In any bargaining with the bank, over the future of Ramsey Town Center, be honest about what is commercial and what is not.

If there will be bargaining with the bank now, as Pioneer Press has reported, it is an opportunity to get taxpayers off the hook for paying more subsidies at Ramsey Town Center.

If the city holds fast this time, for taxpayers to be excused from the ill-advised Phase II promises previously made, that result would be a public good.

But regarding Phase I -- do not lie about government spending at Town Center equaling "commercial" unless votes are being bought and sold.

The morgue and City Hall and the Ramp are governmental - paid for and to be maintained, as I understand the dumb promises made about the ramp, to be maintained by public funds. There is nothing commercial there. And there is no boost to tax base in any of it. No help for taxpayers having taxes go up and up year by year.

The old folks home is residential, not commercial, as is low income housing.

PACT school - it is not in our cherished public school tradition, it is a private school and if there are real estate taxes paid, then calling it commercial is probably more true than false.

And let's fund the traditional public schools properly while they are under discussion. Underfund them and get the ill-schooled ignorant greedy narrow-minded people we have enough of already, as adults where the schools failed previously.

So, in reckoning what percentage of spending and/or building has been "commercial" in Phase I, if it remains necessary to do that, then do not falsify facts in the process.

If commercial development at Town Center is inadequate to trigger developer Phase II rights under the existing Master Development Agreement, then honestly face that as a fact before jiggering the deal.


Hold a Referendum on any changes to the Master Development plans.

Phase II --- perhaps it is best if all of Phase II in its entirety is on the table, all open for revision. And best if any revision resulting from renegotiation is put to a review by citizens - by referendum - to approve or vote down any monkeying around with things the council wants to indulge in to attempt to further advance what clearly is a failed dream, of a handful.

A referendum. A simple concept where the folks being disadvantaged tax-wise to fund some cabal's palaces and dreams has a chance to vote stupidity down. Or to approve it.

A referendum on any material change. And then, once a new deal is done, hold to it. It is a developer interest chasing profit, against taxpayer interests in getting something like bang for the buck. Something besides the wastefulness so far shown by palace and ramp, standing there in glorified isolation.

And while things are in flux --- hold the three million as reserves, until the future is clarified. Don't let the money burn a hole in the public pocket. Be prudent for a change.


Finally, never forget, renegotiation is a two-way street.

Renegotiation is not a one-way street where bankers and wheeler-dealers get perks in greater amounts than the James Norman led council and staff allowed earlier.

RENEGOTIATION IS A TWO-WAY STREET AND BEN DOVER, THE RAMSEY TAXPAYER, SHOULD BE GIVEN DUE FAIRNESS THIS GO AROUND. AND LEAVING IT STAND FALLOW FOR YEARS IS A PERFECTLY FINE OPTION TO BE CONSIDERED. IF THAT IS THE MARKET'S ANSWER, PERHAPS THE MARKET IS SMART AND DESERVING OFFICIAL ATTENTION AND DEFERENCE. FIGHTING THE MARKET IS CHASING MORE FAILURE, SOMETHING WE HAVE ENOUGH OF ALREADY.

Sit on the Three Million. And don't give a thing to any player not willing to pay down existing assessments to benefit already disadvantaged taxpayers

Stay the course or abandon ship? Bail out like the crew in Joseph Conrad's Lord Jim, on the ship full of pilgrims in stormy seas?

Will Ramsey City government "cut and run," to use a phrase being bandied about in other contexts?

Is this new Ramsey policy? If so, don't leave taxpayers stranded in abandoning ship - be fair instead to their already plundered purses.

Dave Orrick of Pioneer Press reported days ago:

Ramsey wants talks on Town Center
Pioneer Press
Article Last Updated: 10/18/2007 12:17:37 AM CDT

At a workshop Tuesday night, City Council members unanimously agreed to open for discussion several key aspects of the initial vision agreed to in 2003 with project developer Bruce Nedegaard, who died last year days after being forced into bankruptcy.

