mbers of council to discuss those issues on councilors' turf, beginning at 1 p.m. Monday.The mayor's interest in evenhanded analysis or collaboration seems slight -- his invitation referred to the plan that interests council as "irresponsible," and launched rhetoric about lack of "public process" despite a series of council-conducted public meetings -- but council members should attend the mayor's proposed meeting . . . and begin it with a request for immediate and comprehensive identification of prospective privateers, from lobbyists to placement agents, from legal advisors to accountants, from local investors to would-be employees, from vendors to anyone in line for a commission or fee. (In other words, council should express solidarity with the mayor's insistence on a "public process." It also wouldn't hurt for one or two council representatives to contact the other bidder, and perhaps one or two qualified entities that refrained from bidding, before participating in the "showdown.")
Without those disclosures, or the mayor's agreement to abandon the privateering expedition and work toward arrangement of a bond transaction, council members should conclude the meeting by 1:05 (enabling Rev. Burgess and the mayor to conduct a private strategy session). If council members do not fear state oversight of InsolvenCity's pension funds, there is no reason to fear a mayoral decision to take his deflated ball to his side of the fifth floor.
Infinonytune: Welcome To The Working Week, Elvis Costello and the Imposters
15 comments:
"If council members do not fear state oversight of InsolvenCity's pension funds, there is no reason to fear a mayoral decision to take his deflated ball to his side of the fifth floor."
And therein lies the rub.
This means the special meeting can be brief or solidaritous among the majority or what have you, yett it can still accomplish its primary mission of revealing credit/blame for that consequence.
Personally, if your sticking point becomes a sticking point, I think the populace is prepared to hear of the professional services providers on all sides.
The interested parties should have been disclosed long ago. That they have not been is an adequate, although not indispensable, reason to reject a proposed transaction involving private control of public assets.
Be that as it may, the lease is dead. Right? Monday is going to be about current events.
Be clear what happened here. Lukey tried to wash his hands of this and then the money boys around him who have commissions riding on the deal told him he had to try to revive the lease and he complied. Other than Bram, I haven''t seen anyone who isn't vested in the lease step forward to declare this lease a good deal.
Infy-
You've been right all along. The lease is dead. The bond's not going to happen, and we are all now left with what comes next.
Anon 9:05 - As a historical footnote, I will NEVER, EVER tire of reminding people that Chris Briem was on board with the lease. And I don't think we were all that alone.
But back to the bond bill which is presently alive and before us: okay, let's grant for the sake of this querry that it CAN work roughly as written. Once you consider the fund's negative cash flow and the new figures coming out, HOW LONG will it take the State to throw PMRS at us again? Two whole years, or seeing as how we did something other than what we arranged with them when we had them carve an exception for us, just one?
And what will do? Our parking rates will have rose up and those assets become effectively tied up and maxed out. What's next, Houdini?
A few days ago, the Mayor said he wouldn't spend "another minute" on this parking lease deal. And now, late on Friday, he calls a press conference, changes course, and announces that he wants to battle again. No matter if you're for or against the lease, this is what happens when the Mayor's office is run by children who have zero real world experience. Please tell me, what changed over the last few days to explain Luke's impulsive change of plans? Did JP Morgan / LAZ threaten a lawsuit? Did some marionette salivating to make money on this deal pull a string? Is there some other reasonable explanation? Whatever the case, if I'm JP Morgan / LAZ, after this debacle, this is the last Mayor's office in the country that I'd want to have to deal with. I'm starting to have sympathy for these people.
Bram,
The fund's negative cashflow is true under both the lease and the bond. In the end the bond is less expensive and does less long term damage.
Whatever the case, if I'm JP Morgan / LAZ, after this debacle, this is the last Mayor's office in the country that I'd want to have to deal with. I'm starting to have sympathy for these people.
What?
Anon 9:44 - But what is the bond actually supposed to DO? It seems like (ideally) we're trading 6 or 7 years breathing room for just 1 or 2 tops. That's not a legitimate time-frame for transforming our way out of this.
Oh wait, #facepalm#. The May primaries. Gotcha.
Bram,
You seem to be operating on the belief that the additional money is going to pension. That is not what is suggested by the Mayor's budget. Even if it were, putting all of that money into the fund without addressing pension reform and cost reduction is just pissing away a bigger amount.
Hey Infy, tell us what's gonna happen tomorrow. You worried?
Anon 8:32 - To be clear, I'm not talking about the dead plan. But the new plan that is before us seems to buy us less time even than the dead, awful old plan could have (if done how I believe the forthcoming numbers would have made it get done) with which to address "pension reform" and cost reduction. Hence, I'm uncertain right now why we're doing it, though I'm certain all that will be explored in 15 hours.
~ahem...
Not brief.
If we're spinning tunes, here's one to go with your pic, infy.
Post a Comment