All posts in the topic Speaker and Minneapolis Resident Margaret Anderson Kelleher Goes for Mall Boondoggle at the Expense of Her Home Town (Short link)
Summary
- There are 13 posts — by 7 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Bob Spaulding at May 09 17:10 UTC
From the Strib http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/18371794.html Both House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, and House Minority Leader Marty Seifert, R-Marshall, were greeted with applause as they spoke in a State Capitol rotunda crowded with sign-waving construction workers wearing hard hats. Kelliher said afterward that she expects the mall's $2.1 billion proposal -- which includes public subsidies -- to be part of a conference committee tax bill that will be presented to Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Today's events made it likely that the House Taxes Committee -- whose chairwoman, Rep., Ann Lenczewski, opposes the public subsidy component
God bless you Eva, it doesn't happen often, but I agree with Ms.
Young. Public subsidy for corporate mega business on the back of
taxpayers when folks are losing their homes and unemployment rates
aren't getting any lower seems to me to be about the dumbest,
anti-citizen move government can make.
And I don't want to hear bullswiggle about job creation. The long term
jobs created by this project, beyond the construction jobs, will be
low-wage, non-livable wage, non-benefit positions.
Of course, if tax subsidies were attached to a provision requiring
that the Mall and its tentants pay a livable wage and provide for the
formation of a union for its workers, then I would gladly pay the
extra tax.
-Brandon Lacy Campos
-Phillips/Midtown
a Young <lloydletta@gmail.com>:
I agree with the Eva and Brandon on this one...subsidies for corporations are
seem to have fleeting benefits.
On the other side, while keeping my principles in hand, I wish we could
transfer the subsidies from the ball park to the mall. It is actually a far
more beneficial investment of our economy than a ballpark (this is assuming
that ballpark money is already being captured). The MOA provides multiple the
exposure for Minneapolis (even though it is not located here) than does the
ballpark. It actually does bring people to the state that would not come to
spend their limited entertainment dollars.
So...I am against these types of subsidies...but I would point out that if
the state/county/city were in business of making business...that the MOA is a
far far better investment than the ballpark...It is too bad we could not rip
that money away from an already started ballpark (darn) and use it on a better
investment (or on no investment like this at all).
Peter Tharaldson
CD5 Chair IPMN
Loring Park
"W. Brandon Lacy Campos" <blc@libertytreefdr.org> wrote:
God bless you Eva, it doesn't happen often, but I agree with Ms.
Young. Public subsidy for corporate mega business on the back of
taxpayers when folks are losing their homes and unemployment rates
aren't getting any lower seems to me to be about the dumbest,
anti-citizen move government can make.
And I don't want to hear bullswiggle about job creation. The long term
jobs created by this project, beyond the construction jobs, will be
low-wage, non-livable wage, non-benefit positions.
Of course, if tax subsidies were attached to a provision requiring
that the Mall and its tentants pay a livable wage and provide for the
formation of a union for its workers, then I would gladly pay the
extra tax.
-Brandon Lacy Campos
-Phillips/Midtown
a Young :
Actually there are Living Wage and Labor Peace provisions included in this
proposal. And the additional revenue projected will far outweigh the public
subsidy.
Dan McConnell
Longfellow
On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:27:04 +1200 (NZST), Dan McConnell wrote:
>And the additional revenue projected will far outweigh the public subsidy.
The key word there is "projected".
(And, I guess, the question of who receives that revenue. I suspect
you're not talking about revenue to the City of Bloomington itself.)
What sort of guarantee is being offered by the mall owners? If it's
really pretty certain, with all that additional revenue they shouldn't
have any objection to guaranteeing repayment of the subsidy in X years
with Y interest.
I am not talking about Living Wage proposals applicable only to Mall
staff. I am talkin about passing on those requirements to the tentants
as well. If you are telling me that the GAP and Claire's and other
retail shops will be required to pay their employees at least $15 an
hour, then, I say yay subsidy...but...somehow...I doubt that is the
case.
