consultants are sandburs

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Anybody liking Mitt, Chick-fil-A, Paul Ryan, and Palin has to make you wonder whether you should like the couple, Rhonda and Wayne. [UPDATED]

UPDATE: A reader said I should clarify, Facebook button links do not work
in a screen capture, in case anyone is confused.
Well Rhonda is running a primary contest against a first class bozo, so that's a hard call. Buchholz has two very good alternatives, Terry Hendriksen and Kris Williams; the only hope being votes that way do not split too badly while the Bachmannistan vote holds for Lukasavitz's favorite.

Among other things, we know young Nathan, wearing his colors, does NOT like "feminists" or "lukewarm Christians."

(Pop the latter in the microwave kid, give 'em a few minutes, warm 'em up ...)

One wonders, that shirt he's wearing in the above screen capture, what's it say on the back?

(Not really: That was likely a different shirt, another place, another time. But same Wayne.)

UPDATE: That sidebar thing. Surely the young gentleman can dress for success as he sees fit. The point, he is not the candidate, Wayne is, but the family posts the picture with a clear intention per the commentary, "Great picture," "Thank You." Then the site's scrubbed? What does all that together say? To you, not to mention to "feminists" and to "lukewarm Christians," that presumably being Christians who are less judgmental (Matthew 7, 1-5 or so).

JUDGMENTAL vs. LIVE-AND-LET-LIVE: This ABC Newspapers story, "Adult bookstore along Highway 10 in Ramsey razed as new Fantasy’s store opens," (By Eric Hagen - August 9, 2013), is linked to on the Buchholz campaign website. It shows a contention that Buchholz family judgments might, if on council, get in the way of success or failure of an entirely lawful business; one unobtrusively sited unlike the xxx bookstore was, where if you don't want or need anything from there don't shop, and if others do shop there, it's not your business.

If the community, by market dynamics unassisted by bluenoses, provides insufficient business, then the store the family dislikes will fail, while if market dynamics favor its continuation in business, that means the community supports it sufficiently that interference from the city council table would be an inappropriate infringement on the general shopping rights of others.

The term used frequently by right-wingers, "Nanny state," comes to mind.

Is that what the City Council is for? Moral policing of the community's likes and dislikes? Not as far as my vote went, (already, "absentee" under the new, nice no fault early convenience voting standards).

Beyond all that, the old xxx store along Highway 10, it was an eyesore, but it never factored once in my quiet enjoyment of aspects important to me in my living in Ramsey. Not once. It was a total non-factor. Not a burden. Not my concern. Not my fretting and moaning.

FURTHER UPDATE: Those caring to read the ABC item from months ago, and the comment thread, will see dots connecting Matt Look in county government with things Buchholz's comments discuss. With such shared contact (beyond Look's business venture printing election goods for Buchholz), Look doubtlessly told Wayne about how when he, Look, was on council and the remaining distressed Town Center land in foreclosure, it was Look's bright idea for the city to buy it out of hock when they did as if there was an urgency, because the county was then poised to be able to foreclose on the basis of unpaid county taxes. Yet, Buchholz in the comment thread, among "smut" assertions, wrote:

It’s too bad that another smut store will be coming into the City of Ramsey right behind the OUTPOST Bar and Grill. Our City Council wasted our tax dollars again, as this store was $60,000.00 behind in County taxes and missed their 2nd notice. So we didn’t need to buy this as the County would have taken it over for back taxes. And yes the County did advise the City of this before they purchased it.

So it is the Look-Buchholz team criticizing a step that is exactly what Look earlier engineered on a far greater scale from the Ramsey council table while bragging of it on Facebook. That earlier deal was for millions in buying the Town Center dream rather than hundreds of thousands to clean a blighted property. Look's intent was to see that the town could compete as developers with the private sector. Landform was hired when Look was on council - before he moved on and before any chickens came home to roost.

BOTTOM LINE: It is most curious, that the criticism is being leveled, by who it is, in the way it is, against what was done recently, in light of what was done previously but for a ton more money AND a lot of consequent distress.

