* Shooting ourselves in the foot: How much unrented office space is there in Northfield already? Is this going to become a blighted unfinished industrial park? Are we asking existing capacity to subsidize the very competition that will destroy them (think Target and the downtown).
* Shooting the taxpayers in the foot: How much capacity does the current infrastructure have available to allocate to a new office and industrial park? What is the projected use of those resources?

** Safety center: Emergency services and the problem the rail line already represents for supporting new expansion south of 19 and west of the blocking railline? What is the current response time to StOlaf? Do we already have a problem? Would going north to get across the railroad, then south to get to Armstrong be unsupportable? Malt-O-Meal is almost as far and we have not worried about it (at least not publically).
** Utilities: Sewer treatment, water and electricity/gas. Offices and industrial (at least transmodal sites and warehouses) are usually low consumers of water and sewer. Electricity is magic, we don’t even ASK where it is coming from. And gas, well we don’t have to worry about transiting the Ukraine like Europe does (how’s that for a catchy phrase? “Northfield, where your natural gas does not transit from unstable powers through former satellites!“)

* Protecting our legacy: How much leverage do we have to ensure that the creek is protected? Do we have a temperature-turbidity-phosphorous inventory and can we ensure that the new development will maintain or improve on that situation?

Lots of questions, we can start now to look for the city and the land owner’s answers, and build a good case for or against the annexation. Tom Neuville (when he was a state senator) assured me that just because a city annexes land, they are not promising to deliver services, but it is much easier (I would contend) to leave them rural and avoid the question.

Bring your ideas, we may talk about setting up our very own website for this discussion …

The Great Depression Scare of 2008 suggests that even the most raging free-market types (and I am one) need to reconsider government policies in light of the reality that we are just not willing to let some businesses fail. IF A BUSINESS IS TOO BIG TO FAIL, IT IS TOO BIG TO PLAY CASINO WITH OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. Especially the taxpayers’ money.

Short and medium term speculation does not serve the entrepreneur well, it does not serve Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” that we claim to rely on to solve economic riddles through market forces. And it is Adam Smith’s invisible hand that we are trying to nurture with our free markets, not speculators.