< Of trifles and unsubstantiated rumors | Main | In Defense of Land Partners II >
February 25, 2007
Addressing some possible misconceptions
We've all got questions. Tons of questions. I have been asking a lot of questions and I have received some answers from a person close to the situation.
It is no secret that I am a County apologist. Without the County (and Mike Opat in particular) we would not even be where we are today. And I am of the opinion that where we are today is much better than where we were at the same time last year. We have the County to thank for this.
All of my questions have not been answered but this is a start.
Why didn't the County negotiate a price in 2006 with Land Partners II?
First of all, the 2004 option agreement was negotiated between Land Partners and the City of Minneapolis -- not the County. Prior to the ballpark legislation and the tax to pay for it, the County didn't have the authority to buy the land nor the money to pay for it. Again, LPII negotiated the 2004 option with Minneapolis, not the County.
The County did begin negotiations with Land Partners II in August 2006, around the time the County board approved the tax increase. Lambrecht, Pogin and Bob Pfefferle, project manager for Hines, were at the table.
It is also important to note that Land Partners II turned down the opportunity to renew the 2004 purchase agreement in August of that year. For what reason, we can't be sure. But by turning down the chance to renew that agreement it would suggest that the County had a clean slate to work with in 2006/2007. More on that later.
Did the County assume that Land Partners II would accept their first offer?
No. The County assumed that LPII would negotiate in good faith because of their lobbying for the project in the public and at the Capitol (as lobbying records have proven). I think we all need to keep in mind that, again, LPII turned down the chance to renew the 2004 agreement. Plus, there is a different reality concerning the downtown real estate market in 2007 than there was in 2004. Quite simply, 2007 is a different year. It has been suggested on these pages that the condo market in downtown Minneapolis is in the tank. In other words, three years later the market is drastically different. The County is making an offer based on a 2007 appraisal and 2007 realities.
Does the condemnation process come up with a value that is not defined as "fair market value" by the County? The reason people are saying the County can't afford the land is because it refuses to go through condemnation with its promise of a higher value on the land.
The County's job here is to protect the public purse. The County's full appraisal was completed by a certified appraiser and there is no reason to discount the appraisal -- they haven't seen any refutation of it. Land Partners II refuses to submit a number. The "quick take" effectively means the County abandons its appraisal and signs a blank check. The County has yet to see any evidence that the land is worth one dollar more than its appraisal. So far they are unwilling to submit to a process that may involve paying more than the appraisal says the land is worth. This may change, but that is where we are at.
There is reason to believe that the condemnation process will result in a judgment many times more than the appraisal because Land Partners reportedly values the land at $40-50 million or more. And as we've seen in the Kupchella report, condemnation would probably split the difference. That is unacceptable because the County flat out does not have that kind of money due to the $90 million cap. It would be a boon to the landowners, and probably more than twice what the land is actually worth in today's market.
Opat has also pointed out that a negotiated settlement would save huge legal costs, for both sides.
Is it acceptable that in order to build the ballpark itself, some infrastructure may need to be sacrificed?
The $90 million cap already means some things that are needed in terms of infrastructure won't be built. In reality, fans will not see a line between "ballpark costs" and "infrastructure costs." Poor infrastructure will degrade the ballpark experience. Opat in particular has said publicly many times, "We aren't going to build this project on the cheap." I think it is fair to say that the County wants desperately to build a first-class ballpark. For this they should be commended.
What is the hold up? Is it more than just the potential for the land being valued at more than than the County has? Or is that it?
That's really it. Again, the County has yet to see any evidence that the land is worth one dollar more than their appraisal, so the County is unwilling to submit to a process that may involve paying more than the appraisal says the land is worth.
The County has nothing to hide and nothing more to give. They have committed a full $90 million for infrastructure and $260 million for a ballpark. That is more than any other entity involved in this process. As the stewards of those funds they will only spend them on a project that will be first-class, and it appears they won't let one party hijack the entire project and degrade the public experience.
I would welcome Land Partners II challenging any of these statements. I think it is important to reiterate that LPII turned down the opportunity to renew the 2004 agreement, in 2007 an independent appraiser valued the land at $13.35 million, the County came forward with that number, and Land Partners II now refuses to negotiate.
Negotiating a settlement saves time and money for both sides. Why won't Land Partners II submit a number? Plain and simple because they are afraid of the public reaction. Again, I would welcome any comments by Land Partners II to the contrary.
In closing, I think some basic statements can be made concerning the County's efforts:
Hennepin County is committed to investing $350 million to create a world class ballpark.
The County is making good faith efforts to purchase the ballpark site on fair terms that protect the public trust.
The County will not unveil something they cannot afford to build or something they cannot be proud of.
The parties (and we all know who they are) with the most to gain from this project have not committed the resources necessary to ensure we can build the project we all envision.
Hennepin County will continue to work toward that goal with the hope that the unveiling will be possible in the not too distant future.
Are Land Partners II and Hines working towards that goal? No. They were at one point, but dollar signs seem to have clouded their vision.
Posted by snackeru at February 25, 2007 01:09 PM
Comments
Good recap Shane.
It's clear that LPII will be public enemy #1 if this falls through...and rightfully so. They are not negotiating in good faith....or even negotiating at all.