"The city recognizes that the Town Center plan must change to accommodate changes in the marketplace," City Administrator Kurt Ulrich said Wednesday. At the same time, council members reaffirmed their commitment to the project's amenities, including pedestrian accommodations and aesthetic qualities.

The original dream for Town Center was that a virtual city would sprout from 322 acres of cornfields off U.S. 10 in Anoka County. About $1.3 billion in investment would provide shops, businesses, an entertainment district, parks and 2,800 new homes.

The reality is that it's mostly vacant, and Ramsey, while not on the hook for the millions in lost investments and loans, is left with nothing to show for anticipated permit revenue and tax income yet to materialize.

Several City Council members advocated for nearly a year that the city's vision was too strict and optimistic for any private developer to embrace in the current real estate slump, and Minnwest Corp., the lead bank with a claim to the land, agreed. But Mayor Tom Gamec and a majority of the council held firm.

Because of the impasse, Minnwest scheduled and canceled a sheriff's foreclosure auction three times.

It will be interesting when minutes come out on this, to see the usual "It was the consensus of Council to ..." without any explanation or detail. Or is the Kurt Ulrich era different from that of James Norman as city head honcho? Will the work session minutes now say something?

In this matter, I agree with the former position of "Mayor Gamec and a majority of the council" previously holding firm, and I have written this several times. Yet, mention of the mayor and a "majority" begs the question of naming names. Who's backing down now, and why? What is precipitating a change? What dynamics are at play between those who "advocated for nearly a year" for early concession making and the previous stay-the-course majority? Will we citizens ever have a full picture painted for us of the answers to such obvious and important questions?

In any event, sensible questions aside, with three million popped out of a court action from a Nedegaard escrow, for "infrastructure," don't sink it into the ground when you have a work session conclude that what the ground will look like is presently and not hypothetically open to change. Right now it's a rathole for money that may have to be respent if the plan becomes more sensible and taxpayer friendly than the present one. And why do this for the bank that only sat and failed to manage its Nedegaard lending prudently? Let them take the hit they deserve. Their eating their mistakes is their due, not Ben's.



Then, if holding the bank to absorb consequences of its actions and judgment, when a "White Knight" does emerge to put his own real money at risk, citizens can have him prove his bona fide good faith by seeing him paying assessments down before badgering Council and Staff for concessions and favors that might only further burden Ben and other Ramsey taxpayers.

With 2008 elections around the corner are we seeing a "Get this thing off the front burner now" mentality among the four seat-holders up for citizen balloting next fall? It is hard to not see that as an aspect of decision-making -- as in, stay the course having a political cost some might find uncomfortable.

Only they for certain know their own hearts and minds.

We know what they tell us, so we await clear and thorough meeting minutes for review.

Community National Bank of North Branch ---- Article 12: A sane "conflict of interest/code of ethics" policy sounds like a good idea for every entity.

!



It appears the Comptroller of Currency got the attention of Sandison and Peterson, Community National Bank insiders. The bank entered into a consent order, to cease and desist certain practices, and to institute sixteen specific reform articles.

Reported Oct. 18, by ECM papers, and Pioneer Press, with a start here, at the Comptroller's website if you want to secure a document copy. ROEs, Reports of Examination are not made public. The ECM article, by Patrick Tepoorten with assistance from Tammy Sakry, is the more comprehensive report. David Orrick, who did the summer series on the Ramsey Town Center, wrote for Pioneer Press.

Orrick noted:

Community National has seen its net operating income plummet. Annual income in 2004 was $3.12 million. This summer, that figure fell to $127,000 for the previous 12 months.

That's the kind of preformance that will get another kick from Dithers. Both papers reported that family insiders clogging up the Board of Directors would have to cease.

More things were required that every bank should do without a kick in the pants. The phrase, "Sober as a banker," is not about alcohol but about prudence and judgment.

