Today around noon Sakry of ABC Newspapers reported felony charges have been filed against David Elvig related to his custom woodworking and furnishings firm's collapse subsequent to the housing and commercial real estate market downturns.

This link. Charges have been filed. The law presumes innocence unless and until a trial is held resulting in a conviction.

Sakry reported facts, but it remains uncertain whether a special election will result. Unlike misdemeanor convictions, a felony conviction would impact voting rights and right to hold elective public office. The question was not a part of her reporting.

______________UPDATE______________
Levy of Strib today, Sept. 14, covers the situation for Strib, this link, this excerpt:

"Am I guilty of anything? Of course not," Elvig said Wednesday when asked whether he planned to remain on the Ramsey council. "I've never been accused of anything like this before."

Levy's subheadline: "He denies accusations that he embezzled money from his employees' benefit plans for business expenses." The use of words in a brief report, particularly "embezzle" suggest clarity is possible over a bad and wrongful act vs. a lawful and proper one, whereas often details do not allow clearcut distinctions.

For a feeling of how arguments can be presented to a court, suggesting things are not always clearcut and may hinge on a particular detail or two outside of coverage within a brief news report, readers can look at two "embezzlement" cases and make what sense out of them they can; In re Phillips, 882 F. 2d 302 (8th Cir. 1989: and US v. Nattier, 127 F. 3d 655 (8th Cir. 1997).

This is not to suggest that any factual posture of either case might be close to facts alleged against Elvig in charging papers. I have not gone to the courthouse to look at charging papers, but that would be the first step to take by anyone interested in gaining a better understanding of the charges against Elvig beyond reading the Sakry and Levy reporting. Anyone taking such a step also should understand that charging papers state what one side in an adversarial situation claims to be fact, which might be different from what a jury hearing testimony, reviewing documents, and judging demeanor of witnesses might decide to be governing facts in a case. That understanding is a part of the concept of innocence until proven guilty - actually innocence until adjudged guilty being a better way to say it.

In closing, the quoted paragraph from Levy's report focused on the question of whether Elvig planned to remain on the council, and his quoted answer surely, but indirectly, said "Yes." Clearly so, from the Elvig response, for as long as litigation is pending. In the event of a trial or a plea bargain, the nature of the outcome would be a deciding factor.

The Johnny Northside decision, covered online by the Citizen Media Law Project.

This link. Read it there. It is fairly short, tightly and well written, and interesting.

That is a good website, if you agree with its strong First Amendment biases - that free speech has to be strongly protected by the law, without any back door ways to undermine it, or we lose much as a nation.

Hon. Denise Reilly (this link)

While this may be an oversimplification, while reading that item and its quite clear analysis, I thought again of my own state of mind, incredulity, when reading Judge Reilly's final order-memorandum. Then, and I am not clear of the synaptic detail, my mind reached back somewhat far into the past, a recollection from Joseph Heller's "Catch 22" where one character was described as "having lots of intelligence and no brains."

Heller foresaw Judge Reilly's analysis? Amazing.

The citizen response to the sidebar poll questions on the Flaherty Fiasco has been consistent, clear and overwhelming.

Down by the tracks, the busiest BNSF tracks in the State of Minnesota, where no sane person would want to live right next to the right-of-way, Flaherty would build a mega-landlord's palace, and comes on occasion from Indiana where he lives to tout his rental housing proposal to a pliant Ramsey city council.

In judgment of that proposal and the entire situation city officials are inflicting on our town, the poll results are indisputable.

Overwhelming, have a referendum.

Overwhelming, that Flaherty Fiasco will catalyze nothing, nada, zippo, zilch.

Overwhelming, nobody would really want to live there.

That last one fits with the Met. Council planners not moving in droves to their model urban villages, their plan for the rest of us. Likewise, the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do Ramsey council, except for Tossey who is a project opponent, all live in detached single family housing. None, including Tossey, live too close to those noisy, noisy, noisy train tracks, although Tossey, one of the project opponents, lives closest.

Go figure.

Can you say, "CRAMDOWN"?

Can you say, "BIG TIME DUMB"?

