Disingenuity about who has primary loyalties where? REPHRASED: Who is Ryan Cronk and where would you presume his loyalties rest?

Preliminaries:

Matthew 6:24 -- King James Bible
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

I never went to Sunday School, but I guess that verse is analogous to being about fiduciary duty. Consider an if-them proposition: If an agent's primary duty of undivided loyalty is to Indiana folks providing ongoing employment and wanting to impose a monstrous multi-million dollar second mortgage high-risk position upon an innocent city; neither the Indianans nor city officials are God - while apparently mammon flows from each to the agent; then who do you believe the agent will loyally serve? The regular paycheck Indianans, or the for-an-interval consultancy? ANSWER: He will say no problem, the interests do not conflict and the home-town dudes in Indiana wanting to gamble with Ramsey city money think alike with the city officials entrusted to shepherd taxpayer money prudently, but who appear poised and ready, eager even, to play multi-million-dollar-stakes banker-gambler games, taking big time risk in unprecedented ways and amounts (but not personally out of pocket), while joyously also playing savant land promoter and playing it all to the hilt as if not an errant pack of fools. Because they are as they are, the Ramsey wannabes and the sophisticated home-state old boys; I suggest the interests of my two masters do not differ (as if God and mammon were in fact allied in betting the horses, in a rental land deal sense).

An online definition: disingenuity;disingenuousness: Generally, the quality of being disingenuous and lacking candor. Here: 1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating. 2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
Usage Note: The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people were unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means "insincere" and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating. Not surprisingly, the word is used often in political contexts, [...]

Then, there is this, regarding city officials' fiducial status, and the fiducial status of paid consultants - and please have the memory span to recall Matthew 6:24 while reading -

Black's Law Dictionary describes a fiduciary relationship as "one founded on trust or confidence reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another." A fiduciary has a duty to act primarily for the client's benefit in matters connected with the undertaking and not for the fiduciary's own personal interest. Scrupulous good faith and candor are always required. Fiduciaries must always act in complete fairness and may not ever exert any influence or pressure, take selfish advantage, or deal with the client in such a way that it benefits themselves or prejudices the client. Business shrewdness, hard bargaining, and taking advantage of the forgetfulness or negligence of the client are totally prohibited by a fiduciary.

As fiduciaries, financial planners must make fair and complete disclosure of all material facts and must employ reasonable care to avoid misleading their clients. The utmost good faith is required in all their dealings. Simply put, fiduciaries must exhibit the highest form of trust, fidelity and confidence, and are expected to act in the best interest of their clients at all times.

The distinction between a financial planner with a fiduciary interest and a salesperson is crucial. A financial planner, under common law and by some statutes, is a fiduciary. A financial planner must always provide services and advice in the best interests of the client. Whereas salespeople may have their own motives and interests at heart and offer goods and services for a price, a fiduciary must serve the client, if necessary at the cost of the fiduciary's own interests.

It is generally believed that fiduciaries perform their trades for reasons other than money and feel a sense of responsibility that goes beyond simply making a living. To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Brandeis: "It is an occupation which is pursued largely for others and not merely for oneself. It is an occupation in which the amount of financial return is not the accepted measure of success."

Cutting to the quick.

Can YOU find any possible disingenuity/disingenuousness within any of the following (hint, don't rely on any added underlining or marginalia, I just put it there randomly with no particular purpose - disingenuously)

This Google.

Screenshots - Part One: Telling you online who Ryan Cronk is and who bosses him to expect him to say, "Yes sir, right away sir. I owe you my undivided loyalty." Click a thumbnail image to enlarge and read:

Plus, this hummer, for rectitude and honest candor between the world on the web, and guys who were big-timers at the ICSC Shopping Center Love-In:

"Cronk, LLC." That's a crock. Or a Cronk. Whichever, can you say token fig-leaf empty-shell intermediary with little purpose but to confuse and deceive when the guy is and at all relevant times always was an employee-affiliate-insider at Flaherty-Collins?