The Twins will be the party that takes the heat after them. Why they aren't stepping up to close the gap is strange. But, perhaps they are behind closed doors? Hopefully that's the case...because they don't deserve a stadium if they're not willing to pay another 10-30 million.
However, there shouldn't be this huge gap in the first place. The condo market is very, very down from 2004, the land is next to a garbage burner, and LPII is wanting a ridiculous sum for it.
I hope they just go through with condemnation...but I understand why they have to approach that very cautiously.
LPII claiming they weren't lobbying for this in 2006 is just laughable...they're flat out lying. That says an awful lot about them.
Posted by: mlb2131 at February 25, 2007 02:15 PM
Speaking of going Charley Walters on us yesterday, a lil' birdie told shooter this yesterday.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/columnists/16781660.htm
Posted by: Lucha Libre at February 25, 2007 03:32 PM
So, the land is not worth whatever LPII thinks it is because it is too small a parcel and is located next to a garbage burner. Yet we need this land so we can have a "world class" ballpark built upon it?
Posted by: BMac at February 25, 2007 03:47 PM
While I think that all parties are to blame, and I certainly think LP II is not acting in good faith, I am very suspicious of HC's fear of the condemnation process.
They say it's because they don't want to risk a high appraisal, but isn't this a risk with ANY public project that requires condemnation?
I guess what I'm saying is that I've never heard of a freeway or a bridge project getting delayed (and possibly scrapped) because of fear of the condemnation process, although the risks in those situations would be the same as HC now faces.
One must conclude, then, that HC is concerned that their offer might not be fair value. If this is the case, they are, in fact, trying to screw over the landowners.
If HC is acting in good faith they should not be afraid to proceed with condemnation. Their reticence to do so makes we wonder....
Posted by: tato at February 25, 2007 04:15 PM
so why are they even talking about "bridging the gap"? based on what you say they are afraid that any number that comes out of the condemnation hearing will so unreasonable and unworkable. they have to bite the bullet and either proceed here or dump rapid park and go back to the legislature. it's a game of stadium russian roulette. but as so many of us ballpark rubes here have been saying since this all broke, i would rather deal with these devils than jump back into more legislative uncertainty. why are they so afraid of their numbers going into a condemnation hearing if they are so confident in them now?
Posted by: mullen at February 25, 2007 04:16 PM
Where did you get the figures $40-$50MM from? First glance of a range this wide ($10MM) questions whether it is true or someone guess or mis-statement. Ask your source you want to see in writing the claim that LPII values the land at $40-$50MM. For example, I have read here previously that someone said that LPII had the site for sale for $16.5MM. We should all be careful of the sources of the numbers being thrown around. Saying something is one thing, but let's the facts speak for themselves.
If in fact LPII turned down the origional agreement, why is the county even negociating for the property with an offer substantially lower than what the land owners would not renew. First,is this true and second, if true, why did did they not want to renew? These are simple questions which should be able to be supported by fact, not someones word. Why did the county not just go one of the other locations and dismiss the LPII land from the start?
If the county has an appraisal in hand with a land value of $13.5MM, why are they not proceeding with the comdemnation which "should" support their appraisal?
Yes, the county will save on legal costs with a negociated settlement, but they stand to spend many times more dollars on either new locations or a delay in opening the ballpark.
I am happy to hear O-Putz say, "We aren't going to build this project on the cheap". But right out of the box he is trying to get the land "on the cheap". Just think what he is going to do once the stadium starts construction.
Unfortunatly, we all want a new stadium and we share your frustration that we cannot help to get it done. I can only hope that we start to get the facts instead of someones word on what is happening on the stadium. I really think most of the facts we have gotten so far are either outright mis-representation of the facts or someones opinion or guess.
Posted by: Jimmy Jack at February 25, 2007 04:47 PM
the county is right to be worried about costs, for everything, even the lawyering to get this through the hearing. i was wondering shane, if you have heard anything about a drop-dead date to fish or cut bait on this deal?
Posted by: mullen at February 25, 2007 04:51 PM
If it goes through the condemnation process and both sides submit a figure, why should anyone assume that the settled amount will be in the middle? If this is true, sounds like a flawed system to me. So if the county submits $15 and LPII submits $55, the court will likely appraise it at $35? What a joke!!! Also, shouldn't it be taken into consideration in the condemnation process that LPII willingly offered up their land (despite their lies to the contrary) for this project and refused to even negotiate with the county? The court should take into consideration LPII's obvious intent to manipulate the system.
Posted by: John at February 25, 2007 05:43 PM
BMac -- the land is worth what an independent appraiser says it is worth. If LPII thinks differently why won't they submit their own number?
Tato -- Again, why should the county submit to the condemnation process when they haven't received any verified refutation of their appraisal figure? Plus, yes, they are afraid of the condemnation process not because of a problem with "fair value" but because of the $90 million cap. You mention other projects also have to go through this, but probably not with a strict cap like this.
mullen -- they are working to bridge the gap because of the benefits of this site, the delay a site change would cost, and the legislative uncertainty. The County is willing to be patient and wait for those that will truly benefit from a new ballpark to step up.
Jimmy Jack -- I appreciate your sentiments. It is true, we are all just guessing here really. Again, I am a County apologist. You can take my opinion with a grain of salt. The crux of your argument seems to be why doesn't the County trust its appraisal figure and proceed? In a previous post Vince succinctly spelled out the dangers when he said:
until the twins "step up to the plate" i cant blame the county for holding back on condemnation. y'all know that if the county only has $13.5 mil bugeted for land and the court comes back with alot more *everyone* on this site will be the first to criticize opat and the other board members for "jumping the gun". they are being smart by waiting for the twins to step up here before taking a huge risk on condemnation.
