Collected Works Of Park Board Attorney/lobbyist Brian Rice - Part Ii
Yesterday I posted Part I of the Collected Works of Brian Rice. This is Part II of the Collected Works of Brian Rice. These are presented partly in response to some popular demand. I got a number of private email messages expressing appreciation for the first in the Brian Rice series. I'd like to encourage Rice to come back to the list. I very much enjoyed reading his posts during the short time he was active on the list.
[List Meister David] Brauer responded within 20 minutes with a post about past sins, which mentioned people getting kicked off the list and coming back. I can't read minds, but thought he may have been thinking of me - because yes, I was booted from the list because I posted from a CJ gossip column about one of the current candidates for Mayor. I'm joined by a number of other valuable list regulars who have been booted in the past - Jim Graham, Paul Kuettel to name a few.
In the first post, Rice goes after yours truly.
Money quote:
I think Eva's last shot is typical of the rude, spiteful, cross, surly, ill-mannered and generally unpleasant tone of the e-mails I've noticed on this Forum. Par for the course! I know now why as a parent you are advised to keep your children out of chat rooms. I'm sure the vast majority of the members of the Forum are well-read, thoughtful Minneapolitans who take their civic duties seriously. I have appreciated many of the comments both on line and off line from people who were on both sides of this issue and I respect both.
Actually, I've always thought the reason to keep kids out of chat rooms is to keep them away from predators. I've always thought encouraging kids to participate in online political discussions is a way to get kids more engaged in the civic process while they are young.
Brian Rice brice@rmjlaw.net Tue Aug 27 18:34:00 2002
For anyone who has followed this issue with more than a modicum of intelligence, they would know that the Park Board entered into a purchase agreement with Moore Business Forms. Like all purchase agreements a closing date was set when the purchase agreement was signed. I believe the agreement was entered into in late June and that agreement had a closing date of August 19, 2002. Based on the purchase price, the Park Board went in search of financing. First, the city which demuured. Then, the Board found it could mortgage the property and secured a commitment from Wells/Fargo. Wells/Fargo went to the market and lined up investors. Based and the investment climate, Wells/Fargo committed to a specific time sensitive interest rate knowing the deal had a closing date of August 19,2003. All of these facts were brought forward at the public meetings and in the documents presented at the meetings. To answer Eva's question more directly, no I did not advise the Board to close the deal to cut off public debate. The board by its actions and agreements it entered into was fully aware when the closing would occur. And the deal took its course.
I think Eva's last shot is typical of the rude, spiteful, cross, surly, ill-mannered and generally unpleasant tone of the e-mails I've noticed on this Forum. Par for the course! I know now why as a parent you are advised to keep your children out of chat rooms. I'm sure the vast majority of the members of the Forum are well-read, thoughtful Minneapolitans who take their civic duties seriously. I have appreciated many of the comments both on line and off line from people who were on both sides of this issue and I respect both. I can see where this Forum can--in theory--be capable of providing better connections and more direct information to expand the effusion of knowledge. However, the issue that engaged me in the debate on this Forum--the Park Board acquistion--has demonstrated the much less noble aspect of this Forum. As evidenced by Eva Young's freewheeling snideness. Just as I'm sure many participants in this Forum are well meaning and open minded, I'm sure that could be said of all chat rooms. Still, I've learned a good lesson: I'll keep my sons out of chat rooms based on sound advice and I'll do the same for myself. Mr. List manager please remove my e-mail address from the Forum.
Brian Rice
[This was the email he responded to] -----Original Message----- From: mpls-admin@mnforum.org [mailto:mpls-admin@mnforum.org]On Behalf Of Eva Young Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:46 PM To: Michael Hohmann; [mpls] Subject: Re: [Mpls] MPRB closes on new digs
At 03:38 PM 8/27/02 -0500, Michael Hohmann wrote: >FYI-- for those interested in the discussion about the MPRB purchase of a HQ >building at 2117 W. River Road, the deal was closed yesterday. I guess any >questions regarding the financing are moot for the time being!
This is so arrogant. I think the Park Board will pay for their arrogance on this one at the polls next time.
I have a question though -- Did Brian Rice advise the park board to do this hasty closing to close off further public debate over this?
Defending the Park Boards New Digs....
[Mpls] Bob Fine Editorial - The Park Board's numbers are fishy
Brian Rice brice@rmjlaw.net Mon Aug 26 12:09:00 2002
I'll stand corrected on the assessed value. I wrote that response late at night and that's why I prefaced my comments with "I beieve". As most property owners know the assessor valuation may not reflect the market. And as I commented there was another buyer ready to offer more, but on different terms. The Park Board obtained two appraisals. The lowest was for $3.2 million. The aquisition price was slightly less than $3 million. I'll repeat for hopefully the last time, the financing mechanism used for the purchase can't be used for operational expenses. The Park Board has a power unique among political subdivisions in the state--the ability to mortgage property.