At least in this latest instance Jungbauer with his Landform business card does not have his nose in things.

For the record back when Town Center's remaining distressed land was purchased, and later until Look moved to the county board, a strong voting majority bloc existed, Bob Ramsey, McGlone, Look, and Elvig being steady supporters of taking on the risk of things. The very first Landform hiring, right after the purchase of the distressed property closed, was strongly opposed by Dehen, then on council, and Jeffrey, history proving them right. Crabgrass, July, 2010 posted:

Look even stated to a reporter [Sakry, Anoka County Union, 29Jul09] that leaving some on council in the dark until the thing was sprung on them was a premeditated consideration:

While he can understand the concerns of his fellow council members, open meeting laws kept them from having everyone at the Landform presentation [held for some, prior to the July 14, 2009 decision making], said Couincilmember Matt Look.

For projects less than $50,000, the city does not have to go out for RFPs, he said.

[...] Sakry in the July 29, 2009 item further reported:

"It's time the city started taking the bull by the horns and it's going to take some money [to Landform] to get the ball rolling," Look said.

While LSA Design's work has been exemplary and it has found a lot of gratns for the city, he does not know if it is qualified to do some of the things that Landform can, said Elvig.

"Twenty-three thousand dollars is a small bite. There is a sense of urgency (to the project) now that the city owns (RTC)," he said.

He does not know if the city could afford the time the RFP process would take, Elvig said.

Dehen disagreed with Elvig on the sense of urgency.

It could be done in two weeks, he said.

[bracketed commentary added, parenthetical material in original] [...]

Moreover, if the county were to foreclose on unpaid xxx bookstore county property taxes as a senior encumbrance to city unpaid taxes, if any, presumably a foreclosure sale by the county would have extinguished city unpaid tax claims so that the city purchase, in each instance, served to avoid a junior encumbrance of city tax liens being extinguished. Or that is a guess; go ask a lawyer. Buchholz's comments ignore that aspect of things although it was argued "back then" by Look and Bob Ramsey, that city lien extinguishment was a consideration. This is policy debate, not stud poker, a game where some of the cards are deliberately held off the table in order to make it a game.

_________________________
FURTHER UPDATE: Being informed that Look really wanted the xxx store bought and ended while Buchholz disagreed with the purchase as a sound use of Ramsey public funds, and having no cause to discredit that communication, I go with it and with Look and Buchholz disagreeing and not being in concert. Great theories, meeting actual facts, is how progress is made when the theories are either abandoned or expanded to include the counterexample. The theory now is that Look and Buchholz get along fine, but disagreed on this instance. Good theory fits facts.

_________________________
FURTHER UPDATE: The term that comes to mind on that entire Fantasy-store tempest in a TEA pot, something of an archaic usage, but, "a scold."

There was a blog for quite some time, "The Cucking Stool."

It related to the common scold concept in our English law heritage. Properly enough the author published often about Katherine Kerstin, who drove him up the wall like fingernails on a chalkboard.

This concern about Fantasy is being the town scold, over "smut."

Not a major crusade, but he feels the need to intercede.

(Nathan in his tee shirt is being a scold too. Dressing code of a scold.)

_________________________
FURTHER UPDATE:
With primary election day less than a week away, and Ramsey's one open at large seat the only local council seat in contention, (but only one seat in seven). The vote count will define two candidates to continue to November. After the primary Ward 3 voters will learn more about their ward choice. It is a ward having dense newer housing to the south and at its northern boundaries and going southward for a fair extent, there are longer established neighborhoods. How that will play out will depend on how the two ward candidates present themselves and define thinking toward the range of demographics. Not residing there, not having a vote, that contest up to November's election will happen without much input to readers here.

Five of the seven council seats will be unchanged, with incumbent Jill Johns running unopposed in Ward 1.

The current at-large contest has four candidates, none of whom would be somehow disastrous if holding office. Towberman ran previously and was a low vote getter, and likely will not survive the primary. Williams has a recent EDA background, where a sampling of minutes show her arriving late on occasion and saying little. She would be the most in line with the current council, (it having two recent EDA persons, LeTourneau and Riley, already at the council table and remaining on the seven member EDA).

