Not a ghost of a chance of a Halloween Town Center sale.

But the ghost of Bruce Nedegaard reportedly lingers. Dave Orrick of Pioneer Press on Oct. 30, reported:

After being postponed three times, the sale had been scheduled for Wednesday, but this afternoon an official with Minnwest Bank, which holds the $35 million mortgage, said it wasn't going to happen.

The development was envisioned as a $1.3 billion housing and retail utopia, but it's been beset by delays, questionable financial dealings, bankruptcy and the death of its developer, Bruce Nedegaard. Since then, banks have been trying to get out of obligations described in his vision, while city of Ramsey officials have insisted they stick with it.

Earlier this month, city council members agreed to change their tack, but no accord has been reached. The sale will now be held in lat[e] November or early December.

Possibly there may be some tax write-off benefit by the bank finally ending its foolishness and doing something before year's end, if their fiscal year or quarterly tax situation would favor that. I have a Google alert set for "john feges" that recently provided a link to some PACT school records. It seems years ago that John Cairns was putting funny financing in place where the City of Ramsey arguably stepped across a bonding-related boundary it should not have, in assisting and enabling the PACT school promotion to advance.

Is that a part of "questionable financial dealings," to use the term Orrick wrote? I still have questions where it seemed smoke and mirrors were involved and there was a passing contention at the time that Town Center then stood as the equivalent of "blighted land." I recall at least one councilmember was offended enough by that characterization that it got dropped from transaction papers.

That's all a separate story, if posted here at all.

Just this: Perhaps Cairns and his law firm may have a role in fixing things they had a role in creating; Master Devleopment Agreement, document recording sequences, and all. Time is like an endless river that favors those willing to wait. I recall a fortune cookie that said, "An ounce of patience is worth a bushelful of brains." Let's hope the council has patience and brains, this time.

Irrational exuberance was the pre-groundbreaking theme.

Let's leave irrational exuberance, the dreams, and the rose-colored glasses in the pre-groundbreaking past.

Caution and patience should be the watchwords in current bargaining and planning.

That promising Chinese business venture must have gotten lost somehow amid all the shops and restaurants.

Where exactly is it, and where exactly is our Loudi sister-citer relationship?

Is there fence mending that way, on the agenda for our new City Administrator Kurt Ulrich?

P.7 of the May 2, 2006 council work session minutes even talked about a "Loudi Room" at the new City Hall. I have not seen it. Have you?

Valentine Day city council minutes, last year, p. 18-19:

Motion by Councilmember Elvig, seconded by Mayor Gamec, to ratify the recommendation of the Finance Committee in Case No. 2 and to enter into a consulting agreement with HSP & Associates for consulting and advisory services to locate a Chinese commercial interest in Ramsey for a not-to-exceed amount of $5,000, with consideration that there would be itemized billing that staff would review, and that there would not be any international travel involved.

Further discussion: Councilmember Elvig explained HSP & Associates is working on specific economic development opportunities, which is something that The Ramsey Foundation would not be working on. This is something that typically City staff or Economic Development Consultant Mulrooney would work on; it specifically relates to bringing business to town. This will include language and cultural barriers that staff would not be familiar with. Mayor Gamec stated the key is to use more consultants [...]

With caution, prudence, and patience, the local ship of state might right itself and come to port, at Port of Ramsey?

We love our officials, don't we? They are full of surprises. Would the mayor spend five thousand of his own money that way?

Trudgeon will help the Ulrich cutover. "Whatever problems are plaguing that project are not all of Pat Trudgeon's doings," the new bosses say.

Patrick Trudgeon will be working for Roseville. The new people did not feel he was responsible for Town Center's failure. That sounds correct.

Trudgeon worked on that funky zoning scheme in place there, but was NOT the prime architect nor instigator of the thing, and he surely had to salute a number of people including councilmembers past and present and the former city administrator.

Trudgeon neither beat the PR drums loudly, nor owned any part of the land, nor held any part of the developer's stake, while being a staff official working on the project. Nor did he have the most instrumental role in closing down the prior city hall for a palatial but isolated replacement effort, at a $19.2 million capital-cost sting to taxpayers.