-Brandon Lacy Campos
-Midtown/Phillips
Quoting Dan McConnell <dan@danmcc.com>:
At 3:27 PM +1200 5/1/08, Dan McConnell wrote:
>Actually there are Living Wage and Labor Peace provisions included
>in this proposal. And the additional revenue projected will far
>outweigh the public subsidy.
>
What are "Labor Peace provisions?"
Connie
Como, in Southeast Mpls
Dave,
To date the Mall has generated in excess of $800 million dollars of state
revenue and by growing the size of the attraction we can increase the number of
out of state visitors and their dollars.
Brandon,
The living wage requirements will apply to all tenants of the expansion.
Connie,
Labor peace means that the employers will not interfere with union organizing.
On Fri, 2 May 2008 16:18:03 +1200 (NZST), Dan McConnell wrote:
>To date the Mall has generated in excess of $800 million dollars of state
revenue
Bear with me, I'm a bit ignorant. What is "state revenue"? Revenue to
the State of Minnesota (i.e. sales tax)? Total aggregate sales? What
proportion of that is from out-of-staters? (Presumably people from
Minnesota would have bought the same stuff from another local outlet,
yielding no net difference to the state.)
Why, they sound wildly successful. What sort of a net profit do they
make? Not enough so they could afford to build their own parking lot?
So, the best possible spin I could put on this, a narrow pool of union folks got their way... ...At the expense of a public discussion where stakeholders are consulted and informed about what's happening before our pockets are stripped of $371 million that would have otherwise gone to struggling cities... That's more than the state will spend on the Central Corridor (~$300 million for public infrastructure), and about as much as we will spend on the Twin Stadium ($392 million for a one-of-its-kind regional asset). ...At the expense of sacrificing the future of the landmark nationally-lauded 1971 Fiscal Disparities Act, one of the nation's strongest laws to ensure regional stability (see http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/18467184.html) ... ...At the expense of every other city in the region who will lose market share to the Mall... ...At the expense most particularly of the two central cities, and all the tourist destinations that will be forgone by the mall, and in particular our downtowns... ...At the expense of urban sprawl... ...At the expense of combating global climate change... ...At the expense of the natural environment... In short, at the expense of our region and our very future. And that's the best possible spin. I know labor did well. And the rest of us? Chopped liver. Margaret Anderson Kelliher had a defining choice to make, and has rendered herself useless as a guardian of the public interest, and as an informed broker in one of the most seminal decisions to come her way. It's simply shocking. Bob Spaulding
Hi Bob- I agree with your sentiments about the subsidy entirely. There are a few things I would disagree with however in the argument. 1. Bloomington is an old suburb. It has been the third or fourth largest city in teh state (trading positions) for decades. The eastern part (where the mall is) is a square block grid design, something most urban planners identify as the demarkation between older suburbs that resulted from population growth and newer suburbs that resulted a bit more from flight. 2. You seem to equate MOA with sprawl. In addition to the older neighborhood argument above, I would disagree. MOA may hurt the downtowns, but so does Grand Avenue in St. Paul and Uptown here. Sprawl certainly hurts downtowns, but frankly those spread out strip malls in the 3rd and 4th ring and the exurbs are far more damaging in many ways. The MOA actually represent considerable density, it may not be the flavor we think of in urban environments (I live in Loring Park and love it), but the density is far greater than most retail environments 3. MOA, of any retail establishment in the metro area, brings in attention adn dollars form outside the area that WOULD NOT be here if it was not the MOA, Icelandair does not advertise vacation packages to Minnesota to go to Southdale or downtown MPLS/ST. Paul shopping. I dont agree with subsidies, but this fact alone makes it a far far wiser investment than the Ballpark. As the Swedish version of the Icelandair website says about Minneapolis: The Mall of America (Voucher), det strsta utbudet av affrer under samma tak i USA ligger i Minneapolis. 4. Transportation- while the Mall may have density it surely is vastly car based. You would be absolutely correct in pointing out that huge flaw. At teh same time, the Mall operates as a 3rd downtown in our public transit system and creates a focal point in the south metro. As gas prices go up and up and up, it may actually be better to focus near suburban development around the mall area rather than in strip malls elsewhere. 