Own Record Indicts

Mr. Aho is responsible for his own reputation. His own record indicts him.

Neal is also culpable; but, he's a hired hand; Neal had to retract his letter because the public was so outraged; Aho supported that letter, supported the city lobbying for federal funding. Neal does not act alone, he follows the direction of the council leadership, that would be Phil Young and the council majority, of which Brad Aho is a member.

FUNDING THE EXPANSION IS NOT PART OF THE CITY'S OBLIGATION IN THE AGREEMENT.

Brad took a "co-leadership role" in supporting Phil Young to lobby on behalf of MAC, to write, to deliver the letter...

Aho played a supportive role in the "change in direction," and there is NO DOUBT that under Phil Young the city and council took a drastic step toward fulfilling the eventual completion of the project; this was against public sentiment; it was against the PURPOSE of coming to terms with MAC. Those terms did NOT include lobbying for them.

Brad Aho has already indicted himself by feigning accomplishments that he had absolutely no hand in.

In the Tax Mailer, (if that's what you're talking about,) he used different numbers than Mr. Case. Case'e numbers are from the Eden Prairie City Assessor's Office and they represent an aggregate. Case's numbers are further substantiated by a response that Scott Neal gave for the benefit of the Tax Alliance when they supported Phil over Ron. At that time Neal defended the city budget and the prop taxes as being in line with other like communities. Essentially Neal was defending Case's tax position, because Case had been there for 11 years and he was part of the record.

So, if you look at Case's 11 yrs and his tax aggregate comp and compare it to Aho's 3 years, Ron's is 4.1% and Brad's is 5.8%

What's notable is that Brad had to rush out and produce a mailer in one week to debunk Case'e ad. What does that tell you? Aho is a one issue guy. He's also a very desperate candidate. His need to win is evidenced by his final letter in the EPN. Compare it to Case's letter. Brad's self-interest is winning. Ron's is to have the best result for the city. While Brad rises and falls on that one issue, taxes, Ron is a man for all reasons and seasons. Brad even took credit for EP's recent QOL ranking based on his budgeting. Eden Prairie's rankings are attributable to decades of good planning, development, recreational space, living options that have nada to do with Brad Aho's tax mantra.

Aho has not worked on behalf of seniors and immigrants; he has not listened to his constituents on the importance of maintaining critical services and he has not responded well to resident's complaints about impacts from the airport.

He has shown that he comes unprepared for meetings and consistently stalls and needs more information on issues that other council members are more prepared to deal with.

Aho has proved himself to be someone who's political ties alienate him from half of his constituents.

It is the Republican Party's endorsements and these endorsed candidate's themselves who brought divisive politics into Eden Prairie.

Remember, Jeanne Harris was a Republican. Everyone loved her, Dem and Repub alike. She did not bring politics into city governance.

And it was Jeanne who held open meetings with the public in coming to a decision about how to approach dealing with MAC. Ultimately the city chose to follow the PUBLIC view and hire a lawyer and get a legal document.

It was something no one who experienced it will ever forget. It was the most Democratic display of city government working with the public to advance the best interests of the city.

This amazing display of how government can represent the will of the people certainly has not been duplicated by the current council leadership, which includes Aho.

Ron Case was on the Council until December of 2006. Why do you talk about 11 years? Why do you refuse to look at the truth regarding which councils voted for which budgets? Case's piece was the most deceptive I have ever seen in a local election! He blamed others for the budgets that he himself voted for! Case thought he could fool everyone -- why in the world do you admire that?

In December 2005, the 2006 and 2007 budgets were approved. Read the minutes. Ron Case and the old majority were on the Council at that time.

In Dec 2007, Brad Aho and the new majority approved budgets for 2008 and 2009.

Those are the facts.

It is obvious that Brad Aho only put out a flyer in response to Ron Case's deceptive flyer in order to correct the record. Mr. Aho's first mailer was all positive. He is a gracious, respectful, smart councilman, who works well with everyone. The record of his 4 years on Council is tremendous - and he gives credit to everyone working together.