Read both stories, for a fuller understanding. The Post Review [ECM] report listed the sixteen articles of reform the Comptroller required which were accepted by consent by the bank. I only excerpt one:

Article 12: The board must amend and demonstrate adherence to its “conflict of interest/code of ethics” policy. As part of the policy, no member of the board may advance personal or business interests at the expense of the bank; if an interest can be demonstrated, board members must disclose that information, and refrain from participating in board discussions regarding those matters, and recuse him or herself from voting on the matter.

We should have such a thing in the City of Ramsey Charter, right? Stop that kind of thing in its tracks if we did, right?

Well, we do. Kind of. Charter Sect. 12.3. With teeth as tough as a chicken. The cranial capacity of the same.

We need one with teeth. Making sense. It should forestall any official, on council, on staff, or on a board or commission from engaging in any public service activity where a conflict of interest exists. Conflict of interest can be defined more comprehensively than the old and ignored gross misdemeanor statute, Minn. Stat. 471.87, stating:

471.87 PUBLIC OFFICERS, INTEREST IN CONTRACT; PENALTY.Except as authorized in section 471.88, a public officer who is authorized to take part in any manner in making any sale, lease, or contract in official capacity shall not voluntarily have a personal financial interest in that sale, lease, or contract or personally benefit financially therefrom. Every public officer who violates this provision is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
History: 1951 c 379 s 1; 1955 c 41 s 1; 1986 c 444

And in our Charter it should reach to promoting clear land speculation interests of close kin by blood or marriage, and to pierce through transparent transfers of title or such to get around something like a tie council vote by voting after a conflict has been "technically" removed and semi-sanitized. It is like getting off on a DUI or other offense on a technicality. The wrong's been done, even if there's a game of dodgeball at play.

Now, are you ready for this - our Ramsey Charter provision, as sound as if it had been drafted by the genius who wrote that ordinance text about if adjacent to public sewer/water and if your well or septic system fails you have to either hook up or assure your septic system meets standards. Yup, an ordinance that says exactly that, in case you ever have a well fail. Fix your septic system if you do.

Our Charter, and love it, this is Ramseying you (and are you there Dogbert?):

Section 12.3 City Officers Not to be Interested in Contracts. Except as otherwise permitted by state statutes, no officer of the city, who is authorized to take part in any manner in any contract with the city, shall voluntarily have a personal financial interest in such contract or personally benefit financially therefrom.

First, tell me what the consequences will be if you violate the provision? Right you get richer without any downside mentioned as imposed. Is it "Chance" or "Community Chest" on the MONOPOLY board that gives the "Get out of jail free" card?

And, "Welcome, Kurt Ulrich" as it says on the City website homepage. And as a kick in the bumstead, Kurt, we're pulling your salary. You have an employment contract that you are "authorized" to take part in with the city, and you have a financial interest and expect to benefit financially - to be paid a salary. So go find me a statute, or give up the paycheck, pal. Charter says so.

Uh, did they really mean that? It is what the language clearly states for now, and stated for years. But did they mean that? It is almost as if somebody intended to parallel the gross misdemeanor statute, but left out the word "making" and never missed it. Or it might have been dropped in an instance of typing or retyping; and never missed. Hard to say. Totally speculative.

Do you see the council wanting to look at and perhaps fix the lauguage? I don't for another eighteen years. Looking at all at conflict of interest seems to be bad manners, in Ramsey.

It's like, "Yo, boy, don't go kick that sleeping dog, ya hear. Hell to pay for too many, if you go and do that."

And then, there always can be friends helping friends, public land bought or sold at windfall terms. I've heard it happens in Oz when the Wizard's asleep. It seems a government should aim to curb that kind of abuse - to constrain or castigate those having a role in such things.

Have we tried this one in Ramsey?