5. Downtown MPLS and St.Paul may be negatively impacted by the MOA, BUT, is it because of the MOA or because suburbanites would rather shop out in the suburbs (meaning if the mall were not there they would they just go to the Apple Valley stip mall)?. In many ways it can be argued that MOA, because it brings in more "outsiders", is far far less a threat than the strip malls and dales. Frankly with that train and an airport in between MPLS DT should be able to leverage the MOA much more. There are so many "Friendly Manitobans" in MOA on a weekend that Gary Doer (premeir of Manitoba) could campaign for the NDP there on the weekend and hit more Peggers than at home. I think we are going to have to come to terms with the fact that downtown retail in MPLS and St. Paul can pull in people from throughout the area, but to a large extent requires many downtown residents. We are ahead of you in MPLS but you are catching up on residents downtown. 6. Suburban attitudes- I obviously am a city lover, but it is interesting how we hold our nose when talking about suburbanites attitudes. The same thing goes on in the City but at smaller scale. I could not believe the NIMBY attitides in Uptown over that really cool (and dense) tower that a developer wanted to put in a few years a go. This was not in the historic part of uptown (????) but next to the Lagoon theatre....come on people...get a grip. If you don't like $4 gas and cars everywhere you damn well better be willing to creat clusters of density. South Minneapolis is a more like a suburb than it is like the downtowns where you and I live. Conclusion: Subsidies don't work and the legislature should not be supporting this. My respect for the "let's build a ballpark" crowd who scream over MOA development is....well....completely absent (and this is not directed at you Bob because from your writing it is obvious you are not a ballpark fan either). The Twins are a private business in the entertainment industry (that is their industry and it is one with a fixed number of local dollars). From a purely utilitarian point of view, dollar for dollar, their ballpark does not even begin to compare with teh MOA in terms of a wise investment. I am against MOA subsidy but for a little candor and common sense while opposing it. Peter Tharaldson CD5 CHair IPMN Minneapolis Bob Spaulding <r_spaulding@yahoo.com> wrote: So, the best possible spin I could put on this, a narrow pool of union folks got their way... ...At the expense of a public discussion where stakeholders are consulted and informed about what's happening before our pockets are stripped of $371 million that would have otherwise gone to struggling cities... That's more than the state will spend on the Central Corridor (~$300 million for public infrastructure), and about as much as we will spend on the Twin Stadium ($392 million for a one-of-its-kind regional asset). ...At the expense of sacrificing the future of the landmark nationally-lauded 1971 Fiscal Disparities Act, one of the nation's strongest laws to ensure regional stability (see http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/18467184.html) ... ...At the expense of every other city in the region who will lose market share to the Mall... ...At the expense most particularly of the two central cities, and all the tourist destinations that will be forgone by the mall, and in particular our downtowns... ...At the expense of urban sprawl... ...At the expense of combating global climate change... ...At the expense of the natural environment... In short, at the expense of our region and our very future. And that's the best possible spin. I know labor did well. And the rest of us? Chopped liver. Margaret Anderson Kelliher had a defining choice to make, and has rendered herself useless as a guardian of the public interest, and as an informed broker in one of the most seminal decisions to come her way. It's simply shocking. Bob Spaulding Bob Spaulding Downtown, St Paul Info about Bob Spaulding: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/robertspaulding This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2ZShPVh48fMFaWrazYS9mQ
Peter, Thanks for the analysis. I do share some of your perspectives. But likewise, some notes: IMPACT ON THE 1971 FISCAL DISPARITIES ACT. The mall subsidy goes well beyond just a simple subsidy case. As today's Star Tribune editorialized (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/18467184.html), as well as tomorrow's Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/18529969.html?page=1&c=y), the subsidy would seriously jeopardize one of the most innovative regional equity programs anywhere in North America. This is a program that has helped ensure no suburb gets left behind - that we move forward together as a region. MALL'S FOCUS ON TOURISM/VISITORS COMPETES MOST DIRECTLY WITH DOWNTOWNS. We must recognize why the Mall of America competes most directly with the urban core: competition for tourists and visitors. Retail analysts would note that is a different market segment than strip malls or general neighborhood retail. A new theater, a new exhibit space, or a new hotel at the Mall of America doesn't compete with strip malls or even many regional malls. Those attractions compete most directly with theaters in downtown, museums in our central cities, and hotels around downtown. Beyond these