And Tossey opposes the thing not because of its inherent stupidity and likeliness of costly failure, but because he sanely believes the town should let Flaherty take his risks if he puts the money up between his firm and his private sector banker. AGAIN: The citizen response to the sidebar poll questions is consistent, clear, and overwhelming.

____________UPDATE___________
With Flaherty-Collins fobbing around stuff in Edina, Ramsey, and Orland Park, should we coin a new term, "promoter polygamy"?

___________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Does any reader know how badly burned US Bank ended up in that Flaherty 210 Trade tower fiasco in North Carolina? And, the secondary lender there, the equivalent to the risk Ramsey proposes to assume, what happened to the secondary lender? Cronk, working with Landform owes City of Ramsey a fiduciary duty to disclose such relevant, material information. So Ryan Cronk, what's the story?

Latest citizen and politician editorial opinion - Orland Park's Flaherty-&-Collins adventure, as questioned by a county board rep, an elected town official, and a skeptical taxpayer.

Start with the board rep. A Republican. Liz Gorman. Or she says she's one, and I guess anyone can call themselves a Republican, whatever that term is thought to mean. This link. Their "Main Street Triangle" plan as best I can infer is analogous to our Ramsey Town Center - with less failure on the ground at present but aimed in a like direction [although no bozo has shown up there, yet, to say "Rebrand it."]

Cook County Commissioner Gorman in her Sept 11 op-ed writes:

The Village of Orland Park seems to be working hard to convince the public that the Main Street Triangle plan will bring jobs and economic development to our community. It is no secret that 80% of the jobs will go to people who do not reside in Orland Park and those jobs will be temporary and leave upon completion of the project.

But clearly, the people in Orland Park do not believe what they are being told. Is it because the village is not being honest or could it be simply that the village is doing a poor job of conveying the financial facts despite having multiple public relations entities to advocate for this controversial plan?

Clearly, the mission of the village of Orland Park is to provide services to its residents.[...]

We have a community burdened by high taxation and rising expenses in an economic environment that is one of the worst we have faced in generations.

That's why I and other taxpayers in Orland Park are compelled to ask, what is the mission of the Village of Orland Park? Is the village here to provide services or, is the village here to act like a bank? Should the Village of Orland Park be extending a line of credit of some $38 million -- that's $38 million that was described at the recent open house as a Flaherty & Collins Investment.

It is very misleading when you don't have a clear mission to then assert that the $38 million is an F&C Investment when in fact it is the Village that will be obtaining the credit line. It is misleading for the village to also claim that F&C are "partners" when they barely have any skin in this development and the public is left to ask what exactly is it that Flaherty & Collins is actually putting into this lavish, very expensive, and speculative venture.

[...]Taxpayers in Orland Park have serious questions about this project. Will it bring in the benefits that are being promised? Is it what we need at this time when the economy is on the precipice? Who will be renting these units and will people with incomes that would put them in the upper 20 percent of the market spend that money at the location that is being proposed, next to a train station?

The public has serious concerns. And when the public is concerned, rather than rushing ahead with these plans, the Village should be following their instincts to protect the interests of the public. They should be moving slowly and carefully and they should be providing more answers, not rushing through public hearings. One hearing is not enough. After tonight, the taxpayers of Orland Park will still have serious concerns and questions about this project.

I think the public is smart. They have learned the very difficult lesson that if it sounds too good to be true, maybe it is not.

I urge the Village Board to postpone their rush on this project, to listen more to the public, provide more information to the public and stand with a public that has been knocked around by this economy.[...]

Ramsey should be represented at the county level by such a prudent person, averse to headlong arguably irrational levels of public risk in private sector adventuring. One against profligate spending. One vocally so.

Next, this link, a Village of Orland Park Board of Trustees member, (the equivalent of a City of Ramsey Council member), Brad O'Halloran, had Patch publish this Sept 10 written opinion:

[from OP village website]

I have been a trustee in the Village of Orland Park for the past 18 years. While there have been many challenging issues during this time, none has had the potential economic impact on the Village’s finances to the degree the proposed “9750 On The Park” project will have.