Fact-checker -- you are equally wrong about your accusation that Brad Aho had anything to do with the letter. You know what you are saying is false. Mr. Aho had nothing to do with it and never saw it. He was not part of that delegation. Scott Neal's commentary made clear that the advertisement against him was malicious and slander. You should be ashamed for trying to propogate this lie.

So, my only question to you is, why are you so hate-filled and bigoted against him? Check your facts, Checker. You are wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

Blind Truth?

I hope you get the oxymoron...

Facts can be wrong, they can never be hateful.

Congrats Aho, Paulsen and Bachmann. You ran clean and organized campaigns and the numbers bear that out.

Mr. Smith Goes To D.C.?

Smith, James Stewart, was the head of the Boys Rangers, a ficticious group, named for the Boy Scouts, who refused to give the use of their name in the 1942 flick, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

Smith was a pretty innocent guy whose altruism and inexperience almost lead him to his political ruination. (Paulsen could not be characterized as either.) Unlike Smith, Paulsen has a specific political agenda. Will he become part of the opposition or will he cross over party lines to make legislation that helps Americans? He didn't do it here in MN.

Ironically, the film is about whistleblowers; thus it was banned in Europe and in theaters across the U.S.

Paulsen represents a clearly divided district.

He is no Mr. Smith.

It was interesting in how that was presented:

"CASE WINS 14,814 to Aho's 14,916"

An honest person might post this:

"Aho, Case win. Aho gets the most Votes".

This is a perfect example of how edenprairiefactchecker spins things. Throw out a few misleading words and hope people don't actually read it or check the facts. These misleading tactics are par for the course. It's typical of Ron Case and his supporters.

So who is going to hold Case to his newly, deceptive slogan of "the low tax guy"?

I had a good chuckle when I saw those stickers placed on his signage over this past weekend. Just proves that he will stop at nothing to get back on the council and try to regain his status of "Mr. Eden Prairie" - placing himself before the community AGAIN!

Note: Definition of "stopping at nothing" = LIE!

Farcechecker, Your statement and I quote; "Though Aho and Case now seem to agree" is inaccurate. Aho and Case are polar opposites! Case = higher taxes, Aho = fiscal responsibility while maintaining community appeal and quality of life. Case did not shift his stance. You'll again see his true colors now that he's back.

Regarding the last minute tax mailer, Aho was stating facts while Case's numbers were "stuffed". Did you ever inquire if Case's numbers backed out County and school taxes? Probably not. And you call you self the "fact checker", shame on you!

Protest Too Much

The election is over and you're all still trying to clear Aho's name??

It's clear enough that none of have checked out the minutes to see the discrepancies between what Aho does and says.

That's your perrogative.

It's one thing to write disparaging remarks based on innuendo and another to use the city minutes to reveal Brad has claimed leadership roles where none existed.

Hopefully you are not voting on the basis of personality or party affiliation.

I think if you check in with the city manager, you will find that Case won 3/4 of Eden Prairie's districts, Republican areas, where the airport issue is key.

That was more than both Brad and Sherry.

I think you'll also find that public pressue may have won out in keeping the Dunn Bros Coffee house and use of the SDM House, as is.
This is how it should be: "government is us, not them."

That's the huge MISTAKE the current council majority has made: they are not listening to their constituents, until they are hit where it hurts most, by petitions with 400 signees, a reminder that first and foremost, government should echo residents.

Another reminder that they have let down seniors, immigrants, residents who gather, airport neighbors and on...

Look at the record.

Case misrepresented his own record, and Aho's. Case's ad was deceptive. To the extent that it swayed people away from voting for Butcher or for Aho, that is truly unfortunate. One will always wonder how many votes Case would have received if he had run an honest campaign.

As pointed out, Case misrepresented his role regarding taxes and the Airport Expansion / 2002 Agreement that takes away the City's rights to ever oppose lengthening the runways.

