Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:08:10 -0600

Subject: Additions to Letter

From: "Carol DeProsse"

To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],

 [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],

 [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]

Nick Johnson has suggested some additions to the letter. I believe they add strength to our arguments. Clara suggested taking out our alternative project "prairie restoration" with the idea that they could propose some remnants of our scheme and say they met our objections. I agree with her suggestion and have deleted the related sentences. All the rest stays the same with the exception of the following copy per Nick. Opinions? Carol

There are so many risks inherent in a project of this magnitude that it is inconceivable for any public money to be contributed to its construction and operation.  Following are only a few points of issue:

1. Unless the bankruptcy laws are repealed private investors would walk away from the project unscathed if the project fails. No one can accurately predict the future, but hard times will come again just as surely as the world's rainforests get robbed of their plant and animal life to be transplanted into alien structures on foreign soil. And if the project fails, what then? All that would remain would be a decaying artificial tropical rainforest, an empty hotel, and a school struggling to survive on a piece of depleted land located at the intersection of major interstates.

2. If, as stated by Mr. Townsend, that there have been three or four economic analyses that demonstrate the project's economic health to such a degree that investors will be repaid in seven years, why is any public money being utilized? All the risk should be on the backs of private investors and no public dollars should be used speculatively for a project of this magnitude.

3. What kind of monitoring will there be of backers' profits? Is there provision for any of them to be returned to the state or local community?

4. What is the administrative/governance model of Iowa CHILD? Where does the ultimate decision-making power reside? With the owners? With some public body? These are matters of legal right, not matters of grace. The owners would be fools not to ask for some input from educators, as they have already done. That's a matter of grace. The issue, however, is what if the educators and the owners don't agree on the design of the school, or the presence of displays questioning the corporate destruction of the real rain forests, or the methodology to be used to teach children or instruct teachers as how to teach? Who will have the power to make such decisions over the objections of all others interested in the project and who have an investment in it by the use of public monies?

5. What private financial benefits flow from this project to local citizen support, sometimes referred to as "rent-a-citizen"? Who stands to benefit from the development of the adjacent land? Has anyone been paid a consultant fee, or been put on a board that provides expenses or other compensation, given a trip or other perk, stock ownership, etc.

6. What is the total public bill for this project? Not dribs and drabs, but the total cost of additional roads, sewers, tax forgiveness, in addition to the gifts of cash and land? Is there any provision at all, with or without interest, for a repayment of any of these public expenses for private profit, or are they all, in fact, a gift?

We support the use of Vision Iowa funds to be used in accordance with the spirit and letter of the enabling legislation, something Iowa CHILD does not do. This project should not be approved by the Board of Directors of Iowa Vision.

Sincerely,