Otherwise, aside from intent to confuse, why do it? To interpose an empty pocket against liability? Owning what, for creditors to chase, beyond two desks, a filing cabinet, a trash pail and pencil sharpener? If that. Office machines rented, from Flaherty-Collins?

EITHER WAY, GIVE ME A BREAK. "DOES NOT HAVE MANAGERS" the Indiana SoS filing notes.

It seems Cronk's loyalty is purchased and owned by Flaherty-Collins. End of story - Part One.

Screenshots Part Two: Telling it as fiducial city officials want us to think and to know about who Ryan Cronk is, with you to guess why there is rampant circumspection. Meeting minutes:

The official full disclosure online meeting agenda, letting you know all you should need to know or might want to know, in advance of the key meeting reported in prior screenshots. Go figure.

Staff never forwarded any full agenda to me by email. Zippo for the proletariat-citizens, I guess. With Socialized land development promotions, keep things between the GOP developer-official apparatchik elite. The prols don't need to know. Except, of course, for what's above. Which as noted does not include the information that Ryan Cronk, first and foremost, is a Flaherty & Collins tool.

One additional observation. When somebody wants to sell you stock and puts out a prospectus, there is no fiduciary relationship - it is purchase and sale and buyer beware, except for a requirement that the prospectus, the written paper-trail record, cannot lawfully be written with the capacity and intent to defraud; with, this is the important part, affirmative fraud and fraud by omission being tightly but well defined and distinguished within SEC Rule 10b-5(b), giving a flavor of fair writing not authored to mislead:

If those minutes were in a prospectus - what defense? We were anticipating the future, and nobody has a crystal ball. Fine enough, except that the status of Greeby and more particularly Cronk were material and omitted so that the remainder of want was said was misstatement via material factual omission. A misleading non-disclosure if ever there was one, together with an affirmative slanting of what was said to lead a reasonable reader to think Greeby and Cronk were merely Landform subordinates reporting to Lazan without loyalties running elsewhere to counter-party interests in contemplated dealings. Detail of that kind could have been stated. I wonder if drafts and revisions of minutes remain in city computer files. I would like to see the versions and reversions. Who revised what to reach final form. It could be relevant and material evidence of an intent.



____________________________________

While I generally dislike and discourage anonymous postings and mailings -- Hat tip to an anonymous mailer (person or group?) who lifted a rock I was unaware of. In an item where the small-minded might quibble over a word or two, sniping at inconsequential detail, this mailing revealed to me the fundamental unvarnished truth of who Greeby, and more importantly, Cronk, were - servants of two masters. That item gave citizens the first public look that I am aware of at what crawled from underneath the damp dark underside of that lifted rock. City officials seemed disinterested in giving citizens full notice and disclosure, perhaps even the opposite motive ruled official thinking. I had been led to believe that Cronk and Greeby were mere Landform subordinates, flunkines or functionaries within the firm, brought into involvement by Darren so that two more warm bodies were identified for Landform bill padding, (were that to somehow become necessary re so willing a city purse). That, and Darren could not present a good dog and pony show without a dog and a pony. No official proof was offered that I could find online in city records that either Cronk or Greeby had or claimed expertise in anything, based on any public factual presentation.

WITHOUT THAT MAILING THE THING SURE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY KEPT UNDER A HAT - BY OUR FIDUCIARY OFFICIALS - OWING TAXPAYERS THEIR UNDIVIDED LOYALTY AND RESPONSIBLE FOR PRUDENT HANDLING OF PUBLIC MONEY. IT WAS AN EYE OPENER FOR ME. DECIDE FOR YOURSELF -- WAS THAT MAILING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?

That anonymous mailing -- It got me to Googling. Previously, from city minutes, (screenshots above) I inferred that a "Landform Management Team" was a team, from Landform, designated by Landform, as involved in Management. Otherwise, they'd be calling it something like "The COR Management Team."

That would be a non-misleading name.

