[Mpls] De La Salle Deal Questions

[Christine Viken]

>Shawn FitzPatrick wrote: "The De La Salle deal has many unanswered 
>questions."

Shawn, Shawn, Shawn,

Of course those questions haven't been addressed. That'd be like pulling the 
curtain back to reveal the Wizard of Oz manipulating all the strings behind 
the illusion that there'd be significant public benefit to the De LaSalle 
project.

Can't have THAT happen -- a least not before the election.

The majority five (Fine, Olson, Kummers, Dzeidzic and especially Hauser) are 
planning on riding this horse on to a victory in next Tuesday's vote.

De LaSalle supporters are pretty much bound by the situation to work for the 
election of those five. Hauser's letter of support so blatantly and 
clumbsily played the De LaSalle card, she couldn't expect anything less 
http://www.mplsparkwatch.org/files/HauserLetter.pdf  in her race for a 
council seat.

The others, by laying their support out there in the face of so little 
analysis and supportive information, deserve nothing less than 
all-out-support.

Let's face it. If they aren't re-elected, the decision is certain to be 
REALLY  considered on merit and faces a certain death by new board vote.

After all, who can tell when De LaSalle's ever going to have three parents 
of former De students and one former faculty member on the board all at the 
same time? If the issue can't fly now, when would it ever?

It's the perfect quid pro quo. You scratch my stadium needs and I'll rally 
the faithful to scratch your voting box.

This is a quick and flip statement of what I believe to be an assault on our 
election process.  If any readers have the time and fortitude for an 
expanded explanation (by necessity it's l-o-n-g), check out a previous 
three-part post: Who'll Really Decide This Election?.

And if you have any doubts about how the process is playing out, tune in to 
the discussion at the public hearing beginning Wednesday at 5:30 or catch 
one of the rebroadcasts.

This isn't quite what is meant by "transparency in government", but the 
see-through arguments put forth by the commissioners for their yes-vote will 
be eye-opening.

And Shawn, don't expect ANY of your important questions to be answered.

Christine Viken
Stevens Square/Loring Heights