We may not be the conflict of interest capital of Minnesota after all. At least a challenger has shown up. We've done spousal and in-law conflict of interest, but have we tried sibling conflict of interest? Oct. 16, Strib reports online a council vote in Savage to replace woodland with Crabgrass.

A savage fight over the Savage Fen
David Peterson • dapeterson@startribune.com • 612-673-4440

A group of neighbors is accusing the city of Savage of endangering a sensitive natural area by approving a housing development that is being proposed by the brother of one of its council members.

But city officials say those opponents just don't want to lose a pretty piece of wooded acreage outside their back doors.

At issue is the Savage Fen, a rare wetland that is the largest of its kind in Minnesota. It extends along much of the northern border of the city, not far from the Minnesota River.

Karl Bohn, a major landowner in the Savage area, is proposing a housing development called Dan Patch Trail, about a quarter-mile from the fen. The first phase, 51 units, has full approval; the other 70 have preliminary approval. An additional 100 or so units could follow later.

"This is a pretty significant piece of property environmentally," said Alexandra Klass, a University of Minnesota law professor of environmental law who is representing the neighbors. "For the city to say there are no environmental issues without looking is exactly what the law is intended to prevent."

An attempt in the late 1980s to develop the same area was not well-received by government agencies responsible for environmental oversight, she added.

The city's planning manager, Bryan Tucker, said the project has approval from the environmental agencies that had reservations decades ago. [Ah, Pawlenty; it is probably the same MPCA considering the Fen that sees no major problems with the idea of a former shooting range as a place for changeover housing use]

Neighbors note that Council Member Janet Williams, a candidate for mayor, is Bohn's sister.

Williams routinely discloses that tie as the issue comes up, stressing that she has no financial interest in the project and sees no reason not to vote on it. [Savage Mayor Tom] Brennan said it's no more troubling than another council member being the brother of the city's fire chief.

Interesting. They have a Mayor Tom, and a woman on council acting to advance land dealings of close family and wanting to run for and be mayor. It sounds as if it could be a soap opera plot because it is so unlikely to ever happen in real life, with implausibility being a key criterion for soap opera plots.

I guess the only variant yet to be tried is tag-team partners --- such as Ventura owning that green acres land in Maple Grove and wanting to see Adrian "Venus" Adonis on council.

I wonder if these people in Savage are relatives of lobbyists Ray Bohn and Jon Bohn, who have represented the "All Terrain Vehicle Association of Minnesota." Jon Bohn was a focal person in a 2006 Minnesota Sixth District campaign dispute while working last election on the Wetterling MN 6 congressional campaign until discharged after candidate Michele Bachmann complained publicly of an alleged effort to infiltrate her campaign for unfair advantage.

I recall a gravel hiking trail in the Cascades outside of North Bend, Washington, where a quiet ATV at a safe and sane speed was coming out of the mountians, a hunter hauling a bear out of the woods, proper tag on the ear and all, and where a noisy ATV is counterproductive to hunting goals. It made more sense than dragging the kill by hand for miles. Polaris advertises cautiously, notice the helmets in each photo, but then cowboys are cowboys are cowboys; and there has been dispute, complaint and compromise.

I believe lobbyist Jon Bohn presently has a role in or affiliation with the MN 6 campaign of lobbyist El Tinklenberg, who in representing Anoka Co Regional Rail Authority . That's the Yantos run Northstar rail effort that has local GOP legislative support, but Anoka County Watchdog has repeatedly criticized it as wasteful and illmanaged.

There is also Tinklenberg lobbying for a Hassan Mainstreet LLC, which may be linked to fostering the Development of Crabgrass on the other side of the River from Anoka County. One could say they're a "Stone's Throw" away, and read carefully and that "LIVE WORK PLAY" thing on that link is very, very scary.

We in Ramsey have heard that promotional "LIVE WORK PLAY" slogan before, and the post below features Dogbert - who I do not believe likes the phrase.