Minutes from April 7, 2010 (see above) are written having that "Landform Management Team" flavor and suggestion, without much if any counter-indication disclosed. I wonder about the mailing list in use by that person or persons authoring the mailing. So far I am aware of three former Ramsey council members who tell me they were mail recipients. I have seen a copy, scanned and emailed to me by a recipient. It is posted in a prior Crabgrass item. I forwarded it to Sakry at ABC Newspapers, who I expect would want to interview the authoring personnel on the record. (I am not on any mailing list of the author(s), or so far have not been. Presumably the thing only targeted consequential people.)



A few coincidental thoughts.

I am Ben Dover, the Ramsey taxpayer.
Flaherty-Collins wants to bend me over.
Putting their lackey into the saddle as Landform Management Team
agent-expert having "Role or Ryan Cronk - Deal Structuring and Financing."
The lackey then saying, City, gamble away eight million. It's in YOUR interest.
How's that for deal structuring? Show me the money. Show it to my bosses.
Taking in a half-year's flow of city cash before dumping that "fiduciary" load.
It is hard to pull the wool over the eyes of a thin tin man,
with eyes always open. Perpetually - until I rust away.
Some across the street, and pals, seem to have tried.
City officials handing to the long-term FC errand-man a financing say ---
It reminds me of old-saying images.
The thin tin guy IS inedible, but look at that Chicken.
I'd not want that to be a taxpaying bird.

A half-year on the job.  On behalf of the chickens.

Second coincidental thought;

The Question.

Paul Levy of Strib reports of a mailing I have seen only because a friend emailed scans. Our household was not included in any mailing. It was done anonymously.

Here is an extended excerpt from the Strib reporting, here for the complete online item.

Bogus letter gets to COR of Ramsey's troubles
PAUL LEVY , Star Tribune - June 11, 2011 - 6:49 PM
Thousands of households are believed to have received a letter questioning the ethics of its COR development project.

Randy Backous, a Ramsey council member, and other city officials are asking the same thing, wondering who sent the four-page letter and why.

The mailing blasts the working relationship between the city and a private developing company that the letter claims is being paid nearly a half million dollars per year by the city as a broker that recruits land developers. According to the letter, Landform Professional Services has not sold any of the hundreds of acres the city hopes to develop as part of its COR project, which was previously known under different ownership as the Ramsey Town Center project.

"The CORruption of Ramsey, Minnesota" reads the logo atop the first page. The second page concludes, in large print: "The COR: Steering government contracts. Making secret profits. Ethics violations."

"I don't like this at all," said Randy Backous, one of two council members who voted against the last Landform contract, but only because he thought the city could negotiate a better deal.

"I love that people are passionate enough about the project to want their opinions to be heard, but they could do that by attending council meetings. This [letter] isn't the way to do it. This is filled with things that just aren't true."

Suspected inaccuracies

The letter, which Ramsey residents began receiving last week, has created such a stir that Heidi Nelson, the deputy city administrator and director of community development, addressed the matter at a Rotary Club function Wednesday.

[...] Landform President Darren Lazan called the letter a "suggestion of improprieties with no evidence." A deal between Landform and Flaherty-Collins is still pending city approval.

Ramsey Mayor Bob Ramsey was particularly frustrated by the letter, saying that its purpose may be to further divide an already-split council. [...]

The COR, when it was known as the Ramsey Town Center project, was a magnet for controversy. [...] The city, which bought about half of the original project acreage out of foreclosure in 2009, renamed the project "The COR."

My understanding is the matter will be on the June 14, 2011, televised council meeting agenda, hopefully early in the meeting. I would hope citizens attend, including former council members and the press, and are allowed to speak and pose questions. Otherwise, the matter could end up like Tom Sawyer's family's fence. Whitewashed.

...................................

"One thing that really caught my interest was that subheadline Levy used, "Thousands of households are believed to have received a letter ...". How he came to that large a circulation either means somebody suggested it to him and the thought was appealing, or he talked to the author(s) of the mailing.


Read the actual item: Here are thumbnails of the scans of the item forwarded to me, as always click to enlarge and read.

A label and stamp job. Whoever wrote that apparently did not use a printer-mailing service.

...................................