Condemnation is a huge risk and no matter how much the County trusts its appraisal, the unknowns of the situation should give them pause.
mullen -- good question. I'm not sure that there is a published drop dead date, but I am guessing it is sometime mid or late March. Longer than that and costs really start to get out of control.
Posted by: Shane at February 25, 2007 06:04 PM
Great summary Shane. I do have to wonder what the county is waiting for at this point? Sure LPII seems like a bunch of greedy sleazebags and they ought to be willing to negotiate. But it's also fairly obvious that they're not going to.
Does the county think otherwise? Or are they really playing a game of chicken with the Twins instead? Do you have any information on whether the Twins have indeed offered to bridge all/part of this gap?
Posted by: David Howe at February 25, 2007 06:07 PM
It really makes me angry that the Twins aren't stepping up. They have SOOO much to gain with this ballpark. The value of the team will skyrocket when the park opens in 2010, it will more than cover the contribution from Mr Polad... making the contribution more of a loan to the county for the new park. Check out this from Sid's column today...
"The Twins will pass the 1 million mark in ticket sales by the end of the month for the first time since 1992, the year after the team last won the World Series. They have also sold more than 2,500 new season tickets to reach the 10,000 mark. More than 40,000 tickets have been sold for the season opener with Baltimore on April 2."
I know the Twins have a great team but I believe that most of the increase has to do with the new stadium...people want to have the priority they have been promised at the new ballpark. I also believe that this is just a taste of what the Twins will get in new sales from the park.
I am hoping that LPII will counter offer and the Twins will step out of the dark and bridge the gap. THis would avoid all the court bs.
I think we might need to have another Summit Celebration when the shovel actually hits the dirt!
Posted by: MOJO at February 25, 2007 06:09 PM
I believe a lot of pressure is being put on the Twins right now. And rightfully so. It would appear that either they bridge the gap, or the County starts looking for a new site. And if the County starts looking for a new site, guess who is on the hook for ballpark cost overruns that are sure to occur? That's right, the Twins. It would seem to me they have a choice, pay a little now or a lot later.
Great idea MOJO. Let's have another celebration when a shovel actually touches dirt! That will be a dream come true.
Posted by: Shane at February 25, 2007 06:12 PM
I think we may need to have a pre celebration just to ease all of this pain.
I haven't heard anyone mention this yet but realistically the twins could open the park mid season in 2010. There have been other teams that have done this in the past. I wouldn't mind a small delay...I just want them to get it done! They have come this far... I just can't see the twins letting this slip by...I just don't see it happening!
Posted by: MOJO at February 25, 2007 06:16 PM
Because the Twins are now forced to either pay now or pay later, they should opt to pay later for a more attractive site where they can build the "right" ballpark, not a sardine can next to a garbage dump.
Posted by: kevin in az at February 25, 2007 06:27 PM
Shane, I think the reason LP II has not countered is more complex than your sources lets on. But the most relevant one is that they have been pretty much told the county can't afford more than the $13.5, so whats the point really. Opat ended the negotiation the same time he started it.
I have been following this site for quite a while, and feel like you have been giving the county a free pass lately. If HC is comfortable with their number (or at least very close), then condemnation is a no-brainer and everybody wins.
The price LP II puts out there does not matter. The sides are far apart, and everyone realizes that condemnation is the only option. If the county has seen nothing to refute their appraisal, then why the hesitation with going forward. They obviously know their offer is hogwash, and want LP II to take the fall for their short-sightedness. You seem like a nice guy, but you fell right into your "sources" trap.
Posted by: Moonlight Graham at February 25, 2007 06:33 PM
I suppose, Moonlight, I suppose. But in the end, who is going to build me a ballpark? LPII? No. It will be the County. If my support will help the County's effort, then I am more than willing to give it.
Having said that, yes, I can definitely see your point. The negotiations may have ended almost immediately after Opat started them. We'll never know, though, because LPII refuses to submit a number of their own.
I am all for condemnation. I think it is the only way LPII will ever come back to the table, so to speak. I am willing to give the County a little slack though, and time, so they can try to line up the necessary resources to protect the project as a whole.
Thanks for your comment.
Posted by: Shane at February 25, 2007 07:13 PM
Moonlight is onto something. First, you have been giving both O-Putz and the Twins a free ride in this.
Second, the comdemnation process will assess the "fair market value" of the property. They will not take the average of the two sides. So, if the county assessment is legit at $13.5MM (if this is in fact the number), then they should have no problem getting the court to agree. However, if the number they have in their assessment is low (or high) versus what is "fair market value", then the court will adjust so it really does not matter what LPII thinks their property is worth or what HC wants to pay. Once again, it is impossible to judge anybody without the facts. The only fact I can be sure of is that we all want an open air stdium to open in 2010 and the Twins to win yet another World Series. Now that's a fact, Jack.
Posted by: Jimmy Jack at February 25, 2007 07:50 PM
Point taken Shane. But there is a big difference between supporting the County, and blaming LP II. Especially when the ball is in HC's court; no negotiations are even necessary from here on out. They simply have to continue the condemnation process they started, and everyone gets to enjoy an outdoor park in 2010. But after the county initiated this process, they shut it down and its pretty obvious why.