Not a mere foot soldier, but not the decision maker when the bad decisions were being made. Not the foister, when the bad decisions were being foisted on the public.

He never promised me ANY shops and restaurants, anywhere. Nor did he even appear to have an actual role in such foisting, aka "sustained effort at promoting and marketing a high level of what in retrospect was clearly unjustified irrational exuberance."

Foisting and the euphimism for it.

Trudgeon's reach and fingerprints on things are less than others'. The project degenerated to a wait-and-mop-up status while he was on staff. Cause and effect guessing in Ramsey over how exactly that came about will be moot in any event, with respect to Trudgeon. Pioneer Press reported the change Oct. 26, with new duties to begin Nov. 26, in Roseville:

Roseville / City hires Ramsey development chief
Officials praise Trudgeon despite project disasters during his tenure
BY SHANNON PRATHER
Pioneer Press -Article Last Updated: 10/26/2007 11:39:36 PM CDT
Patrick Trudgeon starts as Roseville's community development director Nov. 26. Trudgeon leaves Ramsey as the city is struggling to resuscitate an ambitious plan to create a downtown and housing development off U.S. 10. Much of the 322 acres remains undeveloped following the bankruptcy and death of the primary developer, Bruce Nedegaard, who envisioned a $1.3 billion, 2,800-home mixed-use project.

A Pioneer Press series this summer chronicled how the Ramsey Town Center's collapse included questionable financing, hundreds of thousands of dollars in Swiss bank accounts, and federal investigators looking for answers. Creditors lost millions of dollars.

Roseville's city manager and the mayor said they knew about the Ramsey Town Center project but still felt comfortable hiring Trudgeon.

"Whatever problems are plaguing that project are not all of Pat Trudgeon's doings," said Roseville City Manager Bill Malinen, who ultimately made the hiring decision. "Involvement in a project of that size is good experience."

Roseville Mayor Craig Klausing said he was interested in Trudgeon's role in the flagging Ramsey Town Square development. Trudgeon served as one of Ramsey's lead liaisons to the developer.

"I was aware of it," Klausing said. "I felt comfortable in talking to him that he had attributes and skills and could do a good job in Roseville. What happened in Ramsey was more of a product of things outside of his control."

As noted already, I agree with that characterization, and I felt Patrick was a good person to have working on the mop-up. The mop-up effort will be harder without his ongoing help. Committing to staying a full month to assist Kurt Ulrich's taking over as city administrator was a generous step.

Roseville City Manager Bill Malinen also, I believe, is relatively new to his job, having been City Administrator in Puyallup, Washington, previously and at Roseville for less than one year. The Roseville opening existed, as I recall, around the time Ramsey's prior city administrator resigned last fall.

Trudgeon was on City of North Branch Staff in 1999, prior to joining Ramsey planning staff. I wish Patrick well. See the Pioneer Press report for further detail.

________________UPDATE________________
For the record, apart from Patrick, an online Nov. 28, 2006 City of Roseville council record indicates Malinen was formerly at Linwood, Washington, not Puyallup. Also, his status is city manager, not city administrator, with a city manager form of government giving more power to the lead staff person. The same record indicates James Norman was one of five finalists for the Nov. 2006 Roseville city manager vacancy. See, here, for Roseville's city website report of the Trudgeon appointment.

Sewer and water. Sobering numbers on comparative costs. Misc. impressions. Plus, have we a committment from Met Council as we want?

BOTTOM LINE: At yesterday's Oct. 24 Comp Plan session --- A stupendous and staggering difference in citizen cost.

First session - After splitting into separate groups most people ended up in the stuffy foyer but it was worth it.

From City Engineering head Brian Olson (with comparative input from others):

A REASONABLY SIZED [200 FRONT FEET] SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE PRESENTLY WOULD BE ASSESSED ABOUT SIXTY THOUSAND [$60,000]IN TRUNK AND OTHER HOOK-UP CHARGES IF MET COUNCIL SEWER AND MUNICIPAL WATER IS ADJACENT AND THE HOMEOWNER IS FORCED TO HOOK UP OR PAY AN ASSESSMENT AS IF HOOKED UP. AND THAT $60.000 IS INDEPENDENT OF REPLUMBING COSTS INSIDE THE HOME TO ACCOMODATE THE CUT-OVER.

