< Addressing some possible misconceptions | Main | Where have you gone? >
February 26, 2007
In Defense of Land Partners II
I got a couple of emails today. One was from Rich Pogin of Land Partners II fame that began:
"Shane your post has more holes in it then swiss cheese."
Needless to say, I didn't expect them to like the last few posts I have written. More importantly though, Rich sent me an interesting document concerning the infamous soils issue and their offer to the county for binding arbitration (PDF) over the $10 million we've all read about.
Hopefully it will shed some more light for some of you on this never ending stadium debate.
Secondly, I got an email from my neighbor, Cheesehead Craig. It seems Craig has also taken some issue with my pro-County stance. In fact, he has written something he would like me to post. I can't say I agree with everything in his essay, but I certainly recognize it as an opposing viewpoint in this debacle that is worthy of a voice. So, without further ado, here is Cheesehead Craig:
In Defense of Land Partners II
There has been much complaining about the stadium situation on this site (a huge shocker, I know) and much of it has been focused on LPII. Frankly, it’s wrong and I feel the need to have Shane post this on the site instead of having things buried in comments. I had some of these ideas in my head and yesterday’s comments brought these to light as well, so I’m certainly not creating anything original here.
It’s been pointed out that when determining the value of the land, its future use cannot be brought into the equation when doing the condemnation and the “eminent domain� procedures and any values given there. LPII cannot use that a stadium will be built on the land to increase their asking price. On that, I totally agree. However, let’s have the same rules apply to HC as well shall we? As has been stated here, HC saying that the soil needs work to build a stadium ($10M cost) and HC thus reduced the amount the appraiser gave of the land from the appraisal for the soil reconditioning to come to their offer to LPII for $13.5M. So it’s fair to say that the appraisal came in at $23M. The soil quality is irrelevant in the negotiations as what was stated earlier, future use has no bearing on the value of an appraisal. The County cannot bring this up as a negotiation tool. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. So, HC is basically offering just over ½ of what the value of the land is per their appraiser.
When an appraiser does a real estate appraisal, bias is to be taken out, but that rarely happens. Appraisers know who feeds them and will do their best to not to bite that hand. Appraisers will “massage� reports to come up with a value that will please their employer. I work in the mortgage business and have for 10 years. I’ve seen appraisals done by one appraiser on a home that is to be bought for 500k come in at 425k, then suddenly an appraiser that the agent knows does it and with the same comparables, comes in at 515k. Amazing how that works out isn’t it?
There is a fair amount of history with the state government agencies with low-balling appraisals when doing this. Ask any resident who was in the way of MNDOT about their home values given in this process. They were quite low, obscenely low even. I am sure that the boys at LPII are fully aware of how appraisals work and how they can BE worked, especially when the state/county government is involved.
Given this knowledge, it is likely that HC is offering less than ½ of the value of the land. If you were being offered 135k for your 290k home, would you even bother working with that buyer? You would not even regard that offer as serious and enter into negotiations or make a counteroffer. Not when you know that the buyer has a history of low-balling and you know that they have an appraisal that says your home is worth at least 235k from a dubious appraiser that they hired.
LPII was straightforward with their stance on eminent domain and told the county to go ahead and do it. HC knew what they were getting into a long time ago. LPII has said “Fine. You need the land quickly, take it via eminent domain and start building.� They are not holding anything up; in fact they are being extremely accommodating.
The problem now is that HC cannot bully LPII to take their offer like they have been able to do so with other parties that were on the receiving end of this process before. To come out now and say that LPII is being difficult given they won’t play HC’s game is disingenuous. As Moonlight Graham has pointed out in some comments, HC KNOWS their offer is way too low and is using PR to make it seem that they are the victims from the “greedy� LPII people. They’ve resorted to mud slinging, just like politicians who want you to look away from the important issues during a campaign.
It’s not LPII’s fault that the Twins stadium is being delayed and that the deal could ultimately fall apart. The legislation is at fault for tying the County’s hands. It was rushed through with too little planning and thoughts of consequences. Why should LPII be forced to pay for the County’s mistake?