Funny how those most opposed to the airport expansion are the first to defend spending a million tax payer dollars in legal services for the 2002 Agreement. I think that was a waste of taxpayer money and those involved were motivated by self-interest. I'd also like to know who picked the law firm that got the majority of the money and why. And what was it that they said? That the city can't stop the expansion. Hmmmm. Most people knew that for free. . .

What is it that we got for our million dollars in legal services, that the city could not have received negotiating on its own?

Also, the argument makes no sense. If the runways were never going to be lengthened, then why did the City spend a million dollars negotiating an agreement with the MAC? And if the runways were going to be lengthened, and so that justifies spending a million dollars in legal services to get whatever was received in the Agreement, why is anyone now 'shocked' to see that the runways are being lengthened according to the Agreement?

When the Zero Expansion group was celebrating that Agreement that allows the lengthening of the runways and forfeits all future legal rights of the City from opposing it -- when did they think the expansion would take place? 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? 2006? 2007? Never? Did they really believe that the MAC would never, ever get the funding to lengthen the runways, or that it wouldn't happen in their life-times? Really? No. Signing that Agreement made the lengthening of the runways inevitable - and Case authorized that Agreement, not Aho.

The airport was created in 1941. Most people living near the airport today, knew it existed at the time they purchased their home. In 1966, it was ranked the second busiest airport in the Central US, behind O'Hare. In 1968 it was the ninth busiest airport in the entire nation, w/ over 446,000 takeoffs and landings. In 2007, the airport had only 117,000 takeoff/landings. That means that in the past 4 decades, the airport's use has been substantially decreased by almost 74%.

MAC controls the airport, and at the end of the day, longer runways save lives and we can all agree on that positive safety advantage.

Everyone on the Council has been working within the 2002 Agreement to ensure that the City receives whatever benefits the Agreement provides. There is no controversy regarding that. Case made false allegations against members of this Council regarding the expansion and its funding. A false, malicious ad was then placed in the paper to smear Aho in an attempt to interfer with his re-election bid. The City Manager responded to it in a thoughtful and oustanding Commentary, completely dispelling these false allegations.

However, Case's deceptive ad implied that he can somehow "stop airport expansion" (contrary to what the paper quotes him as saying in your comment above, Stark) which may have swayed many voters.

It is truly unfortunate that Case's use of this deceptive ad may have provided the leverage to oust Butcher from her seat. Although Aho and Butcher provided differing views and positions, they treated each other with respect and in a gracious professional manner. I have very much appreciated these past two years of the Council's discourse under the leadership of Mayor Young. Sherry will be missed.

Aho did not spend $30,000 on his campaign. His campaign reports to date show expenditures of around $3 Thousand - not $30 Thousand.

Another financial report will be filed with the City tomorrow, and it will probably show that a substantial amount of money was spent in order to campaign to Eden Prairie's 65,000 residents in its 36 square miles.

Unfortunately, Aho was forced to spend additional funds in order to respond to the false, deceptive and malicious ads of one opponent, in order to protect his good name and reputation.

He did so successfully, and fortunately, the truth prevailed and Mr. Aho received the most votes. He deserved to.

Mr. Aho's Treasurer has confirmed that Aho's campaign did not spend $30,000. Fact Checker's malice towards Mr. Aho is obvious and offensive, and I have submitted a complaint to the EP News regarding this.

Unfortunately, Lenin may have been right when he said 'a lie told often enough becomes the truth' - at least in terms of some people's perception. . . It is impossible to un-ring a bell, and that is why false information is so damaging and why we have laws designed to protect us against defamation. Even the Bible ranks 'gossip' with 'murder.' Rom 1:29.

If anyone has a criticism of a vote Mr. Aho has made or a view he has expressed, that is fair game. However, it is unethical to print false information in an attempt to damage someone's reputation.

I have found Mr. Aho to be among the most gracious and well-respected elected officials in our State. He is happy to meet with all residents regarding any concerns they may have. He opens his home to all, his home phone, email, etc. He is the most accessible official that I know. He is modest, respectful, smart and hard-working for the residents of Eden Prairie. As the only engineer on the Council, and with his business experience, his perspective has served us well.