They know their offer won't hold up. Which tells me 2 things: 1.) Their offer right now is not fair market value and they know it. 2.) They are really afraid of what that number would be.
If they truly believed their $13.35 number, this would be a done deal right now.
What's clear here, is that the land owners will agree to a price set by a 3rd party independant appraiser. The county clearly will not, and has resorted to taking shots at LPII for not just accepting their initial offer. Who does it seem is acting in good faith?
Posted by: Moonlight Graham at February 25, 2007 07:58 PM
Well, think about it from the County's point of view. If LPII will start negotiating, then maybe they can come to an agreement that is more than $13.35 and more in tune with what LPII wants. In fact, the agreement they come up with will be known meaning the County can go to the Twins, or some other entity, and say, "If we want to get this done, it will definitely cost us this much." Right now, the condemnation process is a complete unknown. It could return a value of $13.35, or it could come back with a value that no one expects. If you were the County, what would you prefer? Negotiating a known value, or going into a process where anything could happen?
In the end, I think we all want a ballpark, and I certainly value all your opinions.
But if they go into condemnation they have to practically beg the Twins to pick up the difference, no matter what it is. I can imagine it is hard to convince the Twins to agree to this. A negotiated settlement would make this easier on the County.
Posted by: Shane at February 25, 2007 08:06 PM
Shane, if you are right, then the county had/has no business even pursuing the property owned by LPII because the only deal they want and can do is a fire sale price. They should have spent their time and resources finding other locations (and I will bet higher priced) which they can try to get at a fire sale price.
Posted by: Jimmy Jack at February 25, 2007 08:19 PM
it's not begging. they are being given the taxpayers money. i guess the question is how much of value do they place on the team's long term future here in minnesota? i don't see how they cannot make the decision to step up just a bit more if it comes to that.
Posted by: mullen at February 25, 2007 08:19 PM
I have been accused of being cynical from time to time but I have to admit, my gut feeling tells me that we are heading towards the following:
1. Hennepin County announces they have given up on the Rapid Park site because the chance they have to pay more than the alotted $13.5 million through condemnation is simply too high.
2. Another downtown ballpark site is named - probably somewhere along the Mississippi river.
3. Because a change of site requires Legislative approval, Hennepin County officials and Jerry Bell return to the Capitol for "simple changes to language of Stadium Bill."
4. "Simple changes to language of Bill" are narrowly defeated in Legislature during the last days of the session. Larry Pogemiller is on TV way too much. Ballpark is back to square one.
5. Sometime withing the next 10-15 years, Rapid Park site is sold for approx. 6 million dollars - lass than half the amount Hennepin County offered LPII was offered in 2007. Both Pogin and Lambrect are quoted as saying "if we knew Then what we know Now, we would have sold the Rapid Park site to Hennepin County back in 2007."
I hope I am wrong on this. I just think going back to the Legislature for any reason is a death sentence.
Posted by: Jeff T. at February 25, 2007 08:21 PM
Oh, I agree mullen. I agree whole heartedly. I just wrote a couple days ago if the Twins don't help out I will help them pack. In fact, you could make the argument that we should all take our focus away from LPII and the County and start putting pressure on the Twins.
Regardless of how this shakes out, condemnation or negotiation or site change, the Twins will have to step up.
Jeff T., that is a scary scenario you just wrote. I really hope you are wrong!
Posted by: Shane at February 25, 2007 08:24 PM
Jimmy Jack, why does a negotiated settlement have to be a "fire sale price"? Is this what LPII assumes? How do you know until negotiations start? Also, LPII made the County believe the Rapid Park site was the site all through the legislative battle last year. It might have been naive on the County's part, and a mistake in hindsight, but the County had no reason to believe that LPII wouldn't negotiate.
I'm not sure I will change your mind. In fact, I probably won't. That is OK since we need all sides of this story. Let's just hope we can all laugh about this while watching some outdoor baseball in 2010, heh?
Posted by: Shane at February 25, 2007 08:31 PM
How fantastic would it be if HC condemned the land and the judge ruled that the land was worth LESS than 14 million? I can't really think of a better way for this situation to end. HC actually has some fact to back their $13.5 million bid, while LPII simply wants the value of the land to be much higher based on what will be built there, right? The judge doesn't need to mediate from LPII's evaluation of the land right? I suppose the major issue here is will the judge value the land based on its current value, or based on what will be built there.
Posted by: Aaron at February 25, 2007 08:35 PM
I hear ya Shane, 2 sides to every story... But you actually bring me back to my point. The County KNOWS their offer is bogus. If they thought it was legitimate (or at least in the ballpark), they would not fear this "complete unknown". They would know they are at least close to the correct number, and with the shovels already in the dirt, would have no problem finding a couple million down the road to pay the difference.
If their offer was made in good faith, then HC has nothing to worry about. If they are not, then it is just the County being bullies here; using public pressure to try and influence LPII to accept their offer. It sure seems like the County is afraid of court ruling not being close to what they proposed. This fact alone makes it clear to me the manner in which the county is acting.