And we may hope that Republican legislator Joyce Peppin doesn't live in a glass house, since her Stone's Throw support and legislation looks to be competing with Ramsey's highway needs along Highway 10, with DFL candidate Tinklenberg looking to be working both sides ot the street in that "tension for funding" situation. Paid consulting for Ramsey, on Highway 10 development matters; lobbying for Hassan Mainstreet LLC, for a different and competing highway development project. He agrees with his friends I guess.

If it's a unified effort at working the levers to advance a new River Bridge, then Tinklenberg should say so. He should forthrightly indicate if advancing such projects is as much a cause for his hat in the ring as professed remorse and loathing over the Hwy 35 bridge collapse; per earlier press indications.

One has to wonder, what would the press have been told if Hatch and won and the bridge fell on schedule. Same thing? Same blame game? Not likely.

Certainly Molnau is an easy target now. [This link, p.14].

Even if it is Pawlenty ultimately pulling all the executive spending and tax-policy strings, Molnau is a convenient lightning rod for him. But Tinklenberg first is running against DFLer Bob Olson, and if successful on that, against GOP incumbent Michele Bachmann.

Not Molnau. Olson then possibly Bachmann.

____________________UPDATE_____________________
One Hassan - Stone's Throw item, here. In discussing AUAR effort detail of the direction and scope of the project emerges. The indication is an intent to build, at a livlier highway intersection, a competing project much like Ramsey Town Center. Even including, as noted, the LIVE WORK PLAY badging and branding. How much of that is feasible, without market saturation, i.e., without one project's competition for buyers affecting another project adversely? Again, it appears as working both sides of a competitive situation but agreeing with friends.

Bad judgment reaching South?

Over Sunday morning coffee, Oct. 14, I go to online Strib, and find this:

Headline = Missing: Downtown Bloomington. The poor folks of Bloomington apparently have no Town Center. Some want, in their wisdom, to fix that - and so the story goes. Read Strib, I only present their image and an admittedly slanted excerpting from a quite equivocal report. Read it soon, Strib has the habit of pulling stories in a week or two, into the access-for-pay Strib archives. But read it and think it over. Here's the excerpt:

Bloomington has had more than one contender for the title of city center ... but some still wish it had a bustling gathering place to call its own.

By Mary Jane Smetanka, Star Tribune
Last update: October 13, 2007 – 9:41 PM

Back when roads were made of dirt and shoppers loaded their dry goods into the backs of wagons, downtown Bloomington consisted of a general store, a Grange hall and a town hall at the dusty intersection of Old Shakopee Road and Penn Avenue. Ever since, "downtown Bloomington" has been a matter of perception.

Interestingly, it was the late '70s and early '80s when Ramsey first tarred the dirt roads in many neighborhoods, but wagons, other than SUVs, were gone by then. We trailed Bloomington that way, the dirt roads and the Met Council hookups. Strib continues ---

Bloomington officials want to change that with the carefully planned redevelopment of 150 acres that includes the Southtown shopping center, near the intersection of Interstates 494 and 35W. They hope the area -- by being close to transit and having a mix of multistory housing, shops, restaurants, offices and perhaps a park -- will become a destination for people who want to eat, shop and walk as well as those who want to live in a lively neighborhood.

"We've never really had a downtown in Bloomington," said City Council Member Steve Elkins. "If you asked someone to meet you in downtown Bloomington, where would you go? ... People are feeling there is no 'there' there. And we want a 'there' there.

There, there, Steve - It's okay. Just don't do something really stupid.

Strib reports, Bloomington might do just that, with advice from specialists, resuming with a quote from Steve ---

"Suburban communities that have never had downtowns feel like they're missing things. There's a longing for places that can foster and help community."

Steve, you cannot begin to guess how familiar that refrain sounds in Ramsey. Dogbert will be coming for you, be certain. Continuing and leaving out talk of "Excelsior & Grand" in St. Louis Park and with other excerpting ---

Last week, when Linda Johnson of Moorhead was asked at the Mall of America where downtown Bloomington was, she looked around and said, "Right here." If it's not the mall, she said, "I could not tell you how to find downtown Bloomington."