Brad Aho has proven that he has given us his very best effort. We can ask for nothing more, and we expect nothing less. . .

Running as "Fiscal Conservative?"

A question mark says a lot. The figures were highlighted by a question mark (?)

Regardless, it's clear that AHO had more exposure, more ads, out spent everyone.

It may not have be disclosed because he could have used more personal contributions than anyone.

More ads and media do not equate to less money spent.

In order to win, everyone, who attempts to run for local office will be forced to compete with lots of money.

That's not "fiscally conservative." Remember AHO has attached himself to that describer more than his opponents.

Where's the parity? How can folks run, worthy candidates, who don't have a party pedigree and are not able to raise those kinds of dollar amounts?

This is the point. The rest of the garbage here is pure innuendo and personal attacks.

Buying City Hall?

In looking at 2010, how will that election proceed? How much money will be spent?

We've already had a contentious election in 2006, when Phil Young dismissed the tactics of the now active-again Tax Alliance and accepted that they thought he was the better candidate..so not only did he have Republican backing, he had the first time backing of an obviously politically conservative pac whose roots are in grassroots organizing for the tobacco industry.

The problem for Phil and others like him is the Tax Alliance now thinks that Phil and the rest of the Republican majority are spending too much. Ironic. (The point being the Tax Alliance has shown that they are not happy with the results of the budgeting process. They have asked for a freeze, when spending will be reduced anyway by virtue of national, state and county impacts.)

It is clear, Republicans want to control the council. Interesting, because they don't want anyone else too. Is that parity?

But, the election proved that the public wants to see parity by electing Ron Case. Rather than his airport credentials and long service to the community, Case represents CHANGE, in the scheme of the current council's makeup.

His victory, more than anything else, is that the community may be clamouring for a way back to how things were.

The only thing contentious about the previous council was that Phil Young voted against the council majority more than he voted with them.

That showed a split, a disunity the city had not seen before. Obviously Phil has his supporters, but so does Case. Herein lies the division. (It's clear from Nelson and Butcher's votes, minority votes on the current council.)

Not so unusual. Not so terrible if we can find a way to create more parity. Replacing Case and loosing Butcher still leaves the council unbalanced.

I can't imagine campaign 2010's candidates' expenditures. It's incongruous to think we have a council majority who touts frugalness and then one of them goes out and campaigns with 4 page color flyers, 1st class mailings, lots of web banner exposure and Republican dollars and endorsements to boot and claims to be a "fiscal conservative."

It sends out a mixed message to most people who are really watching and listening. Hopefully more people will do that.

If on a local level we base our council seats on dollars spent, than we are wasting an opportunity to have a truly representative council made up of a diverse socio-economic group.

We have a growing immigrant population who should have voice on the council; we have a growing senior population who should be represented by age, not party affiliation.

Parity is not three endorsed Republicans leading a city council by swaying the vote on every single issue. That will be the cause for 2010.

One could say 2008 was not a good year for the Republican majority because in the final anaylsis they had to be petitioned to finally heed public sentiment and they ran up against airport neighbors in 2007 because of their "CHANGE" in direction from one of neutrality to one of outright support and lobbying efforts on behalf of MAC.

To understand the Final Agreement's purpose, which none of you have shown, it sums up this way:

1. The Final Agreement allows the city to legally respond to MAC on issues related to it. Without it, the city would have no recourse.
2. Zero Expansion never saw the complete agreement when the city asked them to support it. But from Zero's point-of-view it was that or nothing. Nothing is never a good choice.
3. The only thing the public has is the political will to effect an outcome. This was exemplified by the petition sent around to keep Dunn as is with current owner and use and now the petition to limit Krull's contract.

2010 should be about creating a neutral council evenly divided so they all have to work to resolve issues, not by a majority vote, but by a consensus vote.

Phone Home Truth

You've lost your way in the truth department.