Greeby/Cronk: That mailing, when forwarded to me by an early recipient, is where I came to realize that Greeby and Cronk were not mere subordinates within the Landform firm. Previoiusly I was led to believe that from city minutes. That will be a subject of another post. I have an item already up on Greeby; and it's the Cronk of things that is work in process. I have screenshots from a few items that fit the situation. You be the judge of candor, so far. For me, without that mailing, the Cronk and Greeby dimensions - who each is - went under the radar tracking. I give a hat tip to the author(s) for making that situation clearer. And a hat tip to the person who called here around noon to indicate Levy had written of the matter with Strib publishing it. Luckily, it was online as well as a print edition feature.


Unparalleled waste. Based on charts and tables Ramsey CFO Lund prepared, Sakry of ABC Newspapers reported actual numbers. Here. Unimpeachable numbers, staggering in magnitude.

See for yourself. Read it.

Then think over the contention by city officials that the mailing misstates things. If so, the gist of money matters suggested in the mailing seems generally correct, in magnitude, to my thinking, while that mailing graciously does not mention the immense and unjustified wasteful "socialism" of buying for millions a distressed property from out of a foreclosure where no private sector purchaser had (over about a half-years time) stepped forward to dare such a long shot.

So far, the item correctly notes that no private sector party has closed a purchase of  any part of that risky proposition the city socialized. The same identical acreage that the city bought, frustratingly without sound cause or judgment, remains owned by the city, outside of tax base, and in the interim Jim Deal, a capable man, has put a VA clinic into Ramsey Town Center, and an Allina Clinic.

Darren and Mike at Landform have collected regular city money into Landform, during that same time.

Where the money went is a mystery because the contract before the current one between the city and Landform allowed money out without requiring any accountings for city records of where it went, how it was spent, how much went to Cronk being a mystery, how much to Greeby equally so, and if amounts went as the letter alleges, were they flowed through Cronk to Flaherty-Collings and thorugh  Greeby to the Greeby firm, so that the individuals were conduits and Landform equally so? You tell me.

And officials call this mailing dubious.

Do I have evidence of Cronk or Greeby getting cash and routing it to their employers, no, but if the will were there the city could demand a full audit of Landform's books re Ramsey money. The evidence clearly exists, one way or the other.

If the civic backbone were there, and lacking that being agreeable to Landform, the city could terminate the relationship on thirty days notice.

Were our elected officials - the needed majority of four on council - to be so inclined to attend to basic fiduciary concerns over their own shepherding of public dollars, the public interest would be served.

BOTTOM LINE: I would not too quiclly call that mailing "Bogus," (as Levy headlined things), not any more thatn I would say the following images, (based on public disclosure of evidence of where city cash all went once it got to Landform), are a for-certain mischaracterization:

Darren and Mike.

Darren and Mike.

Darren - fresh.

Darren - with patina.

.

While the gang of four - mayor, Wise, McClone and Elvig - have been ineffective in bringing in new restaurants, the one they spent a $200,000 subsidy to attract gets a less than favorable review.

I dislike the noise of the place, and the food was better when there was only the one outlet on Coon Rapids Blvd. tucked in the southwest cornor by the old long-closed Target store. It was quieter, and the sauces were special. Now this. Over expansion can ruin a good thing.

Ramsey resident Riley, on her Licking Calcutta blog, gives a trenchant restaurant review:

Worst dinner in years at Acapulco Restaurant in Ramsey

Worst dinner in years at Acapulco Restaurant in Ramsey. Have been hearing this is a great place to eat in Ramsey. Based on our experience on 13 May 2011, I disagree with that assessment. I spoke about out concerns during the meal to both our waitress and Martin -- who is likely the manager. Read on knowing that we did try to offer constructive criticism while we were there and the table felt that our concerns went unnoticed.

As a little preamble, I have live in various states in the Southwest, have catered a number of events, prepared meals for private clients, had numerous original recipes published in cookbooks, write -- and am published -- on food, cooking and restaurants on a regular basis so I do have some great background for these opinions.