Continuity and council unanimity likely would be greatest with Williams.

Whether that is a goal or a worry is for voters to decide.

Of the remaining two, Buchholz is closest to McGlone-Bob Ramsey period players, but held no office than and cannot be charged with any errors made, nor can he claim credit for accomplishments. His Adds-Box campaigning card and his web publishing show he is not emphasizing that tie-in to past actions, and that is a fair step. Buchholz, if elected, would be an independent voice added to the council. More so than would be likely with Williams.

Hendriksen has a record of independent judgment and hard work from his past council term and his long efforts on the planning commission. Then it was "Planning and Zoning," meaning a background also in land use matters and familiarty with the yin and yang of comprehensive planning. He served during the James Norman period of administration, and earlier, and Kurt Ulrich is several cuts above the James Norman approach from which Hendriksen learned so that mistakes in style and policy by Norman, dating back then, would be unlikely to be repeated if Hendriksen gains the at-large seat. Hendriksen served when Margaret Connelly, Mayor Gamac, Susan Anderson, Jerry Zimmerman on the then five-member council - with his tenure overlapping with - others.

Those were perhaps more contentious times than now, where harmony among those not leaving the council seems apparent. Hendriksen did not avoid the fray. He had policy beliefs that many believe sound, and he did all he and Jerry Zimmerman could both aim to do on planning board and council, to see the town follow his view of a Ramsey growth pattern entailing more than bedroom-community status and instead promoting a sound and strong business base providing local quality jobs. That in a nutshell is my understanding of his thoughts and past effort. And he brings a background of owning and running an Anoka County small business for over fifteen years until it was successfully sold to allow his retirement. He shares retired status with Buchholz, each being less limited in terms of other time demands when service on council is a time-demanding task.

Nobody aside from Hendriksen at the genesis times of Town Center was more of a skeptic, in the best sense, thinking always of the cost and risks and possibilities from the start that things might not turn out to be as quick an unqualified success as some at that time spoke and thought. Hendriksen questioned priorities and challenged some Met Council planning dogma at a time when a Town Center Task Force had been formed to propagandize and promote the concept and "dream" to any citizens then remaining skeptical. He questioned whether the land some advocated, even on council, for a Town Center smart growth opportunity might have a higher and better use for the citizens of Ramsey, job-wise, even then suggesting that if such a development were to be inevitable it might better be located further west along Highway 10, west of Armstrong. Things happened as they did, not as they might have, so such things now clearly are moot, but indicative of what might be expected if Hendriksen gains the at-large seat as new matters arise. Diversity of viewpoint is always an advantage. And Hendriksen's viewpoint was that of a pragmatic business operator, not one grounded on ideological preconceptions.

Transparency was greater when Hendriksen was on council and council work sessions were televised. That changed shortly after his term ended and it has been the case that work sessions have since remained untelevised.

Hendriksen is on record as favoring switching back to televising them. I agree with that policy, and would myself go further - the EDA meets without any broadcast yet they do much future-oriented things, and decide matters of business subsidy. While not meeting behind closed doors (which would breach open meeting law); the EDA nonetheless remains untelevised in all of their deliberations. The Park Board is televised. Not the EDA. That seems an odd balance. Moreover, EDA business subsidy proposals often get to council in the consent agenda, not as items for review and debate during council broadcasts.

EDA deliberations and actions are high-impact, and should be televised. Transparency is greatest that way, and the likelihood of such a change to broadcasting EDA meetings would seem greatest if Buchholz or Hendriksen wins the seat.

So while any of the four could credibly be on council without the city falling to ruin, it is a city wide seat where everyone voting in the primary must, from whatever knowledge base they hold, decide who should be expected to do the job best.

