damning words.  I see why her opinion on a neighborhood project should not be trusted.

“McGrath then said a few words about Diane Gerth before awarding her the Community Leadership Award, chief among them was “cranky”. McGrath warned those in similar threatening positions, as was Gopher State Ethanol, to not disagree with Diane because “she cares almost as much about our neighborhood as she does her own family.”

It also appears the Ms. Gerth is a member of a left leaning group known as “Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington” (CREW) who's name does not alert the reader that, judging from the actions taken and against whom, CREW's view is that Democrats are never involved in anything unethical since all of the activities I saw were provided against Republicans, or their allies.

Additionally, Ms. Gerth is a very active participant in an e-mail discussion group “Saint Paul Issues Forum” in which she routinely espouses a decidedly anti-capitalistic ferver (as evidenced now that one thinks of it, by her here-to-fore confusing slam against the Chamber of Commerce).

In the other corner (according to a surprisingly informative City Pages article) we have Jerry Trooien, a self-made millionaire (Billionaire? Perhaps)born and raised in St. Paul's East side.

It goes without saying, I think, that no one comes to the kinds of success that it appears that Trooien has without an ability to see a project through to completion and willingness to ruffle feathers if necessary in the process.

The only question I have remaining is who decided that Ms. Gerth was the right person to negotiate the diverse interests of the west side of St. Paul with someone who represents everything she stands against?

A thinking person might stop to wonder how much money a $1.5 Billion dollar development might provide the city to alleviate this, even with a $125 million dollar TIF package.

The author goes to somewhat extraordinary steps to make her displeasure with the man and his plan known, but again, a thinking person has to ask the following questions to the following statements:

“One neighborhood-based group found its Board of Directors taken over by a slate sponsored by the developer using loopholes in the group's bylaws.”

Often, one finds, the term “loophole” is used after the fact to describe a perfectly legal and ethical action by people who have found themselves on the losing end of a negotiation.

Are you suggesting that the “slate” did something underhanded here? Or are you simply upset over having been out maneuvered by a better prepared or perhaps smarter opponent?

“At least one vocal opponent found to his surprise that his photo was placed in a full-page advertisement with a quote praising the project.”

It would be nice to have identified this person who was, as you say, so woefully wronged. Was the quote completely false; taken out of context or something that the speaker had had a change of heart about?

“There have been allegations of strong-arm tactics used by people carrying petitions door-to-door.”

This is the most amazing accusation, I think. Strong-arm tactics undertaken at the doorsteps of people's homes?

Really?

Are we speaking of doors being kicked in, or petitions being slipped in under a closed door?

In the absence of some further detail, the thinking reader is tempted to hold this statement at arms length.

“Meetings aimed at seeking compromise have been disrupted by hecklers in the audience who are paid staff of the developer.”

Hecklers, or people who disagreed with the decisions to which the term “compromise” were being attached to?

“The divisions that have been intentionally created in the surrounding community at the hands of a bully who consistently rejects collaboration will take years to heal.”

You will forgive me I pray, if after having read this rather scathing appraisal of the man and his plan, to find the idea that there was any sort of “collaboration” or “compromise” ever contemplated by the author and her group.

In the absence of any sort of rebuttal there really is no rational conclusion for the thinking reader to take, is there?

A thinking person might stop to wonder how much money a $1.5 Billion dollar development might provide the city to alleviate this, even with a $125 million dollar TIF package.

The author goes to somewhat extraordinary steps to make her displeasure with the man and his plan known, but again, a thinking person has to ask the following questions to the following statements:

“One neighborhood-based group found its Board of Directors taken over by a slate sponsored by the developer using loopholes in the group’s bylaws.”

Often, one finds, the term “loophole” is used after the fact to describe a perfectly legal and ethical action by people who have found themselves on the losing end of a negotiation.

Are you suggesting that the “slate” did something underhanded here? Or are you simply upset over having been out maneuvered by a better prepared or perhaps smarter opponent?

“At least one vocal opponent found to his surprise that his photo was placed in a full-page advertisement with a quote praising the project.”

It would be nice to have identified this person who was, as you say, so woefully wronged. Was the quote completely false; taken out of context or something that the speaker had had a change of heart about?

“There have been allegations of strong-arm tactics used by people carrying petitions door-to-door.”

This is the most amazing accusation, I think. Strong-arm tactics undertaken at the doorsteps of people’s homes?

Really?

Are we speaking of doors being kicked in, or petitions being slipped in under a closed door?

In the absence of some further detail, the thinking reader is tempted to hold this statement at arms length.

“Meetings aimed at seeking compromise have been disrupted by hecklers in the audience who are paid staff of the developer.”

Hecklers, or people who disagreed with the decisions to which the term “compromise” were being attached to?

“The divisions that have been intentionally created in the surrounding community at the hands of a bully who consistently rejects collaboration will take years to heal.”

You will forgive me I pray, if after having read this rather scathing appraisal of the man and his plan, to find the idea that there was any sort of “collaboration” or “compromise” ever contemplated by the author and her group.

In the absence of any sort of rebuttal there really is no rational conclusion for the thinking reader to take, is there?

“McGrath then said a few words about Diane Gerth before awarding her the Community Leadership Award, chief among them was “cranky”. McGrath warned those in similar threatening positions, as was Gopher State Ethanol, to not disagree with Diane because “she cares almost as much about our neighborhood as she does her own family.”

It also appears the Ms. Gerth is a member of a left leaning group known as “Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington” (CREW) who’s name does not alert the reader that, judging from the actions taken and against whom, CREW’s view is that Democrats are never involved in anything unethical since all of the activities I saw were provided against Republicans, or their allies.

Additionally, Ms. Gerth is a very active participant in an e-mail discussion group “Saint Paul Issues Forum” in which she routinely espouses a decidedly anti-capitalistic ferver (as evidenced now that one thinks of it, by her here-to-fore confusing slam against the Chamber of Commerce).

In the other corner (according to a surprisingly informative City Pages article) we have Jerry Trooien, a self-made millionaire (Billionaire? Perhaps)born and raised in St. Paul’s East side.

It goes without saying, I think, that no one comes to the kinds of success that it appears that Trooien has without an ability to see a project through to completion and willingness to ruffle feathers if necessary in the process.

The only question I have remaining is who decided that Ms. Gerth was the right person to negotiate the diverse interests of the west side of St. Paul with someone who represents everything she stands against?

damning words.  I see why her opinion on a neighborhood project should not be trusted.