Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Minneboy
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 668
Joined: January 15th, 2013, 1:18 pm

Re: Rochester Tower

Postby Minneboy » March 2nd, 2013, 9:31 pm

mattaudio wrote:There's no tower plan. The title should just be changed. The only thing that was of towering statue was the amount of the bailout they're asking from the state.
So the Mayo wants the state to spend $500 million and in return the state gets $3.5 billion back. That's a nice profit short term, not the mention the economic benefits in the long term. Smart investment on any level.

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Rochester Tower

Postby Wedgeguy » March 3rd, 2013, 7:13 pm

Minneboy wrote:
mattaudio wrote:There's no tower plan. The title should just be changed. The only thing that was of towering statue was the amount of the bailout they're asking from the state.
So the Mayo wants the state to spend $500 million and in return the state gets $3.5 billion back. That's a nice profit short term, not the mention the economic benefits in the long term. Smart investment on any level.
Mayo is not asking the state for anymore or loan for themselves. THey are asking the state and local governments to invest in INFASTRUCTURE such as road, high speed rail, Bridges, and other things that help to make Rochester a place that people want to come and visit.

mullen
Foshay Tower
Posts: 986
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 7:02 am

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby mullen » March 4th, 2013, 9:31 am

why doesn't mayo expand in the twin cities, where all this "infrastructure" they so desperately need already exists. basically they admit rochester is a boring and small place. not enough culture, transit, art galleries, blah balh....they want to be like portland oregon. mpls/st paul wants deseparately to be like portland, too and has all that culture and trasnit build-out is expanding. it's a match made in heaven. cleveland clinic expands in cleveland, johns hopkins in baltimore. why can't mayo build in mpls/st paul?

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7936
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby mattaudio » March 4th, 2013, 10:04 am

Rochester actually has quite a bit of potential, and it has improved quite a bit in the past few years. It has the feel of a budding college town without actually having a large higher ed presence. It has a walkable downtown and great core neighborhoods. I think HSR to Roch, as part of a future line to Chicago, would be a great investment.

I don't completely understand why they're requesting this special bonding-taxing district arrangement... as wedgeguy alluded to above, I'm not sure what the purpose is of this unless it's a way to skirt the normal politics around bonding.

Regarding Minneboy's numbers, this is a government cash flow fallacy that is so widespread among all political parties and thought leaders. This has been discussed at length on Strong Towns. Government is not/cannot be in the business of spending money to create jobs over the long term, especially when it creates future cash flow liabilities in its place. $500m to get back $3500m in private investment sounds good, but it is not comparing apples to apples. A government must ensure that spending $x will return back $x+1 AND where $x is proven not to have a lower opportunity cost elsewhere either as government expenditure or private investment. I don't think Mayo has met this burden, although to be fair to them very few of our infrastructure projects achieve this level of productivity.

Finally, assuming we should invest $500 million in Mayo (which honestly is better in comparison to many other "investments") we need to ask some tough questions about what they're actually looking to build. Rochester does NOT need more highways or parking ramps.

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby Wedgeguy » March 4th, 2013, 5:20 pm

mullen wrote:why doesn't mayo expand in the twin cities, where all this "infrastructure" they so desperately need already exists. basically they admit rochester is a boring and small place. not enough culture, transit, art galleries, blah balh....they want to be like portland oregon. mpls/st paul wants deseparately to be like portland, too and has all that culture and trasnit build-out is expanding. it's a match made in heaven. cleveland clinic expands in cleveland, johns hopkins in baltimore. why can't mayo build in mpls/st paul?
Two reasons why not. First the Mayo has always been an instituation in Rochester. To replicate what is already in Rochester, to MPLS, would be billions of dollars. I take it you must not be very knowledgable about the Mayo. They have been the Gold standard in Health care for people and heads of state from around the world! This is not like General Mills moving out to Golden Valley. This instution has been around since the turn of the 20th century. Well over 100 years old.

Minneboy
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 668
Joined: January 15th, 2013, 1:18 pm

Re: Rochester Tower

Postby Minneboy » March 5th, 2013, 3:22 pm

Wedgeguy wrote:
Minneboy wrote:
mattaudio wrote:There's no tower plan. The title should just be changed. The only thing that was of towering statue was the amount of the bailout they're asking from the state.
So the Mayo wants the state to spend $500 million and in return the state gets $3.5 billion back. That's a nice profit short term, not the mention the economic benefits in the long term. Smart investment on any level.
Mayo is not asking the state for anymore or loan for themselves. THey are asking the state and local governments to invest in INFASTRUCTURE such as road, high speed rail, Bridges, and other things that help to make Rochester a place that people want to come and visit.
I wasn't alluding to the Mayo wanting the state to spend that money on the Mayo. I was just stating that the Mayo wants the state to spend 500 million. I'm totally in support of the expenditure.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7936
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby mattaudio » March 8th, 2013, 1:02 pm