As such, it is the single biggest financial vote in 20 years. When I first became a trustee the village’s overall debt was around  $18 million, today it is $79 million. The proposed 9750 project would almost double that debt to $144 million.  To put things in perspective, the 9750 project’s debt of $65 million is greater than the debt of the new police station, the Sportsplex, the new library, the new train station, the public works facility and the old police station renovation----COMBINED. [...]

I received the final details of this deal in my weekly village package on Aug. 13th in the form of a 5 inch ring binder stuffed full of details. I’ve been trying to absorb them ever since.

While it’s certainly true that I knew this project was in the works for quite some time, this was the first time I saw the final business terms and was given the third party report that analyzed the risk factors involved. In addition I always assumed there would be plenty of time for debate with public hearings and the traditional village committee process, prior to any final vote.

[...]I’ve been soliciting my own input from the same neighbors, friends, former coaches and local business folk I’ve relied on for years and whose opinions I respect. And we’ve hit on some common themes.

1.) This is no time for anyone to be doubling his or her amount of debt. If I wouldn’t do it as an individual or business, why would the village ever consider it? If there is one common thread to the current problems in our state and country it is one thing, too much debt.

2.) A partnership is just that. 50/50 or 60/40 or even 70/30, but 96/4, I don’t think so.

3.) The Village has no business being in the Apartment business. If this is such a good idea then let the private sector have at it, but don’t risk my money by using public funds.

[... T]his project is perceived to be the linchpin of the village’s downtown redevelopment. A vision the Mayor and this board have worked on for many years. A vision I must say I share and have supported to date. A vision that has been many, many years in the making.

Unfortunately, I think with respect to the [Flaherty-&-Collins] 9750 project maybe there’s been a little too much tunnel vision. Too much focus on the end result and the beautiful renderings and rosy projections and not enough focus on the economic uncertainty in both our state and country, and the fact that these funds are the funds of our citizens. [...]

[...]So in the end I guess I must concur with the folks I spoke with and the common sense input they offered and respectfully disagree with you Mr. Mayor and say no to the proposed financing of “9750 On The Park.”

Third item, expressing a citizen's Sept. 6 judgments and frustrations, here.

With Regard to Parallels between Orland Park and Ramsey: Together the items show a generally identical gambling-with-public-funds propensity among inexperienced unsophisticated city officials, some being small business operators wanting to swim with the big fish in the big pond. There are differing details between Orland Park and Ramsey, but in each Flaherty-&-Collins appears unwilling to put anything beyond token adventurer-promoter capital behind a questionable project, instead asking municipal government to deviate greatly from normal municipality functions by gambling millions on a private-sector adventure, a landlord's game, and to shift from being a normally functioning town to become instead a property developer and banker for a project the out-of-town, out-of-state, promoter wants enough to promote, but not enough to take the lion's share of the clear and substantial risks.

It is risk shifting of what is a traditional private sector Crabgrass risk [Developers ARE Crabgrass], and fobbing it off on taxpayers. This done, with the taxpayers in both instances not being offered a referendum's say in things. In each instance the fobbing off is by all-too-willing town officials prone to big-time gambling with money that is taxpayer money. Each place, there appear to be individual town officials willing to gamble and play at being real estate savants, where sophistication in such things is lacking at the public official decision-making levels - at least in Ramsey.

In each instance some in a minority within the deciding officials say, "If the promoter pays, and the town does not get into being a bank, then let the promoter roll his dice."

In each instance citizens have declared, "Dumb idea. A failure-prone adventure, big time, in all likelihood. So don't do it, at all; or if you persist give us at least a referendum's chance to show you our beliefs."

Nobody has a crystal ball, and while the norm is the private profit-seeker is the risk taker, in each city Mr. David Flaherty has shown up smooth talking the folks, and in each case there are a handful of pliant officials willing to risk-shift to the government.

In each case that is an unsound extension of what local government should do.

Also, I bet the roads in Orland Park need long term attention too, and yet the bonding-spending is for fluff and high-risk play. Each town is NOT a casino. Officials should behave accordingly.