The ad you are referring to was factual. It contained three quotes. Two proved that the city was not truthful about "changing" their position toward the expansion from one of neutrality to one of support. Read the emails: Anderson asked Neal to tell Jim Ramstad, that the city now supports the expansion. I can't imagine that ever happening under the leadership of Nancy Tyra-Lukens. The second quote showed what is historically correct, Aho supported the "change" and Scott Neal's' initial letter lobbying for federal funds for the airport.

Nothing at all misleading or factually incorrect about it.

Let's not forget that NEAL retracted that letter under public pressure.

The only thing false was Brad Aho's response ad which obfuscated his involvement in the "change" on the council from one of neutrality to one of support. Why, because his retort was totally off-topic and did not respond to the points made by the ad which is that Aho supported Neal's letter asking for federal funds to expand the airport. That's a huge change in support of the expansion.

Supporting the Final Agreement and upholding its tenents has nothing to do with actively lobbying on behalf of MAC. That action is outside of the realm of responsibility. The agreement only requires the city or its officals not to actively work against the expansion.
QUITE A DIFFERENCE. So lobbying on the expansion's behalf does not violate the agreement. But, it violates the public trust. And that's probably one of the reasons why Case was elected.

Why would Aho not come out and clarify that point for the public? Why? Because it's the line Young and Aho have continuously used to muddy the public understanding of their "Changed" approach to the airport expansion.

The Final Agreement is supported by all, including Zero Expansion and Ron Case. But, the agreement has nothing to do with actions the city has taken to actually make the 5,000 ft runway a reality. That happened under the leadership of Young and Aho and their support for funding the expansion. Neal is a hired employee; he does not change or set policy.

The money wasn't there and hasn't been there and it wasn't until after the Chamber meeting in March 2007 with MAC, Young, city officials where MAC asked for help to get the funding, what followed the next day, was the Neal email to Anderson saying the city would support the expansion and funding for it.

No one was falsely maligned by the ad. The ad contained verifiable emails between Neal and Anderson, and a statement made by Aho himself.

Though the truth is out there in the emails and statements, actions made, Young, Neal and Aho continue to deny it. The public was and has been deceived.

As to personal contributions, my understanding is they are not included in the tally. This issue is far from being resolved, the numbers have to be looked at.

Wrong again, FactChecker. There were two false and deceptive hit pieces against Aho: the one put out by a group regarding the Airport that you mention, and the mailer sent out by the Case campaign in which he compared an 11-year budget record (instead of his 12-yr record) and tried to blame Aho for budgets in 2006 and 2007 which Case and the old majority voted on. Case also stated on the front of that mailer that he was "against Airport expansion" - even though he is the one who authorized the 2002 Agreement that made the lengthening of the runways inevitable.

Aho and the new majority are responsible for the budgets in 2008 and 2009, and Aho and the new majority were not part of the 2002 Council that signed the Agreement with the MAC nor did they go to Washington in 2007.

Aho defended himself against both with the truth.

As for the airport expansion issue, Aho has clearly stated that there was NO CHANGE in the city's position regarding the expansion. Aho has clearly stated that he NEVER lobbied or even spoke with any local, state or federal official(s) regarding the expansion of the airport. He DID NOT lobby for it. Your continued accusations are false, FactChecker, and I am going to issue another complaint with EP News that you are continuing to publish false information against Aho.

Scott Neal's Commentary that was published in this paper set the record straight on this issue. I encourage all readers to read it on www.bradaho.com (under Issues) or on this paper's website.

Again, FactChecker is trying to operate under Lenin's premise that "a lie told often enough becomes the truth" in trying to blame Aho for the expansion of the runways. It is not the truth, and no matter how many times you try to blame him, it will never become the truth. I hope that Aho takes whatever action is necessary to stop this perpetration of lies about him.

Perhaps Zero Expansion and Case are happy with the 2002 Agreement that authorizes the expansion of the runways and takes away all the city's rights to ever oppose it. I am not.

So here is the bottom line: If the runways were NEVER going to be lengthened, why did the City spend a MILLION DOLLARS in obtaining an Agreement with the MAC? And, if the runways were going to be lengthened, and so the City was 'justified' in spending a Million Dollars for an Agreement that authorizes the lengthening of the runways, why are you now 'shocked' to see that the MAC is doing it?! It was only a matter of time before the MAC would lengthen the runways -- and the clock started ticking in 2002.

