For another thing, whether we like it or not, there’s a political (and sometimes class warfare) dimension to many things. Pretending there isn’t doesn’t help.

For a third, politics was already raised when the topic of public funding was part of the discussion. If taxpayer dollars are to be risked, that’s certainly political.

Fourth: Discussions of public schools often turn to union-bashing and the sucking sound as tax dollars get spent. Private schools should not be immune to discussions of political or class-warfare issues. There are certainly politics there. It’s only fair. Better to allow free speech about it than to muzzle it.

Fifth: The Karl Rove playbook prefers first strikes to frame or define the issues. Better to raise the issue first and frame it as class warfare--in which the rich pit themselves against the poor--than to wait for privatization fans to make the first claims that the poor somehow invented class warfare. It’s not true.

So as in football, you try to gain as many yards as you can, when you can. You don’t wait for the other team to drive into your end-zone.

That said, I should include a disclaimer: My favorite private school is St. Dominic’s, which was around long before the relatively recent conservative push for school vouchers, and which would admit students even if their families were short of the tuition needed — so none of my criticisms of private schools and class warfare apply to St. Dominic’s.

Be true to your school.

I’m skeptical that pre-schoolers get that much more out of yoga than they would get from Northfield Nursery School or other fine preschool institutions in town, but with the crowd that likes to drive the Mercedes SUV, they might feel much better walking from the parking lot to the door to pick up their child. If you’re honest with yourself, you might consider that, if many people had enough disposable income, they might pay a lot to send their kids to a school with children of mostly similar financial means. Face it: Some folks buy new cars that depreciate in value very quickly, but it lets them feel a certain way about themselves.

As far as the market goes, there is a strain of snobery in Northfield that would sometimes prefer for public education options to be structured in such a way to benefit the white elite: This was long the case with the Companeros program at Bridgewater, which screened out Hispanic kids, and which allowed admissions from any neighborhood, even if you lived near Greenvale school, where the Hispanic kids from the trailer park often attend. Ironically, the Companeros program was the way for white kids near Greenvale to get a ticket out of Greenvale, if they had assertive-consumer parents.

Some of these parents have enough money for Goddard tuition. Others are educated and assertive-consumer parents who would not be able to afford it. So you weed out the families with educated Democrats who work in human services jobs, to some extent.

A Goddard School might end up being a place for economically comfortable Republican parents to send their kids. There’s some wisdom in keeping such folks somewhat concentrated in a single area, either to keep them away from bothering the rest of the riff-raff, or to allow them to keep their illusions intact.

In America, one of our constitutional rights is freedom of association, especially for those who can afford it.

As at the RNC in St. Paul, the Goddard School could hire police in riot gear, with tasers and pepper spray, to keep the rest of us away, which would also employ more police and stimulate the local economy. Maybe certain benefits would trickle-down.

I think they should go for it. But no public financing. Let families of potential students invest, like in a time-share. The money’s out there. And local investors could share in the profits. That way, if it fails, they share the risk too, not the taxpayer.

We don’t need any more taxpayer-supported entitlements and bail-outs and such. Enough of those have gone to the Republicans already, and the grand-children of those who can’t afford Goddard will be paying for a long time.

I’ve been trying to reach Mr. Streitz to ask him for some more information, but he hasn’t gotten back to me yet. Hopefully I’ll track him down today.

Thanks Mr. Davis for clarifying Mr. Streitz’s interest in applying for the loan. I wasn’t quite clear on everything said in that conversation about it during the meeting, which is why I worded it so vaguely in the story. I had hoped for Mr. Streitz to explain. Clearly I should have called you or a member of the EDA or a staff person.

Griff, it’s a nuisance to have to fill in the required fields each time. What’s up?

Hope this helps clear up some of the concerns I read in the above posts.

What I am asking is, can the EDA promote and encourage new business, without handing out checks and taxbreaks?

I guess I am saying that the EDA can help everyone, but there should also be varying levels of support.

Can I have it both ways?

http://www.bookweb.org/files/open/pdf/lamar.pdf
it’s long, but pgs 3-4 give you a good snapshot.

If it involves monetary support(tax breaks etc), we the tax payers are subsidizing a chain business to some in and remove money from our community. you could argue, we are paying them to take our money. it is a difficult issue, one that the EDA has to handle very carefully. They have to balance the interests of all sides to do the right thing. I’m not offering an opinion on this daycare company, just some food for thought.

You pose a difficult question, as you know how I personally feel about Just Food, and how I will support it forever. Bringing in a Whole Foods would have a significant impact to Just Food.

Your question is outside of the scope of my comments, as I am not in a position to judge the appropriateness of the applicant.