At Southtown, Edina resident Rosemary Dean said it seemed like any downtown should be farther away from the freeways. "To me, a downtown is more of a special area that draws you to it because it's a destination," she said.

Exactly so, said Larry Lee, Bloomington's director of community development. He calls Bloomington a "multi-nodal city." In other words, it has many downtowns.

"For my generation, it might be 98th and Lyndale, but for my daughter, it's the Mall of America," Lee said. "It's generational, and it's geographic."

One of the consultants [we know cousultants, they abound in Ramsey, like crabgrass] working on a study of the Southtown area, David Graham of ESG Architects, is adamant that the main goal is not to create a downtown. City officials want development to emphasize sustainability, quality streets, transit, a way to market the city and creative use of space. "But if it evolves [into a downtown] it makes sense, because of that location," he said.

Graham thinks the obsession with suburban town centers is partly nostalgic and is probably overdone. But it's also a reaction to suburbs that are aging and have a kind of sameness, "just roads and buildings." He said people want to be able to say, "This is the center of our place."

"Excelsior & Grand is less about being downtown St. Louis Park and more about just a great place to be," he said. "It's a destination."

Please read that David Graham quote outloud, several times until you get a good feeling for it. Also, it might be helpful to put that specialist, David Graham of ESG, into a persepctive we in Ramsey can understand. We should know exactly who he is when he talks of suburbanite peoples' "overdone" nostalgic yearning for the days of frontier railroad towns, the yearning to escape a present sense of sameness in the 'burbs: "Graham thinks the obsession with suburban town centers is partly nostalgic and is probably overdone. But it's also a reaction to suburbs that are aging and have a kind of sameness, 'just roads and buildings.' He said people want to be able to say, 'This is the center of our place.' "

"ESG" is Elness, Swenson Graham Architects Inc., aka Feges folks, with this in their trophy case, proving their excellence. See, here for more "because we say so" trophy-case proof of excellence, and here for more "because we say so" don't worry be happy double talk from Met Council, the folks who invented "because we say so" planner-speak, and including a pic showing a personification of double talk.

So we do not forget "rose-colored glasses" rhetoric, aka planner-speak, aka abuse of the English language, that first link given in the above paragraph, closed with this memorable Feges-like prose, italicized as in the original:

Jury Comments
“A beautiful dynamic is set up between the residential neighborhoods to one side and the city center and transit station to the other. This imminently [sic] livable plan is in the best tradition of town planning where home and work and civic spaces are more closely related and a sense of place is created.”

"Imminent" means close in time. "Eminent" means, roughly, special and outstanding in a positive way. And, spinning thoughts of outstanding, there is this pastel closing image giving "a beautiful dynamic" of a "sense of place," from here:


That certainly is a beautiful dynamic. You can just sense the place has a sense of place. One question: Is it imminent; or do you, like me, rely on track record and what's now on ground, to doubt it as imminent by any measure?

I quibble about Jim Deal and my thinking is his one Town Center building where his PSD LLC is headquartered looks cobbled together with more complexity than needed [in one sense, special and outstanding, but not eminent unless you like the blend of so many styles in one structure]. Yet I do not see the man as anyone's fool. I am almost certain we will not hear any of that sad rhetoric from him. It will be refreshing to have someone whose roots reach back to the Agriculture Department instead of ESG or Met Council, saying and doing things that are anchored with two feet on the ground and not with a head in the ozone layer - twilight zone of planner-speak. With an ag background, he's probably stepped more than once into piles of that rhetoric, while walking pastures.

Also, I wonder if that pastel watercolor pen-and-ink rendering is what Jim Deal has in mind as a view of success and the unsubsidized goal he would aim for if he buys the gamble at a fair price. I doubt he would turn that way to try to avoid the trap of suburban sameness, in things we call Ramsey. Jim Deal might even share a Dogbert sentiment about it and about the folks instrumental in marketing it to our council.

So Jim, cut a deal and take a shot. It's boring just sitting and waiting. Some people up for reelection next year may get antsy. They could do something that would have Dogbert after them after the fact. Forestall that by stepping up, Jim.

Bruce Nedegaard apparently drank the planner-speak Koolaid. He was on extensive medication when key decisions were made, but with a successful background of prudently building sound single-family upscale homes. Maybe it was the medication reaching to affect his judgment. Maybe just a gamble that failed.

Jim Deal --- there's cause to think he will not be hitting the Koolaid, and will be prudent and a careful skeptic instead. For example, I doubt there will be a bankruptcy court future for Deal, or Minnwest. I do not see Dogbert ever coming for Jim Deal, while Minnwest will eat a big part of its bad loan despite its hope to wiggle out and hand off acreage free of any Master Plan reach. There are those funky zoning abnormalities there for the bank and ultimate owner to face.

For now it appears no one besides Jim Deal has any taste for biting off the remaining lion's share of the venture. Either the bank sits an inordinate time for a bank to sit, hoping -&- waiting, or they get sense and agree to Deal's price and terms. Halloween, the next postponed foreclosure sale date, will perhaps have an answer. Probably not. The thing probably overwinters into next spring's construction period, with Minnwest hoping the housing market changes.

Who is paying for all this? Who is paying?

A photo of Ben Dover, the Ramsey taxpayer, perpetual tin smile across the street from the overbuilt $19.2 million City Hall (behind Ben in the color photo - behind the ramp in the b/w photo). That City Hall is a legend and legacy from the James Norman tenure - and from the councilmembers who voted with him - including all four up for reelection 2008, Jeffrey, Olson, Strommen and the mayor. Councilmembers who did not feel people should have a referendum over palace-building before all of it got done to them.

So, who is paying - Who else ever ends up paying when Ramsey spends, besides Smiling Ben?

Strib, Oct. 11, online headline, "Ramsey Town Center auction postponed one more time." (PiPress, its coverage, Oct. 12.

Is that news to anyone? What else is there to expect? Postponed to Halloween. What then? Same old, same old, it seems. Yet, what's interesting is this excerpt, at the end of this current Oct. 11, 2007, article:

WHO IS PAYING?

The city recently won a lawsuit over a $3 million letter of credit from a bank that had guaranteed it for Nedegaard and will be able to use the money to continue building roads and other infrastructure, Trudgeon said.

But the anticipated tax base from Ramsey Town Center hasn't shown up, and now the city is trying to figure out how to pay for the $19.2 million new municipal center that was supposed to be paid for with taxes from new businesses.

Yeah, Ben, nice smile. Build more infrastructure with recoup dollars, let taxpayers eat all of the palatial City Hall cost. Makes a lot of sense, with it being a distressed project, etc.

Sink in more subsidy money. Don't help the taxpayers.

When Minnwest Bank keeps its laughable postponement game rolling, we can see it is a numbers game.



Now, the other quote of the day, Sarah McCann writing for Strib in the not too distant past, on March 16, 2005, story headlined, "Ramsey Thinks Big," this excerpt:

Who is paying for all this?

Ramsey Town Center LLC purchased the farmland for $31.5 million. The city is contributing $32 million in support for infrastructure, roads and regional improvements and public facilities.

Most of the Town Center is not eligible for tax-increment financing, in which taxes generated by a project pay off bonds. However, the $3.5 million in taxes that the project will generate each year will go to the city's general fund. The general fund will then help pay for the Town Center. Because the development will bring in such a large chunk of money each year, residents won't notice an increase in taxes, according to the city.

The appraised market value of the complete Town Center is projected at $1.1 billion. The county will help with $4.2 million for roads. In addition, there is money from the state, grants, assessments and other tax-increment financing districts in the city.

