The city has to quit buying high and selling low, no matter how noble the motives might be.
Or maybe more precisely, the city should only subsidize a project if it can clearly demonstrate that the return on its investment is greater than it would be if it did nothing. If the city subsidizes one project to kick start redevelopment and new privately-financed development sprouts up all around the subsidized one, the overall increase in tax revenues may justify the initial subsidy. I'm just not sure anyone is doing the analysis. The city spent $6M to rehab the Stimson Building that it now plans to sell for $2.5M because it can't afford the carrying costs. The Stimson Building's rehab was done in conjunction with the Pantages, but what was the city's exit strategy? What did it hope to gain by taking a loss on the building? Would the city coffers had been better off just leaving the building alone until the market made the numbers work? One of the next projects on the agenda will be the Urban Village, where the city, Met Council and Hennepin County will spend $7.8M to buy the Sowles Crane site, pay to relocate the company to Eagan, prepare the site for development -- and then turn around and sell it for $1.8M. How much new development -- and in what time frame -- does this project have to spur to justify a $6M subsidy? In how many years would this property have redeveloped without public intervention and under which scenario would the city be better off? These are the types of questions the city council members need to be asking before any more projects are bought high and sold low. John Rocker Calhoun TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