A part of that judgment will be whether continuity and consistency on council is best, or whether one of the two differing but more independent candidates, Buchholz or Hendriksen, would be the better choice (Towberman being discounted as an unlikely primary survivor). Nine-thirty or ten o'clock the evening of August 12th, will be an interesting time to see uncertainty resolved as to the two continuing candidates.

_________________________
NOTE: The posting info for this item was deliberately reset to keep it atop the site until 9:30 PM, Aug 12, in parallel with the top sidebar item. Look below this post, for newer but unanchored content.

22 comments:

Randy Backous said...

Warning Nathan, God will judge attention whores too.

Anonymous said...

Nice to know we have councilmembers with an IQ lower then a rock.

eric zaetsch said...

Anon - Sorry you react this way. I thought about not publishing Randy's comment, anticipating this kind of ANONYMOUS stuff.

However, the kid deserves the comment as much as the optician who fell into his lens grinding machine. Who made a spectacle of himself.

Randy Backous said...

Sorry Anonymous but a whore is a whore. It's like I said to MacLoan, the fact that you disagree with me tells me I'm on the right path.

Anonymous said...

Ramsey has two village idiots..Who would of thought?

eric zaetsch said...

Anon. Isn't it great that people who can disagree still can communicate without any need to stoop to gutter language. Your courtesy that way is appreciated.

Now, the posting mentions Nathan, Matt, and Wayne. Which two did you mean?

eric zaetsch said...

Randy, and Anon., and anybody else with an opinion on the notion of whether EDA meetings should be broadcast are invited to comment about that. The latest UPDATE to the post raises that question. What are the pluses and minuses of making that change? (Transparency being a clear positive.)

Matt Look said...

Just an FYI....Nathan, not having graduated high school yet...is more than likely a minor. Hopefully this doesn't qualify as harassment of a minor. Furthermore for anyone interested in knowing the facts....the WAYNE shirts...in red were printed with the wayne logo on both the front and the back. I know this because I outsourced the printing. As for the "god judgment" shirt....it happens to be red as well, but is not the "wayne" shirt. Hopefully this doesn't fall within the category of "jesse ventura" malicious defamation, as that might cost this blogger at a minimum a defense in court and possible and award of damages against those defamed.

Jason Tossey said...

Since I was contacted by phone about these comments, I will entertain Eric's last question. I do believe that EDA and Council work sessions should be televised. I have seen too many ardent stances on particular issues change suddenly only because the crowd at a regular council meeting had a differing opinion. Also, the lack of transparency undoubtedly leads to a loss of tax dollars. Don't believe me? Then you are not paying attention.

Lastly, regarding the young man in the pink shirt, it's imperative to note that this kid put himself out there in the public sphere. By broadcasting his dogmatic views, to which I personally disavow, he is fair game, whether he is under the age of 18 or not.

One does not get to drive by attack without a return fire just because one is not old enough to vote. My only hope is that this young man will look back in a decade and disavow his youthful opinions as being naive and overly judgmental. Politics is a full contact sport to be sure, but this type of rhetoric is counter to my belief in liberty, free markets, fiscal conservatism.

eric zaetsch said...

I did not contact Jason Tossey about anything in this post, or in the comments thread. It would have to be someone else. I indirectly heard of some contact in the community where curiously, complaint to me was omitted. Some people prefer indirection I suppose. The song I was told went like, "He's only seventeen;" yet, somebody older than that is encouraging him to wear political signage on his body, and so that's to be ignored? Why? I'm not good with quotations but didn't Harry Truman say that if you ostentatiously go into the kitchen, you are telling the world you can take the heat? Reader help, wasn't it something like that? Moreover, it was not me publishing the Nathan-Buchholz photo in the first instance. It was MinnPost, without objection and the Buchholz family publishing and touting it. "Great photo" "Thanks." Click the top sidebar image, see it. Newton's Third Law is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Buchholz published and touted the shirt message. Goes around means comes back. Adult lessons for an aggressive seventeen year old are appropriate when he interjects himself into the adulthood arena, and a general lesson for all is due when the action is apparently encouraged by adults who befriend the young gentleman. This is, after all, a fully schooled near-adult, almost of an age allowed to vote, who curiously on a Facebook page lists this as a "Favorite." (Really, and scrubbing will not help, I did a screen capture.) The fact is life as an adult is hard and at times discouraging, not everybody loves you or encourages certain behaviors that might rankle others unnecessarily; and learning that early builds character early. It's a benefit to those who can see it that way. School of hard knocks is the reality. I expect it was about that age that Wayne Buchholz went to war. And learned from that. Or I hope so. It is all a part of one's unofficial education toward adulthood to be held accountable; to be called to task. Last, the Nervous Nelly who is going around town clucking can contact me directly. I would speak to him about it. He has the phone number.