My comment is that the EDA should treat all applicants without bias, and my question is, who gets to determine if the applicant is appropriate. My guess is that these seven folks basically control the whole deal.

I feel that the way the question is posed… that if I answer, then someone will replace the words “Whole Foods” with “Wal-mart” and we will have a completely new argument.

I guess my response is that I would like to see the EDA continue to foster business growth in our community. My personal bias is toward small businesses and local business owners that want to grow… but again, that puts a bias against the goal of fair and equal.

I can agree that there are certain businesses that I would NOT like to see come to Northfield, however, some would argue that these businesses are wanted and needed here.

What I will do is more research. When I am out over the next few days, I will speak to some recent new business owners (restaurants) and see what assistance the EDA gave to them. I would be curious. I am also going to ask around to see what assistance the EDA provided while Just Food was in the incubation stage of its development.

As in all things… I guess I have to remember, that not everything is fair, and not everything is equal.

Not all EDA assistance needs to be monetary…

I think we can all agree that bringing new businesses to Northfield is a good thing, but I think I share in everyones concerns that you do not impact the existing businesses to get them here. The only way to keep it fair is to provide everyone the same benefit, and if you did not provide it to the first of its kind business in town, then you should not provide it to the new competitor of that type. But in doing so, you limit who the EDA can help…

Tough quandary this is… time to ponder further.

The City of Northfield Economic Development Authority (EDA), created in 1991, seeks to improve the economic condition of Northfield. Focusing on appropriate commercial and industrial development, the EDA works to establish a higher tax base and additional job opportunities for the citizens of Northfield. The EDA provides resources and tools, including loans and grants, to support this kind of development.

My question… who gets to define the word “appropriate” in that statement above?

What the interesting item is to ponder is… What does Mr. Strietz know that we do not?

It appears that he had done the due diligence, and a market study was done. It came back being “on the line”, so I can see why he is looking to open at 50% capacity.

What I am trying to rationalize in my head, is a $1.9 million dollar investment to open the doors, with about 65 students at 50% capacity.

I have to think about the numbers a bit… but the ROI and ROE to profitability has to be out there a few years. The $1.9 million is just ground and facilities… There will be additional start up costs, that will take significant time to recoup.

Also, what is the standard child to staff ratio at a similar facility? Can a staff of 10 handle 65 children? (50%)

I will have to ponder this further, but, as a smart businessman, I am sure his plan is viable, or he wouldn’t be pursuing it.

I am not judging at all. I just like doing the analysis. It is a fun diversion.

I am all for new business. If they think it is viable, I say GO FOR IT!

What on earth is the point of economic development? Doesn’t “development” imply some ADDED thing? How is it a meaningful addition if it just takes away other jobs? Yes, I’m sure Streitz is a smart guy who believes he can make money on this, and have at it, Mr. Streitz. But don’t ask for my tax dollars. Clearly, if you’ve got 150,000 to throw at this franchise, you don’t need my money. And i’ll give it any day to the struggling local daycare which has been EDUCATING kids for years on pennies and love. Not for profit.

The field should be level and the EDA should not play favorites. And, we have to acknowledge that if a new business will displace other businesses, it is less clear that the net impact will be positive.

It is not absolutely clear that it will be neutral or negative, just less clear that it will be positive and the EDA should be able to justify un-leveling the playing field in such a case.

This is silly. Economic Development is to encourage business growth, and it should be a level playing field.

IF a new business wants to come to town, and it needs help, the EDA should assist, regardless of what it is. The EDA should have no bias, and be there for all comers, regardless of whether or not it is another pizza place, or a for profit school.

It is important to remember that this is a for profit, tuition based school, and is a business. It will either succeed or fail. But, it brings jobs and helps the economic base. It should be given a fair shot.

To handicap the EDA by saying it can only help certain new businesses, and only ones that will not directly compete with existing businesses will limit economic growth, and limit the effectiveness of the EDA.

I see two choices for the EDA:
1. Help everyone, without bias… or
2. Close the EDA, and let everyone fend for themselves.

To do option #2, would be a disservice to the community.

Just my $0.02… and I think that Mr. Strietz is a pretty shrewd businessman. He wouldn’t be doing it unless he thought it would fly.

Also, look deeper… This is NOT a daycare.

I remember when a daycare in the Ice Arena area had to close some years ago, right about the time a new one at NCRC was coming in. People were in tears, such a sad story.

“Streitz, former mayor of Dundas, said he would plan on returning to the EDA in the future to ask what the city can do to help finance the endeavor.”

Hope it didn’t come across as my advocating for such financing.