The big news in Rochester is actually when a Texas Roadhouse can't be built in a Sam's Club outlot due to parking concerns: http://postbulletin.typepad.com/kiger/2 ... nail-.html
I think the issue is dont put resturants in the middle of shopping areas unless there is open land, just buy open land and build it-people will come.
Wow.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5813
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby MNdible » March 8th, 2013, 1:29 pm

To be clear, in case people don't read the article, this isn't an issue with city approvals or planning but with existing lease deals with tenants.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7936
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby mattaudio » March 8th, 2013, 1:34 pm

Yes, I didn't mean to imply it was city parking concerns... it's the concerns of Rochester residents echoed by the developers/tenants that currently appease their demand for hassle-free subsidized parking.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7936
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby mattaudio » April 4th, 2013, 2:51 pm

The "towering nature" original post may come full circle.
http://finance-commerce.com/2013/04/off ... tal-tower/

User avatar
Le Sueur
Landmark Center
Posts: 272
Joined: June 5th, 2012, 3:30 pm

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby Le Sueur » April 4th, 2013, 4:15 pm

^^^
Image

I get excited about this proposal. I hope the State, Rochester, and Mayo can figure this thing out. The bill is split in two right now, and is set to investigate the potential for the Rochester to contribute by levying a local tax in combination with state funding.

Minneboy
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 668
Joined: January 15th, 2013, 1:18 pm

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby Minneboy » April 4th, 2013, 8:24 pm

^Perfect picture :)

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7936
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby mattaudio » April 5th, 2013, 2:18 pm

Has anyone seen a detailed list of what infrastructure would be funded with this state money? Or even detail of any kind?

Viktor Vaughn
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 607
Joined: July 10th, 2012, 6:37 pm

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby Viktor Vaughn » April 10th, 2013, 11:32 am

I've been trying to keep an open mind about the Mayo proposal. TIF is a quite a bit less objectionable when the funds are directed to public infrastructure rather than to private coffers. I probably wouldn't consider a parking facility for Mayo patients and employees public infrastructure, but I completely understand if Mayo expansion required new and better sidewalks and water & sewer lines. However, $500M seems way out of the ballpark for improvements like these.

The Mayo shouldn't have to pay the cost of a high speed rail line to Rochester, but I'm not sure TIF is a great way to pay for intercity train lines.

So, I've been a little skeptical about their proposal, but open-minded. However, when I hear statements like these my first reaction is, go fuck yourself.
“We’re never going to leave Minnesota, and we don’t want to leave Minnesota,” Dr. John Noseworthy said in an interview at the National Press Club, where the CEO made a pitch for federal investment in health care and medical research. “But we’ve got to decide where we’re going to put the next $3 billion.”

“If they say yes, that’s great, we want to stay in Minnesota,” Noseworthy said. But, he cautioned, “If they say no, or you’re going to have to go for a bonding bill every year for the next 30 years, we’ll have to rethink about whether that’s the best use of our money.”
It's one thing for a business to make clear what they want from government to complement their plans. They are free to make requests. But once this request turns into lawyerly, smile-in-your-face-blackmail, this world-class-asset becomes part of the problem.

It was argued over in the Convention Hotel thread that it's reasonable for a business with positive externalities (increased tax receipts, tourist draw, and employed locals) to benefit from that economic activity in the form of subsidies. But that isn't how this is supposed to work. Businesses pay taxes to be part of civil society. They pay property taxes for the roads that take customers to their door, police and fire protection of their assets, and public schools to educate their employees. Unfortunately, an entitlement mentality has taken over this country's corporate elite. They expect the government should pay them to create a job that's really just incidental to their business.

Since only the corporate giants are able to offer the scale the politicians chase and the flexibility to play local governments against each other, the spoils go to the biggest. Small business is left to pay their own freight in a warped marketplace, and economic power is concentrated in ever fewer hands.

If you're doubting the scale of this problem, check out this excellent NY Times article from a few months ago. For a quintessential example of the corrosive effect on communities, listen to this NPR piece from a couple days ago.

After my little fit about Mayo's thinly-veiled blackmail, I'll return to looking at their proposal pragmatically. It's hardly the most egregious example of corporate welfare. The details I've seen are still fuzzy. I hope our state politicians take their request seriously and evaluate it fairly. But in general, Minnesota is going to be better off to focus on investing in a better state, improving the public commons, making our state a place people want to be and companies want to invest in. Let's leave the race to the bottom to parts of the county much more desperate than us.

