provider and phone provider in the area. In the end the system was built and is expected to be profitable either this year or next.
1 post | registered Jun 12, 2012
Municipal fiber seems the way to go, but the litigiousness of those providing for profit communication in the private sector is a nuisance, ya sure, ya betcha. Mean vested interests, with the filing fee and a lawyer willing, is all it takes to scuttle progress ...