amenities, the kind of retail found at the mall is the kind of retail found in a regional center, generally not a neighborhood strip mall. The tourist/visitor crowd is a key part of the MOA mix, and many (and most assuredly most) of those visitors would be here anyway, but forgo visitng the central cities during the time they spend in this artificial city. HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY COME TO THE TWIN CITIES BECAUSE OF THE MOA? The MOA's PR department has done a good job of getting earned media over the years about travel packages to the Mall. I have no doubt that some people take such trips. But the fact that we're hearing about them is no accident. The Walker, Orpheum, Macalester, and our recreation opportunities also bring plenty of people to the Twin Cities, but they don't have comparably-sized PR departments dedicated to such self-promotion. In a real city, a Convention & Visitors Bureau does that promotion collectively for the whole City. But of course, we're basically dealing with a fake city. The mall also makes grandiose claims about how much money is spent at the Mall, and how much business they do. But never do they acknowledge how much of that retail trade (most of it) would happen in the Twin Cities if the Mall were not around, and is "stolen" through subsidy from other parts of the Cities. EVER WALKED ANYWHERE FROM THE MALL OF AMERICA? Exactly. Density as a goal is of limited use on its own. One of the main benefits of density is that it creates walkable, bikeable, human-scaled, livable environments. Which is pretty much everything that the MOA is not. Which means the mall is prone to encourage car use, adding to the development's carbon footprint. Call me an old-fashioned 33-year-old, but I prefer real cities, where tax money doesn't shower down from above, with real accountability to voters, real environments, real buildings, real store-owners, all in an environment that doesn't needlessly hasten the patterns of climate change that threaten the very future of our life together on earth. Certainly I'm being provocative, and I'm doing that consciously. That's because I think we face some real choices with serious implications. Keeping in mind that I'm the Associate Chair of my own Senate District DFL, I give my DFL leaders an F for their leadership on this issue. Listen to your constituents. We expect far, far, far better, Senator Pogemiller and Representative Anderson Keliher. Bob Spaulding
An excellent op-ed piece on the Mall of America subsidy appeared today in the Pioneer Press, that captures well the primary reasons to oppose the proposed use of the fiscal disparities program to subsidize the expansion of the Mall of America: http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_9197344 This article focuses on a grim realtiy: the MOA subsidy would deal a major blow to the integrity and future of our nationally-recognized Fiscal Disparities program, which stabilizes cities by sharing tax base revenue. The program takes a portion of all new taxes collected from commercial-industrial properties across metro cities, and distributes it so as to even out the tax burden across the metro area. The program is credited with helping the Twin Cities avoid the fate suffered by so many central cities and inner suburbs elsewhere. Places like Detroit and St. Louis (as well as many, many other regions) see cities caught in an endless spiral that results in disinvestment and sprawl. That spiral starts with a loss of tax base (companies and employees moving away). Then there is an increasing demand on services from an increasingly needy population. Then, because major commercial taxpayers have been lost, there is need to increase taxes on those who remain just to keep providing the same services. And over time, residents in these cities pay more for fewer services and a lower quality of life than they would get in other nearby cities, causing even more incentive for businesses and residents to leave the city. And the cycle continues. The other huge advantage of the Fiscal Disparities program is to make the use subsidies to lure companies from one part of the metro to another less compelling, so we can stop wasting our time competing with one another, and begin to cooperate and compete as a region. Bob StarTribune Editorial: If mall proposal goes through, a parade of projects will follow http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/18467184.html James Lileks: Stores Galore! But what of the MOA Ramp? http://pd.startribune.com/sp?eId=92&gcId=476325942&rNum=6 Pawlenty wants Mall of America Proposal Refined http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/18414214.html Session Weekly/Daily Planet News: A mega opportunity at what cost? http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2008/04/26/mega-opportunity-what-cost.html John Marty: Shopping mall parking ramp to get public money? http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2008/04/21/shopping-mall-parking-ramp-get-public-money.html David Morris: Be Suspicious of Megamall Subsidy http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/18529969.html