Posted by: Moonlight Graham at February 25, 2007 08:39 PM
Jeff T. your scenario is a tad pessimistic, but I can actually see it happening exactly that way as well. Aterall, there's rumors that some legislators want to repeal the whole thing, what makes anyone think 'minor changes' will pass? I see a whole lot of legislators who will take the view, "We did what you asked, if the Twins leave it's not our fault. I'm not voting in favor of this again. Period."
Shane, you make a good point about why condemnation is not the perfect answer and it is not unreasonable for county to want a counter-offer. There's tremendous value in getting rid of the fear of the unknown here, both for the county and the Twins. It isn't just that condemnation might rule a value higher then $13.5 million, it's having absolutely no idea what the amount might be. If LPII came out with a counter-offer, even if it was $40 million, at least the debate would now be framed in certainly. We have a $27 million impass, now what do we do to solve it? The county can start looking at the infrustucture budget. The Twins can decide to lower payroll over the next three years to cover it, or whatever else it may take. But as things stand right now, no one knows what they are dealing with, and niether the Twins or county want to have to be the one to sign the blank check.
Posted by: David Howe at February 25, 2007 08:40 PM
Thanks for the thoughts Aaron. From what has already been discussed on this blog, and information I have received from LPII themselves, the condemnation process will not take into account the fact that a ballpark will be built on the land. The value will be determined by its current state.
Moonlight -- and I see the fact that LPII won't negotiate as a clear fear of the publics' reaction to what they are demanding. If the public knew, they would be skewered. I also see their stance as a clear indication that they want as much money as they can get. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I want a ballpark. They seemed to have wanted one too during the legislative battle last year, but now it is all about the money. Why don't they negotiate? Why this demand for condemnation? Well, it seems to be so they can get as much as possible. Negotiation would probably reward them more than $13.35, but not as much as they think they can get through condemnation. I don't like this.
Having said all of this, LPII may also just not want to build a ballpark on their land anymore. It is possible they lied to everyone during the legislative process and only wanted to increase the visibility of their land. Or they may have just changed their mind. I don't know.
And thanks for the thoughts David. They sum up my feelings nicely.
Posted by: Shane at February 25, 2007 08:53 PM
i wish everybody would wake up. the twins arent getting a stadium anymore. this state has always been against stadiums for as long as i have been alive. yah i would love to see them get one but if they dont i will become a brewers fan. they have a good young team and an awesome ballpark.
Posted by: victor at February 25, 2007 09:00 PM
Wow I sure hope they didn't use this as a ploy to increase the visibility of their land. I imagine that if this ball park doesn't get built on this site there will be a lot of hard feelings against these people. Also anything would be short lived trenches typically don't stand out, this one sure hasn't...ever.
Posted by: Mitch at February 25, 2007 09:04 PM
milwaukee is only 6 hours away. it is a nice city. i was there for a weekend watching the twins and brewers. the dome doesnt compare a bit. i really realized how badly the twins need a stadium after seeing that beautiful park-probably the best in baseball. if anyone has a chance to go see it it wont be a waste of time even if the twins would happen to lose. we all deserve to see the twins get this park. they have a good team and should be rewarded for playing in that dome.
Posted by: victor at February 25, 2007 09:09 PM
So what's new?
Posted by: luchre Libre at February 25, 2007 09:11 PM
havent heard a thing libre
Posted by: victor at February 25, 2007 09:12 PM
i just wonder if we will hear anything before march
Posted by: victor at February 25, 2007 09:13 PM
No offnse Victor, but Miller Park is only a percantage point (if even that was an accurate comparison) beter) than the sissydome. Anyone who says that the Brewers new stadium is better than the Hump dump, is only 5% right if even that! Miller Park is an EMBARASSMENT compared to the Hump Dump (mainly because people are trying to replace the Hump Dump) for a ballpark.
Posted by: lucha libre at February 25, 2007 09:19 PM
how could you say that? it is ranked as one of the best in baseball.
Posted by: victor at February 25, 2007 09:20 PM
That post didn't read like it was written by a HC apologist. It read like it was written by Mike Opat himself.
We keep coming back to the same point. How confident is HC in their number if they won't allow the project to move forward. I've been privy to some of HC's negotiating tactics and they honestly make me ashamed to be 'represented' by these commissioners.
Jeff T. you may have the first four points right, but if a stadium isn't built, and if the Rapid Park site isn't developed then it will continue to serve the same role it has for LP2 that it has for the last 20 years. A cash cow!
Moonlight, thanks for saving my daughter's life.
Posted by: Ray Kinsella at February 25, 2007 09:32 PM
Ray, that is hilarious. I'm glad this site could bring you and Moonlight together. Thanks for putting a smile on my face.
Posted by: Shane at February 25, 2007 09:37 PM
the county's offer is not bogus, that's total bs. it's called negotiation, these people are now trying to play the victim card, (the story last week on channel 4 was a real tearjerker). sorry but they're falling flat on their faces and i don't care how much public relations advice arron kahn gives these people. they've behaved like people who had no idea the big bad government was coming to take their land and it's not working. i think the prime players for LP II genuinely want the twins park sited there, i don't question their integrity regarding this ulimate goal. i just think they've got too many voices whispering in their ears at present.