Chips and salsa. BLAND. Asked for spicier salsa and was instructed by wait staff to add hot sauces on the table to the salsa. Did that and it did not increase the flavor and the spice / heat level only increased a minimal amount. How about adding a second salsa for people that actually enjoy heat and flavor?

Meals. Disappointing. Wet burrito was gummy. Not spicy enough. Poblano peppers were drowning in sauce and there was no real pepper flavor. The cheese on this plate was not melted consistently which gave the meal an odd texture. The other two diners ordered beef Chimichangas. The rice was cold on one plate and both diners have heavily wrapped, soft, doughy, Chimichangas. This is NOT a Chimichanga. As a deep fried entrée, they should be crispy on the outside, not a pale white, soft blob on the plate next to the cold rice. When I asked Martin if soft and doughy was how they served them, he said there was a new cook and that maybe they could have been crispier. That was it, no apology, no offer to replace, nothing. Presentation of these two meals, like the others, was messy.

None of us will return to this restaurant, and to top it off after getting home and having a queasy stomach got to puke up all the crappy food.
Posted by Riley at Friday, May 13, 2011

Two thoughts: The Nectar, in Osseo; Buona Sera, in Champlin.

Both offer consistent quality dining.

Both are owner operated.

Sloppiness and down-hill trending is avoided that way.

The chef in each instance is the owner. Nectar has an outstanding beer and wine list too.

Turn up the volume: So, why give away a secret of a great place, and then have to fight the crowds? Business flows from recommendations and keeping an outstanding operation solvent and happy is in everyone's best interest; while selfish self interest is an even stronger motive. Losing Canyon Grille was a lesson. No crowds, no certainty of long-term availability. It's a yin and it's a yang.

I will send Riley an email, for the closing info - two places you don't get burned. Owner-operated quality has no substitute, except for an owner selected first rate chef: Canyon Grille.

What's a Greeby - who's a Greeby? Answer: A developer-owner's loyal representative and champion. That's what a Greeby says, and you have to trust that a Greeby would not lie or even shade a truth.

From this website. And if that last image in this sequence looks like out-of-towner-schlock, we don't need any. We have Darren and Mike. They consult. Not schlock peddlers. Experienced. Please have a look at every image:

That "pre-lease" stuff froze me in my tracks. I recall that in the 210 Trade big bankruptcy SPLAT Flaherty-Collins had in beautiful downtown Charlotte, North Carolina, over 200 consumers reportedly were left holding the bag, stung to the tune of $7.3 million dollars, cold cash, that went somewhere but was not returned as if it were earnest money. Ouch. Somebody got away with the money - it had to go somewhere when not returned back back to those condo pre-purchase victimzed folks.

That is not a Minnesota nice -- Ramsey - Live Here, Work Here, Play Here kind of Twin Cities Metro thing we here are aiming for; (although that awful Feges-speak slogan admittedly went out with ACE, in yesterday's trash - replaced by "the COR" so you decide). Still consumers taking a $7.3 million hosing, it's not for Minnesota, north metro, south metro, anywhere metro... We do have some sense of disdain, here in Ramsey.

Moving on - In terms of what the cat dragged in, Darren recruited an admitted out-of-town owner's rep and "Development 101," guru - another Mike:

But wait.

There's more. The nation's premier Owner's Representative firm, no less, they tout that:

They kind of look like a bunch of geeks to me, but I'll take their word for being nation's premier owner's rep persons, all that.

So, what is an owner's rep firm doing taking money from Ramsey (correct me if that is untrue and I am mistaken, and Ramsey's not directly or indirectly paid citizen tax and/or reserves money to Greeby) and bringing in a crying-towel deal where bright-boys Flaherty-Collins expect Ramsey to take a multi-million dollar second position to make a bad deal "work?."

That does not seem to be municipal representation, suggesting that as a credible deal without breaking into a chuckle; and leopards allegedly do not change their spots. Generally, you are what you say you are, what you have a record of so saying - and does anyone reading this have any idea whether Flaherty-Collins has been paying Greeby and if so when and how much?

My understanding is owner's reps don't rep for nothing. Generally, they are paid.