____________UPDATE___________
Aside from Village of Orland Park Board of Trustees member Brad O'Halloran's written op-ed explaining his opposition to Flaherty-Collins adventuring in his town, in Patch here, there is also reporting about it in another local OP area news outlet, here, for readers who might desire more information about the parallel situation to ours, in Ramsey.

Between football games, whatever, some light reading.

Start with two reports, online, one from prior to Sept. 11, 2001, one after. Here and here. Both found via first page hits, this Google, with one found through an intermediary page, here. For background, two preliminary reports to the above pre-911 link, etc., for rapid reading hounds for punishment; here, here, here, here, here and here. I confess, I have not read it all.

To show continuity from Clinton to Bush administrations, perhaps too prescient language, this page 4, from this online pdf item, here (dated December, 1999).

Wired, today, this link.

This link, Wired again, about McChrystal's JSOC changes; and is it a model for something nice for the homeland? That item mentions a recollection by "Andrew Exum, now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security," which opens up an entirely new can of worms. Here. These things have rosters of people who influence our decisions where many have never faced a major federal ballot box yet the names of some that way are familiar. Exum is not without interesting observations. The CNAS does list key people here, here and here, and you can read bio statements showing a distinct military, CFR, and academic-policy-wonk backgrounds. Seeing that diversionary thread from Wired's item made me recall an intent to post something about the personnel of the Aspen Institute, for readers to weigh as they might. It looks as if it might be some kind of recruitment effort. Names you might recognize.

Wired, here.

Reading from elsewhere in the world, so that we are not too insular. Times Live online.


Next

p4, of this link

For those wanting to shrink the federal government, or curb its growth, the fastest growing part apparently is  DHS. Those posturing themselves against Keynesian pump priming, might look at questionable "necessities" when bridges and roads could be made safer and wider; specifically, one humongo chunk of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 spending for yet another new house of bureaucracy where bureaucrats on the dole can place their desks and act busy. Two googles, here and here.

Not that interim digs are wholly tiny, cramped, too small and crowded, but be ready for this -- 4.5 million square feet of homeland DC desk space, no less, and guess what this is, (photo link explains):

This link.

(David Flaherty must be envious, of 4.5 million square feet, all government paid. He sees he can aim higher than Ramsey, than Orland Park; DC beckons.)

Readers, this I cannot directly help you with greatly, but drop a few dollars, and follow the market, its opportunities, and promise. Helpfully, there is this teaser-intro for free, online. If you are in it for the money, I suppose you have to spend money to make money, or that's what some selling something say.

Whether or not you feel more secure, do you feel your levels of personal privacy, freedom from intrusion, are greater now, or less than say during the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon years? In trying to understand our nation, and  its directions, and Sept. 11, consider a google = "September 11, 1973".

Is the homeland more secure because we have Henry Kissinger, or is "security" imbalanced among us from Henry's effort? Chile after Allende's murder, under Pinochet, involved higher domestic surveillance levels, and price increases for basic livelihood necessities relative to the income levels of the general Chilean population, which income levels did not advance greatly. Was the Chilean homeland more secure? Against what? Probably it is a question only having meaning if asked as, "For whom?" A suggestion now is that Chile, Brazil and Argentina have lived through junta years and evolved. That is arguably a promising thing to believe. I have no idea whether it is true.

And remember in all this, unlike others I am not telling you what to think; instead I am noting only things you might read. So you tell me, is there a difference?

________________________
This link. Is there truth in parody, is there greater security to the homeland [fatherland, Mother America] in diverting a flight because of Cat Stevens? Go figure. Nobody said he tried to light his shoe or underwear.

That's the post for now. There are a few browser tabs open, possible info for UPDATE additions, but hey, the Bears and Ravens are on now. A treasured part of our homeland is the noon Sunday game, Vikings on the 3:00 - 3:30 slot - re the near homeland, Arlen Heights, inflated dome, all that. Also, link checking will be postponed, so post a comment if any are bad, and they'll be fixed.