If the County was so sure of themselves that they are right, so sure that their cause is just, why are they delaying the eminent domain use? Because they don’t have the money for a fair offer? Because their legislation was faulty? That is not the problem that should be laid at the feet of LPII.
So, there you have it. My thanks to Craig for taking the time to give us his thoughts. I'm sure a lot of you echo his sentiments.
At this point I must admit that like you, I am tired of this. I am happy that we all seem to have a better understanding of the issues, and it appears that most of us have picked a side to identify with.
I need to take a break now though. I can't keep rehashing all of this, and I'm not sure I have anything else to say.
So, you won't hear from me on this issue for a little bit. Let's all take a step back and wait for something new to talk about.
In all of this, I have been impressed that while we sometimes disagree, for the most part we have remained civil and understanding of each others' views. Thanks to all of you for the healthy debate. Until next time ...
Posted by snackeru at February 26, 2007 09:19 PM
Comments
So whaddya think of those uniforms the Washington Wizards wore Sunday at the Target Center?
Posted by: freealonzo at February 26, 2007 10:41 PM
I think Craig has hit it on the head about the legislation. By setting that infrastructure cap and specifying the exact site, the Legislature really created this whole mess.
But I disagree about the appraisal issue. Opat has been quoted as saying he hasn't seen anything at all to indicate that the land is worth more than the county is willing to pay. To me, that sounds like an invitation for LPII to get their own appraisal done (which, apparently, they have not).
I don't doubt that the county is lowballing to a certain extent -- that's how this sort of thing works. (I'm not an apologist for the county.) But LPII's behavior seems suspect. It just doesn't pass the smell test. After all of their endless enthusiasm in the run-up, now they seem to be stonewalling, and trying to change the rules of this game in the middle. (I know that they claim otherwise. There are probably many things the public does not know about the situation.)
Anyway, thanks, Shane, for the great reading. Hope to hear from you again soon.
Rick
+
Posted by: Rick at February 26, 2007 10:45 PM
I too am tired of talking about this. I have one last question for Shane or whoever may know:
Patrick Ruesse has a good point in his column today about how the 'north forty' site on the river would be preferable if the Legislature could ensure 'clear sailing' to ammending the language.
If the county were to just let things sit as they are with the Rapid Park site, go to the legislature to get the langauge ammended, and have it be defeated, would they still have the bill as it is now? Could they still come back at that point, having failed to get the language ammeneded and condemn the Rapid Park site?
Basically there are two questions: First, if the 'ammended' langauge is defeated in the legislator is whole bill defeated or it is just returned to its original state? Second, is there any sort of time limit with the condemnation process that would demand HC move forward before late May?
Posted by: David Howe at February 27, 2007 04:04 AM
i think it's called money, that's the time limit. and starting last week, the costs of delay are being measured by the thousands. they have to put the bids out for some of the heavy first work by early june. if there isn't action by then, stick a fork in having outdoor baseball by 2010. i believe since they would asking for the amended bill to have no site specific language, just anywhere in the county, that yes, they could keep working at the rapid park site with rich pogin and his band of "developers", and i use that term lightly. i don't know why the hell they would, but i guess some people enjoy misery.
Posted by: mullen at February 27, 2007 08:18 AM
The Twins are done in Minnesota. Remember, people, that the legislation was rushed through at the last minute because it wouldn't have passed otherwise. The people of Minnesota have no desire to waste tax money on this nonsense. Good riddance, Twins.
Posted by: bye bye, Twins at February 27, 2007 09:29 AM
uhuh uhuh, thanks for speaking for the people of minnesota once again. you're a genius of prognostication.
Posted by: get a life at February 27, 2007 10:09 AM
Shane, thanks for the debate and the info. It is most appreciated. You mentioned that a meeting last week "went well". I was curious if further meetings have been scheduled or if there is anything else you can tell us about that meeting. Do we know which parties attended? I guess now we sit back and wait to see who shows their cards first; LPII, the County, or the Twins.