Posted by: mullen at February 25, 2007 09:58 PM
okay, my spelling in my last post was horrible, but when someone like me is as sick of this debate as I am, it's time get pi$$ED (and I especially mean the British definition)! This is just getting too DAMN OLD!!! If it wasn't such a threat, I would encourage Twins fans to start running the streets of MPLS with pitchforks and torches.. but what good would that do?? It's already so DAMN OLD!!! AAAUUUGGGGHHHH!!
Posted by: Lucha Libre at February 25, 2007 10:20 PM
if pogin was telling the truth in saying last week on tv that the county's $13.5 million offer would get zero votes from the partners, then he should have just said from the start that they HAD to be condemmed. i dont know how you can say you're negotiating if you dont tell the other side how much you think your land is worth. if they have to be condemned to get the support of the partners, THEY SHOULD JUST SAY SO and stop pretending to negotiate. then the county would have no choice but to condemn asap.
Posted by: Vince at February 25, 2007 10:24 PM
Having invested in organizations similar to LPII I’d like to offer a few thoughts. What’s happened to date actually seems understandable if you’ve dealt with enough lawyers.
According to reports in the media, the 100 or so investors in LPII are people in their 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s. This is their retirement money so they’ll expect that LPII execs squeeze every last dime out of every deal and most of them probably don’t know and couldn’t care less what may built on the property.
Opat stated on a number of occasions that they’ll get more in condemnation than what’s being offered. It’s a remarkable admission but it ends the negotiations except for a possible land swap of some kind. Since that or any other creative solution has never come up it’s a sign that the county would prefer to put the stadium on another site. They can’t go back to the legislature, though, before making LPII look like the sole reason this fell apart so they have to go through some negotiation motions.
From LPII’s point of view it’s foolish to negotiate after having been told there’s no more money and they’ll get more in condemnation. Going through condemnation also removes the risk of investors suing the LPII principals if they’re dissatisfied with the price. That’s why they’ve encouraged the county to take that step and why they never fought them in the initial court appearance.
The county is boxed in by the $90MM cap and will be subject to heavy criticism no matter what they do and the longer this goes on the more suspicious people will become of any deal. It’s in their interest to end this quickly before it enters the “scandal” phase or all their options are gone.
The only thing for the county to do is come up with an alternative site and go back to the legislature. It will be an unpleasant experience and they may fail but admitting their mistakes and coming up with a sound new plan is likely to generate more sympathy than what they are currently getting. People will scream about it for a while but in the end they love to forgive.
Posted by: Ray at February 25, 2007 11:42 PM
I am so happy the ballpark is now finally crumbling to a point where it will never happen! I believe this is what you call karma, a direct result of wrongly imposing a permanent tax against the popular majority of Minneapolis.
The Twins can move to Vegas, Portland, or soe desperate city for all I care. I'd rather not have a permanent tax in Minneapolis than a baseball team that solely generates revenue for a billionaire.
The Twins are done. Move along because there's nothing to see here. Hahahahahahahaha
Posted by: rhadrin at February 26, 2007 12:01 AM
LPII was okay with 2004's offer of $13 million plus the land swap right? Why doesn't LPII counter-offer at $13 million plus the value of the land that was to be exchanged? The land that was part of that deal is half the size of the Rapid Park site, so for simpilicity, let's say it's valued at $6.5 million. If LPII were really interested in selling this land fairly, I think submitting a counter-offer of $20 million would be reasonable. I don't want to see LPII get a penny more than "market value" for this land.
Posted by: Aaron at February 26, 2007 09:18 AM
Ray, you keep saying "condemnation will yield more than what's being offered" as if it's some huge revelation by Opat and a key reason for LPII's current stance. But what about negotiations? HC hasn't yet said "it's my way or the highway" publicly and I doubt they would if they could actually negotiate a figure, but LPII has completely resisted negotiations.
If LPII could meet with HC and honestly say, "We'd like to get X dollars for the land," the county could solicit a finite amount of extra cash from the Twins, or permission from the legislature to increase their infrastructure cap by X dollars. As it stands, the closest to a "my way or the highway" stance is LPII, effectively telling HC that they can start bidding against themselves for the land or they can start a long, protracted court battle that will result in an unknown price somewhere down the road. That's putting HC between a rock and a hard place. Pardon us if we don't see those options as "good faith."
Also, Ray Kinsella (don't know if you're a different Ray), given your anonymous nature here and the existing skepticism of "sources" on all sides, I can't say that I put much faith in your claim that you've "been privy to some of HC's negotiating tactics and they honestly make me ashamed to be 'represented' by these commissioners." If you could elaborate it might help, otherwise you sound like a better-spoken Jimmy Jack with a grudge against Opat.
Posted by: spycake at February 26, 2007 09:28 AM
Additionally, the revelation that LPII turned down extending the 2004 purchase option is very interesting. Might I ask where you got that info, Shane? And you seem to indicate they turned it down in August of 2004, just prior to its expiration in early 2005, correct? If that's the case, it's interesting, but it may say more about the state of ballpark bills at the time than LPII's motives now.
I would be very interested to know if anything regarding the 2004 agreement came up in those August 2006 negotiations you mention. Did HC tell LPII that the land swap was off the table? Or, did LPII even ask about it? What kind of negotiations even took place, given that everything we've heard publicly has indicated zero real negotiations so far? Oh, to be a fly on the wall that day...