Is David Flaherty only telling Ramsey what he wants us to hear?

photo credit

The last time David Flaherty was in Ramsey he attended an HRA worksession [untelevised] and among other things talked of financing difficulties in Ramsey his firm attributed to, he said, Ramsey Town Center history with the banks, the Minnwest foreclosure, the Nedegaard situation, and Ramsey buying the land - he did not get into detail, but the implication was local banks got burned and are hesitant to touch his ramp-wrap-rental by the rails which he expects Ramsey to finance in part, behind a $20 million+ bank lien, with Ramsey set to plunge $8 million into his adventure while he - his firm - puts in substantially less promoter risk capital. A plausible story, yes/ no? Ramsey burned some credibility, history is history, and it's not Flaherty's fault that Twin Citys locals have institutional memories. Banks getting burned burns in a memory that "COR rebranding" cannot scrub - that I fully believe as not only plausible but likely. Yet simple stories can be oversimplifications.

History IS history

The gentleman somehow, in the course of suggesting banks getting burned burns in a memory was either neglectfully or intentionally speaking when he did not report to us:

The developer of the unfinished [Charlotte North Carolina] 210 Trade tower says it owes its creditors more than $52.5 million.

Flaherty & Collins Properties filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation Oct. 2 [2009] for its affiliate Charlotte FC, the limited liability company used for the 48-story, 419-unit condo tower that’s partly built at the EpiCentre complex in uptown.

The filing details debts to about 300 creditors. Unsecured, non-priority claims — including contracts with condo buyers — account for $15.15 million in debt.

Minneapolis-based U.S. Bank has secured claims totaling $37.3 million. And House Investments of Indianapolis made a $6 million loan secured by a pledge of ownership interest.

Even the Mecklenburg County tax collector is owed — $84,743.

Total assets for Charlotte FC are estimated at $197,493.

[emphasis added, full report here] Local banks might have an institutional memory, and talk to one another, and being put into a bankruptcy situation on a $37 million investment of faith in Flaherty-Collins, by our local US Bank, might, just might, have percolated as useful information among local banking circles.

Flaherty did not tell us the red-letter info reported earlier, and we probably can assume he had some say and familiarity in that 210 Trade condo tower situation, from start to federal bankruptcy Chapter 7 filing. As CEO it would be the normal course of things that such affairs were not left to subordinates. Visiting Ramsey has not been left to subordinates, has it?

So, not mentioning material information - and I would not say that stiffing US Bank is immaterial, certainly not to US Bank. So, what's the explanation? Surely it was simple forgetfulness. David Flaherty is a busy man. But do we want to place a taxpayer $8 million wad of cash at the disposal of one so forgetful?

Strings can be tied to the pile of money, but still.

I think there was even among some, a forgetfulness to report fully who Ryan Cronk was/is as an "assistant" to Darren Landform.

Oh. I forgot. It's Darren Lazan.

Of Landform.

Sorry about that. A simple memory lapse. But I did remember to put in this screenshot:

This link

_______________UPDATE_______________
In fairness to the gentleman, Mr. Flaherty, I do not recall (when he was last in Ramsey at that worksession) wheter he said if he was getting local money financing for his Edina adventure. Surely Ramsey history could not have poisoned the well for local bank lending on that project. Mayor Bob should get on the phone to Darren, and perhaps get Kurt involved, and do another conference call, asking David Flaherty about who is financing Edina - my bet - NOT Minneapolis based US Bank. It seems that is how council business is conducted concerning the ramp-wrap-rental by the rails project, so I would not expect to see normal practices changed, should that question be posed to Mr. Flaherty at all, by Ramsey officials. Also, in fairness to Mr. Flaherty, I cannot say he did not earlier disclose to Ramsey officials that US Bank was the lender left out to dry on the Charlotte North Carolina project; I only can say to my knowledge no such info percolated down to the citizen and taxpayer levels in Ramsey, to the common folk, if officials have known of it.

______________FURTHER UPDATE______________
Readers may recall how the Minnwest foreclosure auction for the vacant remainder of the Town Center land was repeatedly scheduled and canceled, a pattern, in Ramsey, which Mr. Flaherty may be familiar.