Posted by: Derek Robertson at February 27, 2007 10:13 AM
So why in Mr Pogin's letter does the county have to agree to binding arbitration before LPII will share its soild information. If this is the information that would move the deal forward, why is LPII unwilling to make it public?
Posted by: pragmatic_cynic at February 27, 2007 12:12 PM
and mr. pogin, you're little public relations onslaught isn't working. get arron kahn an assistant...nah, just forget it. it's like putting lipstick on a pig.
Posted by: mullen at February 27, 2007 12:37 PM
Mullen-
Oh great sage of ancient wisdom, your knowledge, understanding, and capacity to communicate so eloquently never cease to amaze me. Your ability to blatently disregard LPII's side of the story and batter them with your unequivocated wit and slander while all the while unrelenting in true argument or rebuttel is simply put- remarkable. How will pogin ever recover from your most slanderous and stinging remarks I'll never know. I'm sure your personal opinion of his character (althought I'm sure you do not know him well personally) are most definately of more consequence than any actual contradition of the facts. In short, thank you for your deep (albiet unkosher) insight.
Posted by: Ralph the Dog at February 27, 2007 02:15 PM
Shane-
I actually really long for the days of this site just hammering on the legislature and the city/state leadership instead of all this LPII/County B.S. What can we do to get the spirit of the Greet Machine back (maybe another Shane and CH Craig bet?)?
-Jiminstpaul
Posted by: Jiminstpaul at February 27, 2007 02:33 PM
is LP II going to build the ballpark? if it wasn't for the county you wouldn't have anyone to be a lackey for. they're liars and misled the public. they're fair game and i will gladly tell them what i think of them. thanks for the critique, though.
Posted by: mullen at February 27, 2007 03:25 PM
There is another bet in the works Jiminstpaul.
It involves the Brewers/Twins series in Miller Park. More on that story as it comes closer to the date.
Posted by: Cheesehead Craig at February 27, 2007 03:37 PM
ALERT THE MEDIA!!!
-MONEY GRUBBING LAND OWNERS HOLD COUNTY HOSTAGE! HIDE TRUE INTENTIONS! LIE FOR PERSONAL GAIN! NOBODY SAW IT COMING!
(that was sarcasm, mullen).
Posted by: Casual Fan at February 27, 2007 04:28 PM
Oh, Mullen, by all means I was in no way telling you to stop. I find it most entertaining actually. However, I was confused by this statement "if it wasn't for the county you wouldn't have anyone to be a lackey for. they're liars and misled the public." You see, I feel as if I could say the exact same thing to you and it would be perfectly applicable.
Posted by: Ralph the Dog at February 27, 2007 04:54 PM
Shane, you run one hell of a blog. The access to both sides of the story here is far superior to what the Star Tribune has offered up. The only time it gets 'fair and balanced' over there is when you read the letters from readers. This one was pretty well hidden but does a good job of relating the whole situation to us rubes.
http://www.startribune.com/503/story/1022388-p2.html
Posted by: Ray Kinsella at February 27, 2007 06:11 PM
yep, i'm a county lackey, and damn proud of it. the only other time we were even remotely close to getting a twins ballpark in this town was the defeated referendum in st paul. i'll defend the four horsemen for as long as they remain in public office. great group of guys, by the way, if you ever have the chance to talk with 'em. their intentions remain public and sincere, to finally, after years and years, deliver a proper place for the minnesota twins to play ball.
Posted by: mullen at February 27, 2007 08:09 PM
Yep - typical single issue, "pay no attention to anything that doesn't affect me" citizen.
Just curious; when they build the stadium but fail to deliver the extended library hours and funds to youth sports as promised, I'm sure you'll be ignorant to those two failures and still defend them?
Posted by: Casual Fan at February 28, 2007 06:51 AM
Cheesehead writes: "The legislation is at fault for tying the County’s hands. It was rushed through with too little planning and thoughts of consequences."
AND who were the biggest bunch of people rushing this stadium bill through the legislature so they could watch baseball in it in 2010?