By project owner-developers. Not cities. Cities that don't own the deal once/if it is ever built.

Finally, I promised you schlock, and you tell me, is this or is it not Schlock [yes/no with a capital "S" schlock]; and it's not Minnesota schlock - we do have local consultants - but it is schlock highlighed from around the nation as something of which this nation's premier owner's rep firm is exceptionally proud:

Is that schlock, or what?

___________UPDATE___________
For those who might care, with regard to that last image on that page -- the actual Rialto, in Venice; this Google. I'd guess someone from Venice, with sensibilities, might want to stab to death anyone calling that ugly tacky box in Florida "The Rialto." It is like comparing the Pieta to a parking meter (both start with "p").

Wasn't it Darren, who was saying "upscale?"

City of Ramsey should fire Landform and hire Jim Deal? Unlike some, Jim Deal is capable. And patient. And smart. Politically astute and experienced.

Paul Levy of Strib writes online of stability and sagacity as disorderly slippage and financing incapacities are painfully apparent (or at least a financing SNAFU is alleged) elsewhere - with the evidence being Jim Deal is no Republican newbie-amateur-wannabe:

Ramsey VA clinic appears to be on schedule
Article by: PAUL LEVY , Star Tribune Updated: June 8, 2011 - 12:29 AM
Local developer Jim Deal knows all about dealing with the federal government. He spent 25 years working on federal projects, including a key USDA position under President Jimmy Carter.

After 10 years of politics, protests and postponements, the new veterans clinic in Ramsey is scheduled to open in November -- and on time. [..]

While city officials and developers questioned the way the Veterans Administration handled bids for the new community-based outreach clinic that will serve veterans in the northwestern suburbs, Deal simply filled out forms, answered questions, shrugged his shoulders and waited.

Other developers representing Ramsey, Elk River and competing cities elsewhere complained privately when the VA eliminated cities by changing boundaries after applications were taken and then later reopened the bidding war.

Deal's response?

"Sometimes, this happens.

[...] He was an insurance agent for the USDA for seven years before moving into a supervisory position. He worked in Springfield, Ill., Des Moines, and St. Paul before being appointed, under President Jimmy Carter's administration, to take charge of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, within the USDA.

"I was the prime architect of this new program that included 85 percent of the farmers in the country," Deal said.

[...] He says his company is now the third-largest writer of crop insurance programs in the nation, doing $2 billion in premium income.

"Oh, I just know a lot of people around the country," Deal says modestly.

Others know Darren and Mike.

Deal has his head attached properly and not in a dark place.

Levy writes more, so read the original, here.

You do not see Jim Deal appearing desparate and as confused as a deer in the headlights. He does not try to push on a rope.

You do not see him hiring a Darren-and-Mike show, nor contemplating putting eight million into a second lien position behind a private-sector capable bank in Pittsburgh that will not over-lend, nor give credit beyond its due.

Deal, and that bank, should be a teaching-learning experience for some. Those entrusted with wise use of public money distressingly do not show an expected learning curve. Some at least. Bruce Nedegaard plunged where the water was over his head, and now, who can be seen to have learned zippo from the Nedegaard example?

Whoever that might be, Jim Deal is the better conservative role model.

City of Ramsey - Info for Ward 4 voters on the upcoming Aug 16 special ward election for Dave Jeffrey's replacement (including absentee procedure). Anoka County Union candidate publishing (not online).

Dave Jeffrey's resignation for health reasons - extended chemotherapy beginning soon - became effective June 1, necessitating a special election within Ward 4. First the city's ward and precinct map, click to enlarge:

The text of the City announcement:

There will be no primary. The election has been set for Aug. 16. For those wanting to link to items noted in the notice; this link for the City's page.

While the official filing period has not opened, running from Friday, June 10, 2011, until Friday June 24, 2011, this week's issue of the Anoka County Union has identified two candidates, former City of Ramsey Council Member Sarah Strommen, and Brenda Look. That paper has published statements of each of the two, within the newsstand version (not available online).

Because filing has not closed, other Ward 4 residents may enter the contest.