Mr. Flaherty may have had special cause to notice the Ramsey situation, because of familiarity with a comparable thing, this Google, linking to stories here, here, here, here, and here; the latter opening:

EpiCentre gets a new lender, sells air rights - Company that bought rights to build tower is affiliated with complex's developer.
By Kerry Hall Singe - ksinge@charlotteobserver.com
Posted: Wednesday, Nov. 24, 2010

A company affiliated with EpiCentre developer Afshin Ghazi bought the air rights over the uptown project at a foreclosure auction Tuesday.

The sale resolves a longstanding hitch that stalled development of a proposed 50-story residential tower and left a concrete slab and exposed rebar sitting atop the EpiCentre entertainment complex.

210 Trade Investments, LLC paid $6million to own the rights.

US Bank originally financed the tower but started foreclosure proceedings when the developer, a subsidiary of Flaherty & Collins Properties, defaulted. US Bank later sold the loan to Ghazi-affiliated 210 Trade Investments.

Construction on the tower was stopped in 2008 because of problems with the city's code enforcement department over the air rights arrangement. The tower's developer later liquidated.

Ghazi declined Tuesday to say what is planned for the site but has been quoted saying it would be difficult to build a residential project in today's soft market. Something, he has said, will be built.

In other promising news for the EpiCentre, its lender, Regions Bank, sold its mortgage on the complex Monday to a new lender, Blue Air 2010 LLC.

Court documents provide no information about the new lender other than to suggest Blue Air is willing to work with Ghazi on a reorganization plan and invest in the 300,000-square-foot EpiCentre.

Regions started foreclosure proceedings on the property in July saying Ghazi had stopped paying on a $90 million loan. Ghazi put the EpiCentre's development companies into bankruptcy protection, stalling the process.

My guess would be if asked, Mr. Flaherty would say he is familiar with Mr. Ghazi.

Again in fairness to Flaherty, there is no Mr. Ghazi, or equivalent, appearing in any reporting on the Orland Park or Ramsey ramp-wrap-rental dreams.

______________FURTHER UPDATE_______________
Focusing back to the question of whether town officials know things they are withholding from the citizens, misleading the citizens that way, there is history. On a story since gone offline, Sakry wrote for ABC Newspapers:

While some may criticize the city for not checking out Nedegaard’s financial situation, there was nothing the city could do, according to former Ramsey City Administrator Jim Norman.

Nedegaard assembled the land and owned it. The city didn’t have a choice in selecting a developer, Norman said.

“We wanted to do the project and he owned the land,” he said.

The city’s options were to condemn the land or go ahead with Nedegaard with a letter of credit to protect the city, said Norman.

Although the city consultants did a study before the project started that indicated Nedegaard may not survive financially, it is not unusual for projects to have two to three owners before completion, he said.

The first indication the city received that Nedegaard was in financial straits was when contractors started putting liens on RTC property in fall 2006.

[...] When the urban center idea came in up in a comprehensive plan meeting with planning consultants in 1998, the council rejected it, said Norman.

The idea of a transit-oriented, mixed-use development resurfaced later in the year and was seen in better light by the council fighting for a Northstar Commuter Rail station site, which it later lost to Anoka in 2000.

Cultivated musrooms

History is history. Now, James Norman was his own man, a unique specimen, but after the fact, after the Nedegaard default-bankruptcy-death, and if I remember the time frame correctly after the Norman-Cook sister city trip to China and Norman's quitting city employment, he then says to Sakry, a study existed that was hidden under a hat.

What confederates of Norman were a part of this? I remember a meeting where Mulroney, Mulrooney, whatever his name -- was supposed to show up at a televised meeting and do a presentation on the subject of Nedegaard's financial status, and the mayor [Gamec then, a different mayor] blew some smoke about another engagement, or a sikness, I forget which, but the guy never showed to publicly say jack. History of how we were treated is evidence of how we possibly now are being treated, and how in the future we can anticipate being treated.

It ain't pretty.

Moreover, that reference to the Hendriksen-Connolly-Zimmerman council, (Gamec and Susan Anderson in the minority), having showed eminent good sense in saying the idea stinks; the powers that be appear to have started playing choo-choo-stop games; and who did what behind the scenes is still not public knowledge. Toto never pulled aside the curtain. If Toto had, what lurked behind the curtain would not have been too pretty either. History teaches, distrust is justified.