User avatar
woofner
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1327
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:04 am

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby woofner » April 10th, 2013, 12:02 pm

mattaudio wrote:Has anyone seen a detailed list of what infrastructure would be funded with this state money? Or even detail of any kind?
This is the closest you can get right now, from the House bill:
2.28 Subd. 10. Project. "Project" means the following works or undertakings for the
2.29purpose of development of a medical center development district:
2.30(1) to acquire real property and other assets associated with the real property;
2.31(2) to demolish, repair, or rehabilitate buildings;
2.32(3) to remediate land and buildings as required to prepare the property for acquisition
2.33or development;
2.34(4) to install, construct, or reconstruct elements of community infrastructure
2.35required to support the overall development of the medical center development district,
3.1including, without limitation, streets, roadways, utilities systems and related facilities,
3.2utility relocations and replacements, network and communication systems, streetscape
3.3improvements, drainage systems, sewer and water systems, subgrade structures and
3.4associated improvements, landscaping, façade construction and restoration, wayfinding
3.5and signage, and other components of community infrastructure;
3.6(5) to acquire, construct or reconstruct, and equip parking facilities and other
3.7facilities to encourage intermodal transportation and public transit;
3.8(6) to install, construct or reconstruct, and equip core elements of community
3.9infrastructure, to promote and encourage economic development and to anchor the medical
3.10center developmental district in accordance with the development plan, including, without
3.11limitation, parks, cultural facilities, community and recreational facilities, facilities to
3.12promote tourism and hospitality, conferencing and conventions, broadcast and related
3.13multimedia infrastructure, destination retail, urban residential housing, and instructional,
3.14educational, and other facilities with the primary purpose of attracting and fostering urban
3.15economic development within the medical center development district;
3.16(7) to make related site improvements, including, without limitation, excavation,
3.17earth retention, soil stabilization and correction, site improvements to support the medical
3.18center development district;
3.19(8) to prepare land for private development and to sell or lease land; and
3.20(9) to build and equip suitable structures on land owned by the authority for sale or
3.21lease for private development, except structures for sale or lease to a medical business
3.22entity.
The reason the plan isn't more detailed is that there is not yet a plan. The same bill creates an authority and requires it to come up with a plan.

I agree with Viktor Vaughn in that I tend to see Mayo as a relatively worthy recipient of special state attention despite generally being opposed to the corporate welfare brinksmanship that is shooting this country in our collective foot. It is completely insane, though, that they're demanding a specific amount of loot despite no plan, and that they're demanding this enormous amount now, not following the standard process by which we've been handing them money for decades. It really does seem like a power play more than anything, and a rather petty one, as though Mayo's girlfriend just broke up with them and started going out with Johns Hopkins right away, and they need a quick injection of self esteem.
"Who rescued whom!"

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7936
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby mattaudio » April 10th, 2013, 12:12 pm

I've found some details. $130 million ($90 from the state) for unneeded structured parking.
Downtown circulator (potential LRT or streetcar?) $430 MILLION including $36m from state and $216 from federal sources. Looks like they expect to get FTA New Starts funding for something.
BRT $76 million including $37 from the feds, so probably more New Starts money.

User avatar
Nick
Capella Tower
Posts: 3004
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Loring Park, Minneapolis

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby Nick » April 10th, 2013, 12:19 pm

For what it's worth, I feel like we really ought to be considering the timeline of this as well. Is any thirty year projection ever correct? Aren't we maybe sorta starting to figure out that our whole healthcare system is potentially based on imaginary numbers? Can't we question the healthcare status quo? Could we all just resolve to stop eating so much damn garbage and stop driving half a mile to the gym to walk on a treadmill for twenty minutes? Or is that just bait to take this wildly off topic?

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7936
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby mattaudio » April 10th, 2013, 12:26 pm

Nick, we'll need to order more of this for the Urban MSP supply cabinet if you continue:
http://www.amazon.com/Permatex-24200-Me ... 333&sr=1-1

User avatar
woofner
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1327
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:04 am

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby woofner » April 10th, 2013, 12:51 pm

mattaudio wrote:I've found some details. $130 million ($90 from the state) for unneeded structured parking.
Downtown circulator (potential LRT or streetcar?) $430 MILLION including $36m from state and $216 from federal sources. Looks like they expect to get FTA New Starts funding for something.
BRT $76 million including $37 from the feds, so probably more New Starts money.
Where did you find them?
"Who rescued whom!"

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7936
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Mayo Expansion Proposal - Rochester

Postby mattaudio » April 10th, 2013, 1:04 pm

I wasn't sure if the document I received was public, but it seems to be:
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews ... 43.pdf.pdf


Return to “Greater Minnesota”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest