Saying "thanks" with an $800,000 fountain
East Grand Forks Mayor Lynn Stauss went to the Grand Forks City Council tonight to ask for $300,000 to build a $800,000 fountain in the middle of the Red River. The City Beat is surprised the council was so receptive with only Council member Mike McNamara saying "no" to using tax dollars on the project. Some others indicated they were willing to consider it.
Stauss' funding plan is as follows:
* Grand Forks: $300,000.
* East Grand Forks $200,000. ($100,000 approved for the River City market place transferred to the fountain. Another $100,000 would come from utility fees.)
* Private donors: $300,000. ($150,000 committed)
So here's some of the reasons Stauss thinks tax dollars ought to be used:
1) Grand Forks and East Grand Forks got $1.5 billion or so in aid from the federal and state governments, which probably doesn't include donations from private citizens. The $800,000 would be a nice way to say "thank you" because the fountain would be dedicated to everyone who helped. It'd be "selfish," he said, to do otherwise.
2) Grand Forks should pay $100,000 more than East Grand Forks because it got more aid.
3) Since the nation helped the governments of the two cities, the governments have to be involved in the thank you. "We as cities should give back a little of what we received."
4) Sure this isn't a strict necessity, but it benefits the community. He didn't specify much but he did talk about all the tourists that would flock downtown to get their picture taken in front of the landmark fountain.
You'll notice in my story about this today that I mentioned "a reporter" asked "why a project to honor the nation wasn't being built in Washington, D.C." That'd be me.
I was thinking, didn't we spend $33,000 on a bison statue that we sent to our old sister city Awano, Japan, in part, to thank the people there for sending us flood aid? We didn't put the statue in one of our parks to honor them while we kept the tourist money.
Not to be cynical but if we spent the money here in town, isn't that like buying a present for yourself and going to your friend's birthday party and telling her you'll be thinking of her when you use the present?
Stauss kind of evaded my question. Yes it will benefit us, he said, but "we can't do it for the past. We need to do it for the future." Future generations will look at the fountain, he said, and remember the trauma of the flood.
I then asked if the nation wouldn't be more likely to see it if it was in Washington? He said some thing about people coming here to see the fountain and, prompted by me, the national news media will also report about it.
Maybe the mayor got caught by surprised, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt and reported: "Stauss said he'd like citizens from around the country to come for a visit. And, he said, the news media would spread word of the fountain."
That still doesn't really answer my question.
Stauss' funding plan is as follows:
* Grand Forks: $300,000.
* East Grand Forks $200,000. ($100,000 approved for the River City market place transferred to the fountain. Another $100,000 would come from utility fees.)
* Private donors: $300,000. ($150,000 committed)
So here's some of the reasons Stauss thinks tax dollars ought to be used:
1) Grand Forks and East Grand Forks got $1.5 billion or so in aid from the federal and state governments, which probably doesn't include donations from private citizens. The $800,000 would be a nice way to say "thank you" because the fountain would be dedicated to everyone who helped. It'd be "selfish," he said, to do otherwise.
2) Grand Forks should pay $100,000 more than East Grand Forks because it got more aid.
3) Since the nation helped the governments of the two cities, the governments have to be involved in the thank you. "We as cities should give back a little of what we received."
4) Sure this isn't a strict necessity, but it benefits the community. He didn't specify much but he did talk about all the tourists that would flock downtown to get their picture taken in front of the landmark fountain.
You'll notice in my story about this today that I mentioned "a reporter" asked "why a project to honor the nation wasn't being built in Washington, D.C." That'd be me.
I was thinking, didn't we spend $33,000 on a bison statue that we sent to our old sister city Awano, Japan, in part, to thank the people there for sending us flood aid? We didn't put the statue in one of our parks to honor them while we kept the tourist money.
Not to be cynical but if we spent the money here in town, isn't that like buying a present for yourself and going to your friend's birthday party and telling her you'll be thinking of her when you use the present?
Stauss kind of evaded my question. Yes it will benefit us, he said, but "we can't do it for the past. We need to do it for the future." Future generations will look at the fountain, he said, and remember the trauma of the flood.
I then asked if the nation wouldn't be more likely to see it if it was in Washington? He said some thing about people coming here to see the fountain and, prompted by me, the national news media will also report about it.
Maybe the mayor got caught by surprised, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt and reported: "Stauss said he'd like citizens from around the country to come for a visit. And, he said, the news media would spread word of the fountain."
That still doesn't really answer my question.
posted by Tu-Uyen at 10:48 PM
19 Comments:
So does this mean that Stauss' "River City Market Place" plan is officially dead? If I remember correctly, that project was most recently going to be tied to the new Chamber building in EGF...any word on that new building? I still hate to see GF "lose" the Chamber to EGF...
Gee Dave, does this mean you don't like Lynn's idea?
Ah Dave, I knew I could count on ya! Haha. By the way, Mac was brief and to the point. He seemed a bit apologetic because he does want to thank the country, just not with tax dollars. I have the feeling the rest of the council doesn't want to publicly rebuff Stauss and will wait for committee to quietly strangle the idea or water it down. That's a feeling, not a fact.
GFG: River City lives but there's some private funding issues, I think, so it's been delayed. I asked the mayor a while ago about the link to the Chamber building but he said the project is no longer connected. It's late so I'll figure out why some other time.
By the way, GF never lost the Chamber. The Chamber, because of the fears of EGF member that they'll lose their identity, had decided to build its HQ in EGF from the get go.
I know, Tu-Uyen, but I still wish they would either stay in the old GF depot or build a new building in downtown GF instead of EGF. It only seems fair to be located in the town where most of your members are located. Oh well...
Imagine that Dave Miller being negative about something. Something needs to be done with the eyesore left from the old bridge. Although, I do think they should do more fundraising and use a minimal amount of tax dollars for it.
"Losing the chamber?"
This is the kind of small-mindedness that holds us back. We're one community with similar people, concerns, geography. When one benefits, so does the other. And when one suffers, the other community suffers as well.
I had dinner with a friend the other night, who asked me where I'd like to go. "Someplace downtown," I answered. "How about the Moose?"
His response was, "That's East Grand Forks." I couldn't believe he thought of downtown EGF as separate from downtown GF.
I have 2 thoughts (Not 12+)...
One problem is, the city of G.F. had virtually no vision for the rebuilding of downtown after the flood. Whereas, E.G.F. at least had a little. A very simple..."Let's redevelop with a plan to create some views of the river". At that time Grand Forks was sending developers back and forth between 2 offices and telling them essentially..."The Urban Development guy quit and now no one is available to hear your idea".
Doesn't everyone agree that G.F. missed the boat on this?
Also, sorry but, talk to anyone outside of the region about the great Flood of The North, and it's met with a collective "huh". It was almost 10 years ago and now forgotten on the national secene. I make this point because the "thanks issue" is just political mumbo-jumbo. But, I sense everyone realizes that.
I think Staus has gotten away with so much financial hanky-panky since the flood that now he has the gall to ask for money for his fountain.
What's the annual maintenance costs? How will the flooding effect it? How about the freezing temperatures?
This may not be popular but, I don't think that The Red is suited for recreation. The current, the silty muddy bottom, it stinks. The catfisherman will differ I realize. But, it is amazing for it's view. The hardwood trees, greenway, etc. Will injecting the stinky water into the air cause the smell to drift? Would you drop your kids at the river's edge for swimming and tell them you'll pick 'em up later? With G.F. only one hour from the beautiful lakes country of Minnesota, it just underscores how unsuited the Red is for that type of recreation.
For 800G I guess we'll find out.
Regarding the chamber issue...everyone knows that for decades, G.F. has been VERY generous with using the merchants over in E.G.F. Whereas, the E.G.F. chamber has done an amazing job with attempting to keep their citizenry shopping on their side of the river. Regarding locating the joint chamber building in E.G.F., G.F. got played on this decision. It would never have happened 10-15 years ago but, now that the population has turned over so much, the new people in town don't understand some of the powerful idiosyncrasies of the market.
I support a fountain, but only if it's funded through private dollars.
I can't believe the city is dragging their feet with a (inexpensive, in comparison) functional dog park and jumping at the chance to blow several hundred thousand dollars on a fountain that's "nice to look at" but doesn't really have a function.
Let's be realistic. A fountain isn't going to be a major tourist draw unless it's something REALLY REALLY special. People go to the Bellagio from all over the world to see their fountain display, but I bet it cost a bit more than what Lynn wants to spend.
People go to the Bellagio from all over the world to see their fountain display
People go to the Bellagio because it happens to be in the same location as the gambling, five dollar "steak" buffets and nudie shows that they're really going there for.
No one, let me repeat, no one, is going to come to Grand Forks to look at a fountain, I don't care if it's shooting beer in the afternoon and a million dollar fireworks show every night. People will look at it if they're already here for some other reason, and I'm sure one or two will take pictures.
It's brochure material and something for those in command to stamp their names on for posterity, nothing more.
"Grand Forks" Great idea Hal! Jeesh.
Can you say "boondoggle"?
I knew that you could.
Use the money to tear down that pillar left from the old railroad bridge. It looks stupid sitting there out in the middle of the river. Turning it into a fountain would make it look even more stupid.
If we all want to get rid of the "eye sore", why not just knock it down? Isn't it just that simple?
dadinggf makes an excellant point. If it's an eye sore knock it down. I don't see the historical value to a bridge support if the bridge is gone. The people that believe a fountain will draw visitors from around the nation need to have their medication dosage increased. If some people want to look at a fountain let them fund it.
Dave: The federal dollars aren't involved at this point. It will all be local. I think the feds would've shot that idea down pretty fast.
You guys who want to knock it down: Why? I don't think it's an eyesore. Remember, it'll take tax dollars to take it down, too.
Dike improvement funds are better known within City Hall as "betterment funds." Basically, the feds decide they're going to build the dikes to a certain standard. If we want it nicer, we pay the extra in the form of dike assessments (a kind of property tax aimed only at the dikes). The money's been used to add three feet to the floodwalls and add those decorative concrete "medalions" you see on especially lengthy sections of the floodwall.
The economic development fund gets its money from a portion of the city sales tax.
Yeah, the money comes from somewhere but it's local not federal.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home