Ramsey-Flaherty-Collins deja vu. An unfamiliar politician, named Gorman, (from OP), but it could be a Ramsey headline; "Should village ‘act as a bank’, Gorman asks at meeting on luxury apartment project"

Perhaps the answer for Ramsey, is to get the Orland Park board of trustees to not only bankroll Flaherty-Collins there, but here also. Take City of Ramsey out of the rental wrap risk banking loop. Let it stay a city, let Orland Park open up a branch real estate investment bank here. What's another $8 million to the plungers there, when they already are intent on plunging $62 of village money to go with $1 million of Flaherty-Collins' promoter risk capital? Perhaps Colin McGlone and Darren Lazan could junket up to Orland Park? It is not Vegas but sacrifice can happen. Colin could give them his intensely sincere, "I don't see how it can fail" commentary. Same spiel as here - one size fits all.

At any rate, (hat tip to anonymous comment help), there is a second press report of the Orland Park public hearing held Tuesday evening in Orland Park, this link. This opening screenshot:

Yes. As in Ramsey, a quality 'upscale' thing. Nothing but that, attractive to a range of young urban professionals seeking a suburban locale to advance their lifestyle hopes and dreams:

A true P3: Guessing Lazan, Nelson, and Cronk are presenting us with a true P3 too, as their PowerPointPresentation has declared, Orland Park village administrators could micro-manage details of both their Orland Park profit-sharing dream-ramp-rental, AND Ramsey's ramp-wrap-rental by the rails, if they would merely bankroll both; Triblocal online reporting continuing:

Village Manager Paul Grimes, opening the hearing, termed the joint effort with Flaherty “a true private-public partnership.”
Because Orland Park would be the sole lender, municipal officials would have more control over the project, he said. The agreement also calls for repayment of the loan over a 10-year period and provides the municipality with a share of the profits, he said.
Such municipal involvements are becoming increasingly common. Grimes said Wednesday. The City of Indianapolis, he said, is selling $90 million in municipal bonds for a $156 million mixed-used project by a different developer. Unlike Orland Park, Grimes said, Indianapolis won’t share in any profits from that development.

Wow. Those folks want a deeper intrusion into normally private sector affairs than Ramsey's P3 bunch. Add "profit-sharing" into it, make it "public private profit-sharing partnership," and you get a boost to P4, with Ramsey's mere P3 on the trailing edge of the wave.


"I don't see how it can fail."

That is Colin McGlone's conclusory analysis-free summary of his view of Ramsey rental dreams. Well, Colin, you must be right; since how can you miss with the young professional contingent wanting to leave behind their frat-house ways, to move 20-miles from the U-District and the sorority houses, to mix with the empty nesters wanting to also evolve their lifestyles from larger home to shared wall, all mixing and sharing the heated salt water pool, the tanning facility, the exercise room, and meeting room; while conveniently at the rail-friendly location?

Evolve and expand Ramsey lifestyle experiences.

We want shared wall, with young professionals.

Train amenities on a regular basis. This link.

Remember, Colin says:


I don't see how it can fail.

Do you?

Would you like a referendum to be able to vote on whether it could be a costly big bonded splat that you'd rather see not happen? A vote against hubris and myopia at the council table?


_________________UPDATE________________
Patch has a third online report from Orland Park, this excerpting:

For about three and a half hours, residents took time at a podium to let village administrators, staff and developer Flaherty and Collins know how they really feel about a 295-unit luxury apartment complex that likely will be built on the west side of the Main Street Triangle.

The most frequent concern raised is the financial risk to the village by loaning $38 million initially to Flaherty and Collins to build the complex. While village staff and administrators say the financing has been studied and is safe, many residents still have doubts.

The Patch outlet seems to attract a larger thread of reader comments, than other OP reporting of the village's rental dream.

_________________FURTHER UPDATE________________

As noted, the Patch outlet seems to attract extensive reader-citizen commentary. As of 10:20, Friday, Sept. 9, the most recent of 26 reader comments to the above noted reporting is presented in the thumbnail. Click it to enlarge and read - and use the link in the preceding UPDATE to read the entire thread.