YOU PEOPLE; STADIUM SUPPORTERS!
STADIUM SUPPORTERS wrote, called, emailed, cajoled, pushed, threatened, and huffed and puffed that this bill HAD to get through the legislature in 2006 and ANYBODY that wanted to take a close look at it was just trying to stop the stadium from being built!
You have seen the enemy that screwed up the stadium bill and it is YOURSELVES!!!
Posted by: mark at February 28, 2007 06:51 AM
Mark,
How is it "rushing" a bill through the legislature when it takes 9 years?
Posted by: kevin in az at February 28, 2007 06:56 AM
Erik Eskola (sorry for spelling) was just on with Sid on WCCO radio. Sid asked him what was going on at the legislature (implying stadiums I'm assuming) and Erik said "I've heard that your land deal is closer then people think, don't worry."
Not saying this is a great tip or revelation, but Eskola is generally known as a well plugged in reporter at the state capital, and is known for being full of BS.
Posted by: David Howe at February 28, 2007 06:58 AM
Correction, I meant to say Eskola is NOT known for being full of BS. So his comment gives me some hope.
Posted by: David Howe at February 28, 2007 07:00 AM
Here is a thought.
What if the Hennepin County support for the stadium was just a head feint to get the .15% tax approved and in there coffers?
Even if the stadium goes away Hennepin County will not stop collecting the tax until the legislature orders it to. When that fight comes they will argue that they have needs for the money outside the ball park and are entitled to keep the tax coming in!
Posted by: jeff at February 28, 2007 07:50 AM
I just heard that the judge involved in this case finished appointing the commission to determine the value of the land, and ruled that they deliver in 120 days. This is most unusual, a normal time frame would be about 180 days and they would be allowed to appeal for extensions. Hopefully, we'll have a value on the land by June, and then the county can decide if they want to take it or not. There is hope yet!
On another note- Shane have you ever asked your friends in the county about the possibility of alternative sites? Opat said on his Kare 11 interview that they couldn't work on this project at all until it was passed into law, but does that include geting appraisals and determining benefits and drawbacks of possible sites before they settled on one? I would hope they considered every possibility thoroughly before settling on the rapid park site, but Opat's comment as well as their willingness to consider alternatives speaks otherwise. If the county thinks the rapid park site is truly a "dump in a ditch" as Opat implied in his city pages interview, why do they think it's the best possible location for the ball park? And if it's not the best, shouldn't they have been more scrupulous before sending this bill through the legislature? Seems odd. I'd really like to see their comparison matrix for possible locations (that is hoping that they actually made one before starting all of this).
Posted by: Ralph the Dog at February 28, 2007 10:48 AM
"Even if the stadium goes away Hennepin County will not stop collecting the tax until the legislature orders it to"
Sorry the law is clear, but thanks for playing:
Subd. 11. Uses of tax. (a) Revenues received from the tax imposed under subdivision 10 may be used:
(1) to pay costs of collection;
(2) to pay or reimburse or secure the payment of any principal of, premium, or interest on bonds issued in accordance with this act;
(3) to pay costs and make expenditures and grants described in this section, including financing costs related to them;
(4) to maintain reserves for the foregoing purposes deemed reasonable and appropriate by the county;
(5) to pay for operating costs of the ballpark authority other than the cost of operating or maintaining the ballpark; and
(6) to make expenditures and grants for youth activities and amateur sports and extension of library hours as described in subdivision 2; and for no other purpose.
(c) After completion of the ballpark and public infrastructure, the tax revenues not required for current payments of the expenditures described in paragraph (a), clauses (1) to (6), shall be used to (i) redeem or defease the bonds and (ii) prepay or establish a fund for payment of future bligations under grants or other commitments for future expenditures which are permitted by this section.
Upon the redemption or defeasance of the bonds and the establishment of reserves adequate to meet such future obligations, the taxes shall terminate and shall not be reimposed.