There are no new dollars in the 2003 budget for the Park Board's office space--hence the notion that programs will be cut is simply nice sounding rhetoric, but ill-informed rhetoric nonetheless. Rent and parking for the downtown office is $430,000 per year and going up. Prinicipal and interest payments to Wells Fargo on the mortgage at the new building are $256,000 per year. For less money the taxpayers are getting three times the space as renting. The asset is quite real and tangible and easier to liquidate than say city hall. As far as Jordan goes, it will most likely be better served with a new northside service center as will other north and eastside parks.
A private post to Brauer that got posted to the list by Brauer:
> -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Rice [mailto:brice@rmjlaw.net] > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 7:24 PM > To: 'David Brauer' > Subject: RE: [Mpls] Board of Estimate announces move to Lyndale Farmstead
> I've done my 2 for the day. So I'll write directly to you with some offline comments. It's laughable that you call this a civil city civic discussion.
> Look at the apology from the guy who attacked emily and got me going.
I guess on the internet public employees are "characters" and I guess you can set the rules one minute and write pieces like this the next. And then as "list manager" discipline people and accept the limp apologies. For your information Pat Born the city finance director told the Park Board staff to get ahold of Dick Miller at Wells Fargo to figure out the financing after the City council tabled the matter. Wells Fargo has done several of these types of acquistions for the city and non-profits. In fact earlier this year the MCDA of the HRA bought a building and property on the northside with none of the discusion the Park Board has had. Where was the Mayor then? Dick advised the Superindent and the staff that he didn't think the Mayor would veto the plan. While he may not have any inside information his judgement is usually good. The mayor , ostrow and barb johnson all said it was a good idea originally. In fact Pat Born offered to have the city buy the property and rent soome of it to the Park Board. So what politics do you think are going on? If the mayor thinks we need a long term plan for city offices, well then let him say so. Such a plan will probably take at least three years to develop and knowing the city it won't include the park board. As far as your insights into the rental market, they are simplistic at best. I can't believe I wasted the better part of a day on this drivel.
I don't find snide attacks on public servants to be funny. One of the members of the Forum pointed out the demeaning response issued to Emily Ero Phillips post. Emily is a decent, compassionate and hardworking public servant. She is not Bill Clinton's handmaiden.
The Board of Estimate and Taxation has I believe one full time employee and one half time employee. The Park Board has 500 full time employess and at least that many part time and seasonal employees. The Board of Estimate has no land to manage, no vehicles, no trash to pick up, no collective bargaining agreements and no lawsuits to defend. To analogize the two is sophomoric at best and in the context of the other attacks I saw today on the Park Board on this issue adds absolutely nothing to informing the Forum or furthering the understanding of the issue. Yeah its cute, yeah its flip, yeah its cool, but yeah its shallow, lame and weak at the same time. Especially when the author apparently wants to stir the Forum up against the Park Board.
As to why there hasn't been more information posted by the "pros" on the issue I can't answer for the Board. For myself I was stirred into action after I saw the derogatory piece on Emily. Obviously some members of the Forum have made up their minds and the truth be damned and let's insult the messengers who try to bring it forward. Given the responses to my first posting I think for list manager to claim that those comments of a few people represents the "hoi polloi", in Greek meaning the people or masses, is quite an overstatement. I posted my earlier e-mail personally. I identified myself as the Park Board attorney so readers would know what my background on the issue was. I certainly don't object to any public input on any matter. And I for one think the Park Board's decision was very wise and will stand the test of time. I also think the list manager's view of the comments to date on the subject of being representative of the masses is absurd at best. I respectfully submit that those views been less than well informed. And when others, like myself and Emily, make a good faith effort to inform the list we are meet with scorn and derision by several of the memnbers, what are we to think? Even the list manager's latest posting takes the approach that every word should be suspect and the masses should rise up. What an approach.
I apologize to the Forum members who have not posted on this issue and who found my comments in anyway demeaning to you. As to those who did post with the exception of Mr. Strand I offer no apology. I thought I was trying to provide some illumination. But I guess some of the list members they would much rather give than receive. And they would much rather view their own thoughts and insights as being those of only the most informed. And the list manager himself seems more than willing to set the thoughtful and respectful tone which I have seen today and on other days this week, like the comments about Steve Brandt. I reiterate, Phyllis and Annie told me this was worthwhile. They didn't tell me I was Alice about to fall through the looking glass. Now that the rules are perfectly clear it's time for tea.
Brian Rice