And to think some people say Democrats are utterlly, cripplingly, devastatingly
cliueless about business.
Grace Kelly wrote:
>
> Auctioning to the highest bidder is not serving the public, it is just
serving the richest guy.
But the question wasnât âhow do we serve the publicâ. It was âhow do we find
what people actually want in that locationâ.
And no, Grace youâre wrong; it favors the person or people who can convince
investors, bankers, or even the the community that their idea is worth
financing, and then proving it with the Como-visiting, money-spending public.
Which for some reason you (plural, as well as Grace) seem to think is worse
than the current system, which is âhave friends on the City Councilâ. Which is
EXACTLY how this problem came about.
You people think back-room political clout-mongering and tonsil-polishing is
more noble OR a better measure of âpublic demandâ than convincing investors (or
spending oneâs own money [1]
> How Republican to confuse the two.
How very very dim to say such a thing after evincing no understanding of
business, or what I wrote, or why I wrote it.
Sheldon Gitis âwritesâ:
>
> Attempting to pay for public facilities by making them private is absurd.
I didnât say âmake it privateâ (although thatâd be a fine idea as well). I
said rent it to the highest bidder, with no taxpayer money and especially no
âinputâ from politicians on what to do with the property. When it comes to
business, pretty much all politicians (and every single DFL politician) is
clueless, and driven by political, not business, considerations. They are not
the same thing.
And if the goal is to make the Como Pavilion a successfui, revenue generating
property, then thatâs kinda important - not that most of the people on this
forum would know.
> If, as Mitch so brilliantly suggests, some hoity-toity law firm, an
insurance company, or a real estate agency could bid to lease the public
facility, what risk âthat the public would like what they're sellingâ would
âthose who would operate the facilityâ take?
As John pointed out, you read what I wrote about as geometrically wrong as
possible. . As seems top be your curious wont.
My point (should that matter to you, as it never really does to Sheldon) is
that if you want to find out what people *really* value about a good, a
service, a restaurant, or a business opportunity, is to get them to pay *their
own* money for it. Not to tell you what they think. And not to get them to
spend *other peoples* money that theyâll never have to pay back on it.
Can we at least agree that âbeing Amy Brendemoenâs cronyâ wasnât the best
qualifier for a tenant?
> I've visited the Pavilion and the surrounding park many times over the years,
and during those visits, the chances I'd visit a law firm,
The example of the office was facetious, Sheldon.
Lighten up, Francis.
The point being, if a business thinks they can draw people to the pavilion, see
what the opportunity is worth to them.
But hey, donât mind those of us who know better. Keep letting ward-heelers
whoâve done nothing in their lives but work for non-profits keep trying to play
property tycoon with taxpayer money. After Urban Renewal, 7th Place, Galtier
Plaza, Metro Square, Bandana Square, Galtier 2.0, Town Square, the West
Building, Galtier 3.0, Macyâs and the ongoing fiasco of the Ford Plant and the
fiasco to be of the Soccer Stadium, sure - the law of averages says you HAVE to
get it right once.
Doesnât it?
Mitch Berg
Who actually lives in the real world of business
The Midway