IT WOULD COST LESS THAN FIFTEEN THOUSAND [$15,000] AT CURRENT COSTS TO REDO TOTALLY A WELL AND SEPTIC SITUATION --- WHOLLY NEW DESIGN, MATERIALS, INSTALLATION, FULL COSTS - FOR THE SAME PROPERTY.

THAT IS A $45,000 DIFFERENCE. STAYING ON WELL-&-SEPTIC IS THAT MUCH BETTER FOR PROPERTY OWNERS; I.E., OUR PLAN ATTENTION CAN MEAN A $45,000 BENEFIT FOR A HOMESITE BEING FAIRLY AND CLEARLY PROTECTED FROM UNWANTED ASSESSMENT RISK.

FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND IS NOT POCKET CHANGE. NOT EVEN FOR JOHN PETERSON.

It is a humongo difference. It was a sobering disclosure. For all of us at that session who then voiced ideas about it. Upshot, a clear show-of-hands consensus was: Not me, Charlie.

That fit with a later session on the question of "benefit" from sewer/water adjacency, relative to the statutory restraint that no government assessment can exceed the benefit an improvement provides.

The consensus was, we want it clearly stated in the Comp Plan that "benefit" as a matter of Ramsey comprehensive planning policy shall be determined relative to the existing use of a single family property. Not as if some hypothetical land chop-up were to be wanted, to be allowed, and to happen with conjectural high-profit-taking from the subdivision chop-up.

Residents felt they should not be put between the rock and hard place of wanting to continue their lifestyle choices of years in the home they want to continue occupying without suffering a staggering financial hit or being forced by the magnitude of an assessment to gamble on a property chop-up and selling into some future uncertain market. No home owner wants that. Later, if there's a change of mind or of ownership, and subdivision permission is sought, then the new situation can be assessed at that point according to the request being made. That was second session, definition of "benefit" for Ramsey to choose to apply.


First session, in more detail, it was the overwhelming will of those participating that (without any hedging or equivocation), THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHALL STATE:

1. No Ramsey home shall be forced to hook up if served by operating septic and well systems or if the homeowner chooses repair or upgrade of a defective well or septic to be able to continue without a forced hookup.

2. No assessment shall be levied for sewer and water when a homeowner has refused a hook up in favor of keeping a well-&-septic status quo.

3. Sewer and water availability to a developing property shall not be a cause or excuse for the developer to ignore the need for true density transition in order for the new housing to fit reasonably into the neighborhood. (There was a minority opinion that property rights of a developer or land holder were preemptive so that integrating flawlessly into a neighborhood need not be mandated. However, a strong show-of-hands majority favored compulsory density transitioning [in a meaningful and not superficial or cosmetic way as with present berming/screening provisions]). A strong majority felt all negative impacts of a development should be kept within a development and bourn by the developer without rights-of-way, etc., that could easily be kept within the development being forced onto neighboring parcels simply to yield higher development profit. (It makes sense that if any such costs or impacts are delocalized off the developing site by necessity, then cross-payment by the developer to the impacted home(s) should be a requirement, although this concept was not extensively discussed).

4. Clustering, if done, shall be true clustering to protect a permanant open space benefit, and not ghost platting for staged build-outs without protecting initial open areas via non-buildable land preservation status.

5. Sewer/water routing is understood to be most economical if pipes are laid through wetland because less depth of digging is required; however, every feasible civil engineering effort should be made to protect the wetland from permanant harm and drainage; and tree preservation and habitat concerns should always be considered as serious factors.

That is from memory, and a detail or two of the session notes might differ.

Those mandatory protections (including the "benefit to the property" standard from the second session) would mean the Met Council would receive and have to sign off on that collective will, because it's current posturing is that it does not coerce, and instead approves what communities want. Yeah, sure. If we stand firm we can test the truth of that.

The "PLAN SHALL STATE" terminology was generally regarded as the highest level of protection we could have against later mischief, and though not perfect it was far better than any lesser protective thing such as ordinance wording. People felt that anything less than that, less than clear Comp Plan language where Met Council would be having to sign off on the planning being structured that way, would be insufficient assurance against risk and duplicity --- with the present ordinance situation generally perceived as a cold comfort, so cold as to be highly uncomfortable, and really no actual comfort at all.