___________________
If experiencing difficulty locating newsstand copies; usually back issues of the Union can be purchased during regular business hours from the ECM home office on Coon Rapids Blvd., this link for address and map.

For those knowing Dave and valuing his viewpoint, he noted on camera while announcing his resignation that anyone wanting to talk with him or share opinions is more than welcome to do so.

I finally caught the part of the rebroadcast of the Ramsey council meeting where Bonestroo was selected as planning consultant.

First staff requires credit for a prudent approach and an exercise of possibly far-reaching sound judgment, in recommending a firm other than Landform.

The agenda -- Read all about it.

Boonestro was chosen on a split vote. Read of that once meeting minutes are published.

Momma said, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

That makes sense especially when it looks as if one basket just sucks in eggs, with no chicks hatched. That is a separate story. One with Momentum and Catalyst and other highly offensive words that seem to be bandied about with little thought or purpose, but to justify and feel good at the council table over a consistent and substantial cash flow out of city cash.

The mayor, in his judgment, favored Landform. All the eggs in that basket. He noted they bid the lowest per hour price. Quality is hard to assess on price alone.

Consultant control of the time sheet with little city ability to disprove hours billed as valid, discounts any bidder's low-balling on the hourly.

Tossey had an interesting comment, the CEO of Landform sat in on all the other firms' presentations regarding RFP responses. To allow that of one bidder is highly irregular, and it was proper that the irregularity was highlighted.

Some thought was given to conflict of interest, were Landform to get that additional bonus perk contract assignment. Promoting the Town Center resuscitation effort, and promoting all other planning and development were seen as aims not wholly consistent; hence favoring splitting the general contract from the Town Center CORpse revival thing.

Bonestroo is not perfect. But better.

Bonestroo being chosen is something I am satisfied with, even though my impression is they horsed up the 2030 Comp Plan consultancy big time, with the Hunt family likely disagreeing.

I was unimpressed with Phil whats-his-name, who was the interface person on the Comp Plan, and would hope the new contract will involve a different Bonestroo interface.

But what mattered, anybody except Landform, was the consideration that in my view should have governed the contract. For that, Bonestroo qualified.

We can hope Bonestroo will do well, and can be fairly certain that however poorly it might perform, Landform would have been a lesser, worse choice.

The vote was to go with Bonestroo, the background being that planning is not a big activity these days, due to the market and developer reluctance and credit reality, so that the head of planning was released and a decision made to privatize planning now - if not forever - in Ramsey. Again the privatization decision was that the return on investment on a full time planning leader in this market was not there, whereas part-time consulting might work better.

Landform wanted a bigger plate, already having one that can be criticized as far too large, in terms of tangible return on investment. Use of the words "catalyst" and "momentum" has proven to cost a lot, and beyond words, what's there?

It was prudent conservative thinking to not put all eggs in one basket, especially one with a questionable record on hatchling productivity.

That gets to the rental thing.

First, note that some on council treated the Wells Catering commitment to build of all things, a restaurant in Town Center, as if it were a bastard stepchild showing up wanting a break.

That overlaps with those wanting to plunge into vast hitherto unheard of banking risk on the rental boondoggle.

Restaurants are what the people want.

Big time rental sucking up ramp parking spaces is something wanted by those other than people I know. I know of nobody not on council who has said, "This Flaherty-Collins thing will be an unqualified benefit to our town." I feel the opposite. I think it's stupid. Shared wall housing does not seem to be a keen idea these days, and the consideration of a humongo risk in a second position as something viable for a municipality to even think about is mind-boggling; for any thing, even something bringing high quality jobs. But for rental, WHY?

If a private sector developer-gambler does not want the gamble without that level of subsidy, or cannot get 100% of needed money from sophisticated banking sources and personal wealth, either the project is short on merit or the developer-gambler wants to game with untraditional money - city money - in a second lien position.