Posted by: spycake at February 26, 2007 09:38 AM
Snackeru- Did you even try to contact LPII and ask their side of the story in any of this? There are a number of innaccuracies your lastest post, I am truly dissapointed you. IDo me a favor, contact LPII before you put words in their mouth or jump to conclusions about their activities.
"The County did begin negotiations with Land Partners II in August 2006, around the time the County board approved the tax increase. Lambrecht, Pogin and Bob Pfefferle, project manager for Hines, were at the table."
This is an absolute blatent lie, and I'm shocked you would report this without having any actual knowledge on the subject.
"First of all, the 2004 option agreement was negotiated between Land Partners and the City of Minneapolis -- not the County. Prior to the ballpark legislation and the tax to pay for it, the County didn't have the authority to buy the land nor the money to pay for it. Again, LPII negotiated the 2004 option with Minneapolis, not the County."
And yet the County was at the negotiating meetings, and involved in every step of this process. The fact that they didn't have to "authority" to negotiate is pure semantics. Had they partnered with the city as they did in '04 there would be no problem. And may I point out that not having the money in '04 didn't stop them, so why would it in '06?
"The County's job here is to protect the public purse. The County's full appraisal was completed by a certified appraiser and there is no reason to discount the appraisal -- they haven't seen any refutation of it. Land Partners II refuses to submit a number. The "quick take" effectively means the County abandons its appraisal and signs a blank check. The County has yet to see any evidence that the land is worth one dollar more than its appraisal. So far they are unwilling to submit to a process that may involve paying more than the appraisal says the land is worth. This may change, but that is where we are at."
First of all, the appraiser that the county hired is infamous for given low-ball appraisals. Secondly, by doing a quick take, you are in no way signing a blank check, or throwing out your appraisal. All of the evidence for the value of the land is presented by both sides to the court. If HC's appraisal was accurate and fair they would in short, have nothing to worry about. As an aside, I have heard from people IN THE COUNTY who think the land is actually worth about 31 million.
"There is reason to believe that the condemnation process will result in a judgment many times more than the appraisal because Land Partners reportedly values the land at $40-50 million or more. And as we've seen in the Kupchella report, condemnation would probably split the difference. That is unacceptable because the County flat out does not have that kind of money due to the $90 million cap. It would be a boon to the landowners, and probably more than twice what the land is actually worth in today's market."
First off, LPII doesn't reportedly value the land at anything because they have made no statement at ALL about the value of the land. Their own families don't know what their appraisals say, because of lawyer-client confidentiality. Secondly, that's not how eminent domain works. You dont "split the difference." The court determines the fair-market value of the land plain and simple. There is no, "well it's worth $10 mill, but we want $50 mil, so why don't you just give us thirty and we call it even."
"Opat has also pointed out that a negotiated settlement would save huge legal costs, for both sides."
And LPII has told Opat repeatedly that they will negotiate if HC drops eminent domain. HC needs to pick one route or the other. You'd have to be a idiotic masochistic altruist to negotiate with an entity that's suing you for eminent domain.
Why don't you try getting both sides of the story.
Posted by: Ralph the Dog at February 26, 2007 09:40 AM
More over, if in condemnation LPII is awarded more 40% more than what HC offers, HC pays legal fees for both sides, which I am willing to bet is a huge deterance for them. (but wouldn't need be if their number was infact fair)
Posted by: Ralph the Dog at February 26, 2007 09:53 AM
Here is a little economics 101 for some of you out there:
When attempting to purchase an item, you do research and you come up with a price for that item. You offer the lowest conceivable amount to acquire that item. You expect the other side to refuse that offer and make you a counter offer. In this way, you determine the best way to proceed. If they expect a large amount over your offer, you decide then whether to make a counter offer or go elsewhere.
Without a counter-offer, HC is stuck. They are likely weighing other alternatives. Is this the ideal spot? Can we move it without going to the legislature? Is the time and effort worth it for this spot?
I do not know the answers to many of these questions, but in my mind, the county is assessing its options. Do they want to build this ballpark next to a garbage facility? Could they get a better site for less? They would fight for this site (IE Proceed with condemnation) if they thought it was the ideal and only site. Thus, we cannot assume that they think their assessment is bogus.
Without a counter offer, HC cannot even go to the Twins for more money because they do not have an amount to ask for. They certainly can afford more than the $13.5 mil they are offering, but we do not know how much more. LPII is making a mistake in not making a counter offer. Plain and simple.
Posted by: DouglasG at February 26, 2007 11:17 AM
People play this Garbage Burner out to be a massive, beleching, dirty beast. Yeah it burns Garbage, but everything about it is clean and best yet hidden. I wouldn't want to live near it, the land serves no other use , so the stadium will coexist with the burner. Eventually it will be torn down for some type of expansion someday.
Posted by: FootG at February 26, 2007 12:06 PM
would the people who keep addressing the garbage burner get a grip? just deal with it. it's the rapid park site or get to know your legislators all over again. i suppose we should debate roof or no roof for the umpteenth time? it's not a big deal, it's been addressed and researched thoroughly. and these are not stupid people. the people involved with land acquisition at HC have a general idea of what the final number would look like. they just have to cover their backsides to pay the difference so the infrastructure budget is safeguarded. if they can't get that assurance, we play the capitol dance or enjoy a couple more seasons of twins baseball, where at some point in time the governor will call a special emergency meeting of all parties involved in a last ditch effort to keep the team in minnesota. (i personally think the governor should call this meeting now, but he probably wants to wash his hands of this issue until the moving vans are at the metrodome gate).