________________FURTHER UPDATE__________________
A fourth online report on the Sept. 6 Orland Park public hearing, here.

Orlanders get to vent on $63 million plan

by Jack Murray -- The Regional editor

Orland Park residents packed the Village Hall chambers Tuesday night to question the village’s plan to develop a 295-unit luxury apartment complex on 143rd Street and Ravinia Avenue in a public/private partnership with an Indianapolis-based developer.

The open forum drew an overflow crowd of more than 200 people many of whom stood in the hallways outside the meeting room, or sat in chairs set up in the lobby of the Frederick Owens Village Hall to listen to the proceedings on loud speakers.

Mayor Daniel J. McLaughlin noted that the Village Board was at first scheduled to vote that night whether or not to approve the project to build the Ninety-7Fifty On the Park building but he postponed the vote to Sept. 19 in order to give residents a chance to have their say about the project and have their questions and concerns answered.

The open house held the week before to inform the public of all aspects of the project  “didn’t work as well as we thought” it would the mayor said. “We’ll stay here all night if we have to, to get as many answers to people as we can,” he added.

The building is the starting point of the development of a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly downtown Orland Park that will keep Orland Park a “dynamic community” moving forward creating jobs and stimulating local businesses McLaughlin has said.

Village Manager Paul Grimes called it the linchpin or catalyst for the Main Street redevelopment project to create a downtown Orland Park centered on the Metra Triangle bounded by the Metra railroad tracks 143rd Street and La Grange Road. He noted that since 2007 the infrastructure of a new Metra train station, commuter parking lot, Crescent Park and detention pond has been put in place to develop the downtown area.

[...] Grimes emphasized that the market area that will draw tenants to fill the planned complex is “far larger than only Orland Park.” “The Chicago region is a very large sophisticated area and this property is very attractive to potential tenants.” He noted similar projects have been successful in Evanston Oak Brook Terrace and Lombard.

[...] Many who spoke gave their opinion that young professionals would prefer to live downtown than in Orland Park for the monthly rents of $1,500 to $2,000 envisioned for the building. “Single people don’t want to live in Orland Park; they want to live in downtown Chicago, where the action is,” one woman told the board.

[...] Many, however, opposed the village borrowing $63 million to fund the project. Resident James Bailey said he had no objection to the apartment building; “as long as the village doesn’t finance it.”

He wanted to know if the village would borrow more money to finance development in the rest of the Triangle. He also asked if the village would subsidize rents to fill the building.

Flaherty and Collins CEO David Flaherty said there would be no subsidy. The mayor said rents would be established by the free market; no subsidies.

Red highlighting added to note similarities to propaganda being fed us in Ramsey. Every time I see that "very attractive to potential tenants," I want to say, "Name five." Note how the citizen disbelief is parallel too, but without any propaganda machine to account for that, only citizen good sense not reaching far enough to touch the council table.

Note that wrap up. The market can adjust rents up, or it can force rents down, to attain a landlord's optimum given what people are willing to pay. That optimum could, in Orland Park or in Ramsey, or in both, be lower than what would keep the place "upscale." Indeed, it could be so low that even with a landlord's optimal occupancy-rent rates balance it could prove a loser.

David Flaherty and his company have a "210 Trade" condo-tower history of walking from loser projects, leaving others holding the bag.

______________FURTHER UPDATE_______________

Again, in fairness, the Flaherty-Collins "apartment guys" did have a less raw situation, a Chapter 11 workout, on an apartment complex in another North Carolina adventure that also has been reported. Who lost how much from what position there apparently has not been reported as widely as the 210 Tower splat. For all I know nobody took a loss, except timewise, on that second "The Exchange at Brier Creek" thing.

Who invents those god-awful Loony Tune names anyway, Darren, man of "The COR?"

It takes a special kind of mind for that I'd guess, as with the Bauer gun club naming, and the Peterson cornfield by Trott Brook.

Or, "Symphony at Town Center." I wonder if Darren, Man of the COR, will be pressuring that homeowners association to "rebrand."