Some have said they like the rental thing, but are hesitant on the notion of extreme city risk in making it happen. That seems to be how Backous views things at this time. Tossey has indicated if 100% of it can come from the developer, Flaherty-Collins, together with private lending, go for it. One view, liking it and hoping it happens but hesitant to put the city into a big-money gamble; vs. allow the private sector to determine what may or may not work, and stand aside; represent a prudent leadership viewpoint first, with the second being more of a prudent libertarian view. A prudent citizen's view, mine, is the whole shared-wall rental thing is a mistake and likely another failed mess at a failed mess site, and should be shunned and discouraged in the strongest fashion. I think I indicated to Tossey an agreement with the libertarian viewpoint, but that is only to the degree it prevents city folly with public money. I don't see merit to the thing, I believe it is failure prone and to use the bandied words; backwards momentum, and an inhibitor rather than a catalyst. Moreover, what brew of development might be catalyzed is a worry I see, but one apparently given little attention on council.

The standard litany is without more Town Center rooftops the restaurants will not come. People cannot have restaurants without first even more of the same.

Okay. We can do without restaurants. If the cost is that great, it's a no-brainer.

That's where automobiles are helpful. Getting to where restaurants are, if the truth is the restaurants will shun Ramsey.

It is wholly absurd to say risk up to eight million of city money loss into a questionable venture, because it might lead to a restaurant or two.

That is especially so when the intermediary in the theory, the high-risk rental thing, was not needed to bring Wells Catering to taking a risk, with the council at least in part, McGlone speaking against financial help to it because other restaurants might want a fiscal boost too and a fiscal boost was needed to get the first Acapulco commitment, with the slippery slope his worry. Every new restaurant proposal may come with a request for a boost.

Okay, this is the same McGlone consistently wanting to start that slippery slope with Flaherty-Collins, with big-ticket costly high-risk stuff, and happy with the FC disdain of including a mere 3000 sq. foot. of retail, likely restaurant, in their building's footprint.

A slippery slope gung-ho wanting to start, with big time millions of money for something citizens don't really want badly vs. a slippery slope hesitancy for small spending on what's wanted, seems to be a Mad Hatter's Tea Party view of leadership.

BOTTOM LINE: Boost restaurants, if available. Shun big-ticket big-risk second lien positions where professional lenders will not fully commit.

And in terms of what a second lien looks at, PNC, the purported first position institutional lender, has this set of representative primary-lender term online, what almost any first position lender would impose, leaving no meat on any bones to be picked by a second position if a venture dies:

(click the image to enlarge and read).

With Bob Ramsey so supportive of Landform that he'd put all the eggs in that dubious basket, and so supportive of Landform's "deal" for the city with Flaherty-Collins, he gets my award as "Big Muddy Mayor."

For showing a "Big Muddy Mentality."

Push on deeper into the Big Muddy? Retreat and regroup? It is a judgment call, and later being able to say, "I told you so," is not that great a comfort or an alternative to being heard saying, "Don't do it, taking imprudent private-sector risks with taxpayer money is not being near the fiscal conservative expected back during election times."

Put another way: These days, it's risky to expect a Republican to act like one.

And in my view Bob Ramsey is quite well intentioned, but is reliant on advice from Landform people, Darren and Mike, and the legislative wizard, while wholly unimpressive so far, would in my view not be a justification for the regular cash flows to Landform, even were effectiveness to arise within the confines of special session horse-trading.

I just do not like Landform, nor see any value to them. Opinions vary, but consider the track record so far, and consider it especially after the special session's over together with what's to show for the cash flow beyond a luring toward an unreasonable city risk position in a private sector high-risk, high-uncertainty, rental thing where community charm and value is not as with restaurants.

There is nothing wrong with buy-and-hold, now that the distressed land's been bought, with a chance to sell the bloc of it later, even at a loss, when the general market is not what's out there now. It is more sensible than big gambles in a contrarian direction, where the market can really punish stupidity, unjustified optimism, and hubris -- especially when at least the last two of the three exist together in one key person at a town council table. (Arguably with all of the three traits rampant in differing amounts among the consistent four-vote town council majority.)

2012 elections will have three of the four seats in that majority bloc up for citizen review.

Vote smart. The cash you save may be your own.