Posted by: mullen at February 26, 2007 12:15 PM
Douglas, too bad Opat and gang forgot to take the Economics 100 class that says when you are implementing a countywide tax, and announcing a half billion dollar stadium deal, you should at least have the stadium land in your control.
Plus, when Opat goes into a meeting and says this is all we can afford regardless of what you think the land is worth, then thats not really a negotiation on his end either. That wasn't a legit offer, and it is becoming clear that they know this.
Posted by: Moonlight Graham at February 26, 2007 12:38 PM
In response to Douglas's comment, HC should've weighed all those options before wasting the public's money and the legislature's time with the whole deal. If they didn't have all of that figured out by the time they got this thing written into law then they are unimaginably incompetent, and any one who thinks that this is actually whats going on should be outraged.
Again, I can't hammer this point enough: If Opat really believes that the condemnation process could possibly grant anything other than a fair market value for any parcel of land, that would point to his belief in a deep flaw in the judicial system. If this is truly what he believes, and is not a smoke screen for his own reluctance to pay fair-market value, than the government's primary concern should be addressing judicial issues- and least of all should be a ball park.
Posted by: Ralph the Dog at February 26, 2007 12:51 PM
this site's becoming the seinfeld of blogs. people talking nothing about nothing, (except shane, of course, he relates real information when he gets it) if you don't like county government, think they're priorities are misplaced and believe they're a bunch of blithering idiots go down and bitch at a board meeting. they meet every two weeks, enjoy.
Posted by: mullen at February 26, 2007 01:20 PM
By the way, I believe we are now working on week 2 of Stadiumshill's prediction that HP will condemn the Rapid Park site "within 3 weeks." I still hope he's correct.
Posted by: Jeff T. at February 26, 2007 01:45 PM
My comments about Opat’s statement that LPII will likely get more through condemnation wasn’t intended to be a revelation. I saw it as a signal indicating that’s the direction the county thought this should go.
The county also made a point of publicly bashing LPII on a number of occasions which is generally not a good way to reach an agreement with someone. I’ve felt all along the deal died once the county found out there were land quality issues and they’ve been preparing us so a move to another location won’t be a shock.
As far as LPII coming up with a number – there’s little reason for them to do so before it’s required by the court since it would move the attention to them and force them to justify it.
In negotiations at this level both parties have a good idea of what the other side can concede anyway so most deals are “done” before they sit down. What gets hammered out are the details. In this case it doesn’t look doable since there are major financial distances between the parties and legal limitations they can’t get around.
I’d stop screwing with them and move on. It’s time for bolder action.
One party that is affected greatly by this, although indirectly, is the Vikings. If I was their finance person I’d be frantic at what’s happening. How many communities will want to go through what the Hennepin County board is currently enduring? How interested will the legislature be in doing this again if this fails?
Coincidentally, the Vikings owners are in need of some image improvement if they are to ever have a chance of getting a stadium. As we know, they’ve burned their bridges with Anoka County and have been turned down for both a metro sales tax and a Hennepin County tax.
If I was in their management I’d be scrambling around looking for ways to make this work for the county knowing that if I helped solve it Hennepin County, the legislature, and Twins fans might help me rehab my image and maybe even put me in a good position to get a political favor repaid someday.
The first thing I’d do is find some land where both stadiums could be located and share parking and other infrastructure. Then I’d try to work out a deal with the county that works with their financial limitations. From there you can use your imagination to see where this goes. It doesn’t get the Vikings a stadium today but in their terminology – it moves the ball down the field.
Posted by: Ray at February 26, 2007 03:04 PM
you must be living in a parallel universe because last i checked, lightning struck last year and a twins ballpark bill passed the state legislature. your scenario is very nice sounding but this is minnesota. we like to do things piecemeal around here. let the vikings beg and plead independent of the twins. the twins already went through the gauntlet over there.
Posted by: mullen at February 26, 2007 04:15 PM
I'm almost scared to ask this, but is everything "on track" with the Gophers stadium? Aren't they going to start digging pretty soon? I remain paranoid until I see steel girders going up. Anyone have any updates?
Posted by: Jeff T. at February 26, 2007 04:28 PM
they just awarded the contract to mortenson a couple weeks ago. they want to take down the grain elevators near the site before the actual stadium construction begins this summer, they're being demolished currently. the university has raised about two-thirds their share. oh, and, one minor point also....they actually, believe it or not, own the land and can proceed building. what a concept.
Posted by: mullen at February 26, 2007 05:47 PM
Thanks for the update Mullen. Have you checked out the "construction web cam?" Good stuff.
http://128.101.28.100/view/indexFrame.shtml
Posted by: Jeff T. at February 26, 2007 06:23 PM
is the twinsville banner still hanging by the site? anyone been over there lately? if it is, that's just sad.
Posted by: mullen at February 26, 2007 06:33 PM
I'm so sick of this damn debate, HC should just really go with the condemnation already.
Posted by: Rich at February 26, 2007 09:24 PM
So where has Tim Pawlenty been for all of this? One would think he'd wanna get involved...
Posted by: Rich at February 28, 2007 01:49 PM
How are you? How are you keeping?
May I think you and say goodbye?
Posted by: mlmscash at June 14, 2007 11:48 AM