A $45,000 per-home Bumstead Boost for not understanding:



My feeling - any councilmember up for reelection who does not steadfastly and honestly support that feeling throughout the planning negotiations and process should be ousted from office by a compelling and forceful majority vote. Make the collective public feelings clear that way. Make the message forceful. Go as far as Lake Elmo did (if that is what's needed to knock sense into Met. Council) and go down fighting and not appeasing if that's the end result.

Bob Ramsey stopped by at the second "benefit" shall mean ... session, and he and I and the others there generally agreed about being grandfathered-in on existing homestead use being determinative for putting a bound on assessments, and that such "grandfathering" of existing use was within our general view of "property rights" where he and I had no disagreement. The mayor did not stop by.


How Peterson fronted cost for his pipe dreams.

There was some fairly substantial consensus at the two sessions, and across groups, that the Peterson Pipeline Paradigm should be used as a test of the resolve of the Crabgrassers, i.e., to see if they are willing to bear all their Crabgrass risk, and to face and allow an outcome from a balanced unbiased market.

Bob Ramsey and I appear to agree, and he can contradict me if I misunderstand, that subsidies jigger things in ways that market-impartiality might judge differently.

If a go/no go decision on a venture is contemplated by a Crabgrass coalition as too risky if unsubsidized, then project abandonment, not subsidy is the answer. At Town Center or elsewhere. I think our differences would be over where, on a continuum between two poles neither of us would argue for, the extremes being pure laziz faire or pure scoialization, a balance between private and public rights should be set in actual individual cases by good sense and without resort to generic terminology.

If it's only developer-speculator money at risk, not yours, it's also a little easier to stand and watch even what you think is a bad thing for neighborhoods and for the city.

At least your pocket's not being picked to subsidize profit-taking or to shift risks to you while you think the project stinks and the profit potential is boosted for Crabgrass out of your wealth, not theirs. Fairness and all that.

Peterson paid to play, just like you pay to play at Las Vegas. He did not say, "Do it for me, but with their cash." People at the session saw a compelling propriety to that concept.


The Hunts had their own parallel first-session family pow-wow. They came up with the idea that extending sewer-water to the vicinity of their lands was nonproblematic and as good an idea as slicing bread or putting beer in bottles. No downside they could think of.

While other groups considered the "Peterson Pipeling Paradigm" as beneficial it seemed to not occur to the Hunt clan I guess, for it was not on their session charting. They had no notation that others might feel if you want it for your land and benefit then you front the money it takes to route and install it and that is all part of your Crabgrass risk. That's how Peterson got it to the cornfield by Hwy 5 - Trott Brook. He paid. Good or bad for Ramsey can be debated, but at least the Peterson Pipeline Paradigm of having Crabgrass interests front Crabgrass costs and expenses without trying to socialize them to the citizenry in general, was viewed as better than the other way around, by most attendees.


The mayor was there at least half-way through and all the way to the end. On reflection I may cease referring to him generically as "the mayor" and call him, properly enough, "Town Center Tom." Or, "The Optimist, Town Center Tom." We shall see whether the idea sticks in future posts.


In closing, here again is the key concession, already made, publicly, and of record, by the Met. Council's direct policy-making representative who we know keeps her word:



In black-and-white and the committment couldn't be any more clearly stated than that.

See, here, for that page in its full three-page context.

She means what she says.

So,we have the approval already, and staff only needs to write it the way the citizen-session established as wanted in no uncertain terms. And vote out anyone on council trying to stand in the way. Recall exists for a reason, even for seats not up in the 2008 cycle.

That means we should have quite smooth saling through the process next summer when the plan's presented to Met. Council, about the time the Governor has his party's convention in the Twin Cities and wants all things governmental that are run by his appointees to sail smoothly.

Here's hoping that what was said clearly by Ms. Steffen at the April 5, 2004 work session is still as true as when it was then said - and that minutes will not at this late date be characterized as some form of unfortunate "misquoting."

_____________
Finally, a new final 2008 Comp Plan session will be added in the Dec. 2007 or Jan. 2008 timeframe. The Future of Ramsey Town Center. That gives months for Town Center uncertainties to stabilize. The idea was Bob Ramsey's and staff liked the idea.