eric zaetsch said...

Correction. Tossey did inform me of an error in the post itself. There was no contact between us about the comment thread. He added his thinking in his comment independent of me. I am glad he responded to the question. I hope others do.

eric zaetsch said...

Matt Look submitted a comment. I erred, and lost it. I have emailed Matt, asking he retransmit it, and I will as intended, post it.

eric zaetsch said...

Matt emailed the text: "Just an FYI....Nathan, not having graduated high school yet...is more than likely a minor. Hopefully this doesn't qualify as harassment of a minor. Furthermore for anyone interested in knowing the facts....the WAYNE shirts...in red were printed with the wayne logo on both the front and the back. I know this because I outsourced the printing. As for the "god judgment" shirt....it happens to be red as well, but is not the "wayne" shirt. Hopefully this doesn't fall within the category of "jesse ventura" malicious defamation, as that might cost this blogger at a minimum a defense in court and possible and award of damages against those defamed."

eric zaetsch said...

Thanks Matt. It adds another thought and I appreciate how you got to me before calling a bunch of people and all.

SLAPP suits can happen. That's why Minn. Stat. Ch. 554 was enacted.

I doubt I will get Boehnered. Not over what has been published to the public by other outlets, including things put on the web by the Buchholz family and the young gentleman himself publishing to the world, on Facebook. Comments of others, etc.

FREE SPEECH after all.

Moore v Hoff, 821 N.W.2d 591 (Minn. App. 2012) (alt. online link).

However anybody with the will to do so, the filing fee, and a willing lawyer can sue anybody else over anything. Then it would be up to the courts to sort wheat from chaff.

On the tee-shirt, I did note in the initial posting, after the sarcastic thought the "Not really ..." text exactly so nobody would think it was more than joking.

Your comment helps convey the same thought. Matt, do you think EDA meetings should be televised?

Anonymous said...

So since the US Marines never grants permission to use the Eagle Globe and Anchor for political purposes and Matt Look says he printed the signs and shirts, Look Signs Inc is responsible for reproducing USMC's trademark without permission? Is that what I just read? Buchholz is a newcomer to all this but Look knows the laws surrounding the printing business. He knows better but did it anyway. And he is preaching about lawsuits? Good one.

eric zaetsch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
eric zaetsch said...

Rewriting the last comment to remove bad grammar and to clarify - Anon.: In Buchholz Facebook posting that has since been altered, with my having taken screen captures before and after, it appears that Matt also in the earlier unaltered thread was encouraging Wayne to not change things.

He said almost exactly that, twice, in his own chosen words.

In his earlier comment to this thread Matt carefully distinguished the two red shirts, describing as his product the Wayne Buchholz campaign item, front and back.

He left hanging whether the "God Will Judge" shirt was produced or subcontracted out through his business. I have emailed him raising that question.

Randy Backous said...

Anonymous, Wayne (just Wayne) might be a newcomer but he's still the candidate and he's still responsible for his campaign and how it operates. He is responsible for his signs, campaign finances and following the rules. If he can't do that how can he be trusted? I still see signs with the EGA all over them which is misleading because although we all appreciate his service, he cannot represent that the USMC endorses him as a candidate. They do not. Yet Wayne (just Wayne) tried to have Justin Boals kicked out of the Anoka County Fair because Justin and his wife were pulling their child in a wagon that had a Justin Boals sign attached to it. Classy. Even as he tried to get Justin kicked out, he sat in a booth with those signs, shirts and probably brochures containing the EGA. This is the man who wants to run our city. This is also the man who literally hung his signs from the signs of those incumbents who let hundreds of thousands bleed from the city coffers to Landform. He claims to know nothing about that stuff. How convenient.

eric zaetsch said...