Since 2002 the Met Council has awarded the Town Center project three Livable Community Demonstration grants that total $3,373,756.

When is it going to be finished?

[...]

Sure, "according to the city." Pigs will fly too.

Met council tokens in three million and some change, and how much are Ben and the others hung out to dry on? The palace, the infrastructure, stuff in the ground at Town Center put there at taxpayer expense, chasing dreams and needing debt amortization day after day after day, while it all sits. $32 million, the article says. To pay for itself "according to the city." Yes, the beat goes on. And on, and on, and on. Yogi Berra's "Deja vu, all over again," from article to article, 2-1/2 years apart. And those Met Council dollars. They're not from Santa Claus. Met Council does not mint money. It taxes. So it is direct Ramsey tax money paid at the insinuation of a fraction of indirect Ramsey tax money. Tax cash chasing tax cash, with Ben left in the cold of winter, the heat of summer, to smile.

The Oct. 11 Strib article quotes Patrick Trudgeon, with whom I agree 100%:

"The city's view is we're not going to seriously talk about changes until they own the land," Trudgeon said.

Let that risk-taking entrepreneurial person step forward, willing to put HIS money at risk and not try to fleece taxpayers, and then, if he will pay down the assessments against the property so taxpayers get some kind of a quid-pro-quo break, he might be justified in seeking an altered set of plans and proposals.

NOTE: If he will pay down the assessments ... That is or should be an absolute precondition.

Ben the taxpayer has taken enough abuse on the palace thing. Give Ben a break, then ask for alterations. Nedegaard struck out. Batter up. The bank's done nothing deserving concessions, so let it deal with the result of its faulty loan policies and policing. Why in the world should taxpayers bail out the bank? By making concessions to them now, by making concessions to MinnWest ever?

Swap some concessions later, perhaps, for benefit to the taxpayers. Trudgeon is right about that. Give a little, take a little. After the bank's out of the loop.

And in closing and about not fleecing taxpayers:




Wouldn't it have been nice of Mr. Erhart to have sponsored something more favorable to Anoka County taxpayers than buying distressed land right next to the railroad tracks for the morgue at over half-a-million-dollars per acre?

That's a big time hit to the taxpayers. Is the county's morgue taxable property? Will it add one penny to the Ramsey tax base? Morgue jobs are largely in place and people will commute to Ramsey. No great foreseeable number of new jobs created here, via the morgue.

And putting it into the County minutes as a per square foot price, looks disingenuous. It makes it a bit harder for reading taxpayers to reckon it out at a per acre price. It looks as if that was the only intended reason for using per-square-foot language about buying 1.2 acres of raw land - obfuscation for no purpose beyond obfuscation - and why?

Per square foot pricing is the norm when talking about building space, not raw land.


If all the vacant Town Center acreage were all really worth that much, and the bank is foreclosing 150 acres of it on a $35 million debt, why would there have been any postponements?

There should be buyers tripping all over each other to buy at $35 million, if you can chop it up and sell it off for $500,000++ per acre.

Would a private party have paid over half-a-million-dollars per acre? Is the stuff there now with the "For Sale" signs going to draw that kind of cash per acre?

I guess the best answer might be the old folks home right next door to the morgue -- did they pay anything near to that per-acre amount when it was not tax dollars being squandered in a windfall to the parcel owner? I do not know. Is there anyone who will step forward from the Crest View venture and say? Or will the seller to Crest View discuss it publicly? Compare and contrast per acre price, adjacent parcels, sold about the same time? More questions than answers is what makes Ben smile.

CITIZEN HEROS PROVE you can fight the bastards in court and you might win.

Sewer and water got routed down your street as "improvements" and a humungo special assessment got assessed --- Are you totally screwed? Some citizen heros took Andover to court and won, see here and here. The cases are unpublished, hence not precedent, but they give us hope.