My idea - put the morgue on barges on the Mississippi. Then - Call it The Port of Ramsey. That way we could have a Port Authority without bending truth too badly. Nobody at the meeting liked the idea.

Bob Ramsey suggests, what about one further 2008 Comp Plan session - citizen opinions about the future of Town Center, as part of the Comp Plan.

Ramsey Town Center is a part of what comprehensive planning should consider; and it surely has been a major cash sink for city money over a period of years. Bob emailed me suggesting it should have a place in the sessions.

It seems like a fine idea, add one more session at the tail of the existing schedule and set that as the topic.

Bob Ramsey's email states:

How about using open space technology sessions to help decide what the town center should be? I like the idea about getting the citizens involved, but a referendum? What questions could possibly be asked on a ballot? How long would the ballot be? [...]

I like open space technology, I think it’s a great tool if implemented properly. I think we could [...] get a real sense about what people really want. What do you think?

All good points. I think enough of the idea to promote it. With fair attribution, of course.

We should do that. I think Ramsey planning staff would be amenable to another session, that topic, as part of 2008 Comprehensive Plan deliberation.


How to manage a referendum?

Problematic? Yes, but it would be something that could be done and done better than that earlier sorry exercise where a ballot question was, "Would you like nice shops and restaurants," and then the 60% affirmative vote was postured and paraded by some as if it were an affirmation of a $19.2 million city hall plunge; and a ratification in advance of hearing about 2400, 2800, however many new dense shared wall housing units were in the works.

What would a more balanced question have yielded by referendum? What would the response have been if the extravagant city hall thing had been put to a fairly worded referendum? Go figure why it was not.

Here's a cut at fair and simple referendum wording:

Would you prefer no further build-out of Ramsey Town Center until there are shops and restaurants first?

Should shops and restaruants be publicly or privately funded?

Should the City spend more on Town Center before letting citizens know the full total of how much is planned to be spent, and what the money would be spent for?

Would you rather see Town Center stay just as it is, or have more public investment there to attempt to advance the project if that would mean your taxes increase within five years by $100 per year?

That last one seems key - a what's it worth to YOU question - hold onto your money or not - and, is seeing the turkey try to fly worth an extra $500/year to you, or not (even if the increment over the next five years is staged and not a single shot $500 up front increase)? How much do the voting citizens think that thing is worth to them? Why not ask and find out? What could be fairer than asking? If people do not really want it, why do it to people as a cram down?

Some folks in Ramsey, I expect, want to hide from what the answers might be.

Yet, why not be fair and simple? Does anybody have any problem with that?

However, even absent any referendum, I think Bob Ramsey's suggestion should have little or no opposition. I see nothing wrong with an effort at trying to find out what people who are participating in the Comp. Plan sessions think about how Ramsey Town Center is to be part of the plan.

My suggestion is that the planners, at the start of tomorrow's scheduled sewer/water session ask for a show of hands over whether adding that one futher session would be good as a final single topic issue instead of capping the sessions with the transportation issue? Indeed, how Town Center evolves will have a profound effect on transportation - all those people between Highway 10 and the rest of us, and changes we already have seen on that stretch of Ramsey Blvd. - the two more lights between me and a destination kind of thing is an impact on all of the rest of us.

I think we should talk it out. Others might prove more willing than I would be to continue funding the arguably failed Town Center experiment.

Perhaps the mayor would show up. And stay until the session ended. Novelty would be nice sometime. Or if Bob Ramsey stays for all the sessions as he has, perhaps he should become mayor? If he'd take the job untying the Grodian knot he'd be inheriting without tying a more inextricable one, of a different "property rights" kind.

Finally - in terms of Gordian knots and surprises - it is nostalgia time, and we can reflect on how appealing our 2001 Comp Plan was, talking of a MUSA line and sane ways of doing things, like that.

It is one thing to cut the Gordian knot as Alexander did, and a wholly different thing to hack about as if there were one, when none exists as cause for anyone's intense hacking effort. So, then, why was MUSA hacked apart? It was nobody's problem. It made good sense. Who in the world benefitted from hacking that up?

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.