Matt Look replied, " Explain to me how it's any of your business," so I take that as declining to clarify that handiwork question. Readers thinking it relevant or of interest to them in any way are urged to follow up by themselves asking Look the same question, where he might respond to them.

I remember Colin McGlone contending his spouse's job with Flaherty was information not of interest to the public. Everyone has his/her own view of what might be of interest to the public. Those holding public elective office and/or following a career in politics may be of more general interest than private persons. It goes to knowing who a person in that situation is, what if any agenda he or she might have, in order to decide how subsequently to vote.

Beyond his being such an elected public official representing me since I live in County Board District 1, I otherwise have no real interest whatsoever whether Look formulated, printed or subcontracted, or had no involvement in the creation and distribution of shirts with that message. To me it is an electability issue, while to others it might not be viewed that way.

Surely Matt has wanted to inform himself from time to time of what Ramsey council members think and believe. It is only natural.

Questions of that kind in representative government are inherent considerations to many where separation of church and state matters more to some than perhaps to others. Some even view separation as an anathema and wish for church-state melding. It is a fair question, in my view, to pose to a politician; with that shirt being a sound tangible vehicle for such inquiry.

eric zaetsch said...

Matt sent a follow-up, clarifying why he declines to go further with such questioning, including privacy considerations. A part of freedom of speech is to not speak in any particular place or at any particular time if you do not want to, and he is correct in declining. I remain curious, but I respect his having given a reasoned answer. I would leave it at that without quoting his response unless he were to request it, but again noting declining to respond is a big part of his First Amendment rights.

eric zaetsch said...

Matt Look emailed about the last comment Randy Backous posted. He encountered a problem with the Blogger comment interface and comment moderation, and requested I post his item, which follows [with the ellipsis in the original, not from any Crabgrass editing]:

"To set the set the story straight, by either disproving lies or informing the uninformed......I sit on the fair board, and the fair directors were directed to ask candidates who did not purchase a booth to please not campaign in the fair. To the best of my knowledge, Boals did not buy a booth and must have appeared to be campaigning or have the intent to campaign. This was strictly a fairness issue.

"Randy....its a bit presumptuous to think Wayne, who is not running against Boals, was behind the enforcement of rules. Get some facts before your comments look petty and malicious"

_____________
Crabgrass back: I do not attend the fair, ever. I have no knowledge of the situation, and will not comment. My guess would be some reader might inform Boals and he might or might not elect to comment, a decision that is his right, clearly.

Matt's comment speaks for itself.

Further comment by anyone, on point and using civil wording will also be published; but again, I was not there.

eric zaetsch said...

I will comment. It requires no knowledge of what actually transpired. The fair is held on public land, by public officials, or that is my understanding, that it is not a private sponsorship.

If so, and Boals and spouse had a child in a wagon with a sign on it, this gets into First Amendment speech issues, prior restraint and/or prior notice considerations, powers and rights of premises owners to curb speech on premises, and enforcement powers of third parties, depending on what actually transpired, i.e., how the facts may have unfolded.

Pay to play at the county's fair?

Moreover, the wisdom of any such curbs on non-paying candidates for office is a parallel policy matter where opinions can differ.

Is there historical precedent? Or is this new policy?

Some might criticize a "rule" that says you have to pay a fee to be able to "speak" at the public's fair especially if done in a certain demonstrative manner.

Delegation of authority from the County Board to others to set and enforce "rules" of politics at the fair also may raise Constitutional or procedural concerns, depending on how the delegation detail was enacted at the Board and/or county administrative levels. And on how enforcement was handled.

I don't judge here, I point out complexities. Many of which are unclear from the Backous - Look dialog, as it stands.