How could the airport have had "cargo and worse yet Fedex or other shippers" if the runways were never going to be lengthened/expanded by the MAC?

If the City could stop the MAC from ever being funded, then it is an impotent entity. If that is true, we didn't need the 2002 Agreement...

And, if we never wanted the runways lengthened at the airport, we should have put that in the 2002 Agreement. If the MAC wouldn't agree to that, then we needed to make a decision - either we agreed that the MAC has the power to do what they want and we go along, or we don't believe they have the power and we reserve our rights to take them to Court. There is no alternative.

I'm afraid you have this backwards, though -- the 2002 Agreement does not give us the 'right' to sue the MAC if they breach anything, it forfeits all our rights to sue them forever. We always had had the right to sue the MAC until we signed the 2002 Agreement that gave up all rights to oppose the expansion.

The bottom line is this: if you didn't want the airport to ever be expanded, then you should have fought like hell to preserve our rights to oppose the MAC legally, in the Courts, in the future. That is the only possible course of action.

Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan sued the MAC in 2007 and got a great settlement agreement for their residents. . . They received a $127.6 Million Dollar settlement for noise mitigation for their residents...

What you were told in 2002 - after spending a Million Dollars in legal fees - is that you cannot stop the MAC from exanding the runways, so you had better work with them. And you did.

But again, if you really believed that you had the power to control the MAC's funding, then there was no reason to spend the Million Dollars for an Agreement that signed away our rights. We gained too little and gave up too much in my opinion. . .

You celebrated it then. Had we not signed the 2002 Agreement, we could have left our options open and could have sued the MAC as necessary to obtain whatever we believed was reasonable as new technologies and issues develop.

There is no mention of Aho in any Chamber Minutes or in anything that you have mentioned, except below where Aho states that there was no change in the City's position, to which Butcher and Young also agree. Clearly, Aho had nothing to do with this expansion or its funding, despite how you want to blame him for this.

Below is what is included from the Zero Expansion site, from Council minutes, completely dispelling your false accusations:

18. “Those are the things which the council has talked about this year, Young said. “There was no discussion at the council about encouraging or lobbying or spending money to secure federal financing for the runway….We don’t do things behind closed doors. It’s not right. It’s not legal and we certainly haven’t done it on this issue.”
19. Butcher agrees with Young and said there’s been no council action that would suggest that they support the expansion of the airport.
20. Council member Aho agreed that there has not been a change in policy. He said the Memorandum of Understanding still stands and the city supports improvements and sprucing up the facilities.
21. “The thought is put out there that the city is trying to promote the airport expansion, meaning more use, bigger aircraft, longer runways, nosier operations and that is not at all true and it is not helpful,” Aho said.

The truth is, that the MAC is a powerful entity and lobbied the Feds for its own funding and got it. This Council had nothing to do with that, and no City Council who gave up their rights to oppose them, could have done anything (legally) to stop them.

Finally, the First Amendment does not protect someone from defaming or slandering anyone else. Publishing false statements about someone, like you did regarding Aho's Campaign expenditures, is not protected speech. That is why your comment was removed.

Vicki said "We can't make facts up, thank goodness".

What?? If you stopped calling yourself the factchecker, we might believe you.

Question Mark????

The numbers were followed by a question mark. Worse has been posted on the blog and still remains..

But, Aho already threatened the EPN with legal action, just for publishing factual emails; emails which Neal could not refute. Certainly Aho could not refute his own statement. So, the only way to respond was to ATTACK with outrageous remarks that were off the point.

I have never threatened the EPN with a legal action.

Maybe it's politically advantageous to do so, but ethically it's not honest. Neal sent the emails, Brad Aho made the comment.

BTW, I take full responsiblity for putting a question mark at the end of two numerical figures. It is stated in the dictionary and certainly in almost any reference that a question mar