Posted by: pragmatic_cynic at February 28, 2007 10:58 AM
Kevin in AZ, this bill was NOT in the legislature fore nine years! You are correct to point out that the Twins have been begging, whining, threatening, etc. for over 10 years in a futile attempt to steal taxpayer money. This bill was passed the last day of the legislature. THAT is rushing a bill. Sorry, but I doubt the Twins will be here more than 2 or 3 years.
Posted by: bye, bye Twins at February 28, 2007 11:39 AM
What a terrible thing to predict! So many people are so looking forward to sitting in a $85 (if they can get one) seat, sipping on a warm $14 beer while breathing in burning garbage fumes.
Posted by: BMac at February 28, 2007 12:48 PM
Wow, I thought we were passed people complaining about how we are paying for this, if it gets built. I guess I need to be more pro-active and complain about the things I don't want or think is a waste of my tax dollars. Not only that, but the bitterness being displayed is very telling.........
Here's to hoping this still gets built so some people can become even more bitter..........
Posted by: JBN at February 28, 2007 02:23 PM
started writing a scathing attack on anti-stadium dopes... too tired... except one comment. Extending library hours? Do people honestly use the library that much? Perhaps I am ignorant of Minneapolis schools but don't the schools have libraries? If you are an adult and have a job, you probably have a computer for research and money to buy books. If you don't have a job, you can go to the public library anytime. I saw the new library last year and it seemed to be a little overboard for a library. I will never use that library and I paid for it. (I think)
Don't get me wrong. I love books. People should read more. But really... how much did that library cost?? Longer hours?
By the way, Twins play tonight! and if I wanted to live in a state with no pro-sports I would move to Iowa, Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, etc. I moved back here from Sioux Falls so I would be closer to the ballparks. Let's keep them here.
Posted by: zooomx at February 28, 2007 02:36 PM
Youth Sports?
What, did someone drop the JV badminton team? There are many more youth sports options at all levels for kids than I had growing up. My children have a plethora of options that are either no cost, or very little cost. Am I missing something?
Posted by: zooomx at February 28, 2007 02:41 PM
I have to come out of my mini-vacation for this ...
Zooomx! Ha! You do know what I do for a living right? I am a librarian! While I value a Twins stadium, it would kill me to see the library funding portion of the bill go up in flames. Public libraries are the traditional defenders of intellectual freedom and an essential part of a true functioning democracy. It pains me to see libraries closing and it is probably the one thing Nick Coleman and I can agree on.
You picked the wrong blog to suggest public libraries aren't valuable or worthy of spending money on. They are temples to learning and used heavily in Minnesota. If your viewpoints were shared more broadly I would weep for America.
Posted by: Shane at February 28, 2007 02:45 PM
Shane, not against libraries... really... I read 2-4 books a week. Not necessarily against the library funding. I was trying to make a point that we all pay for things through our taxes that we don't see a direct benefit from personally. Yes, definitely the wrong analogy with your career. Still, for those who say the stadium bill is robbing taxpayers, there are taxpayers who think many projects including, school pools, extravagant libraries, having 2 billion theaters in one city don't directly benefit them either.
I personally have voted in my area to support the schools and city/county projects on proposed referendums, including libraries. Just trying to argue the point. Sorry to ruffle your feathers Shane... don't want to put you out of a job.
Posted by: zooomx at February 28, 2007 03:01 PM
My point wasn't whether or not libraries or youth sports were good and valid funding decisions; it was whether or not the HC commissioners would keep their promise to fund these with the stadium bill, or if it was just "lip service"
Posted by: Casual Fan at February 28, 2007 05:14 PM
From Sid's column today, the Twins have indeed finally gotten involved in this. This is good to hear! I hoped all along they were working behind the scenes. This, along with Erick Eskola's comments on WCCO that he heard through the legislature grapevine that a deal was closer then people think(that's probably what tipped off Sid to get this info) give me hope for this whole thing yet.
Posted by: David Howe at March 1, 2007 03:26 AM
If the twins are in it now, they must know that a deal is close enough that they can push it across the finish line. Good to hear.
Posted by: Frank at March 1, 2007 08:03 AM
