In a message dated 11/11/2000 11:51:58 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes in part regarding 'a region-wide way...' of paying for 'items of regional significance', like the new downtown library: << And we have a narrowly-defined regional governance structure and because of this, we don't even think of having a regional government address these types of issues. >> Seems county-wide support of a downtown county library would have fit this bill. With a broader-defined regional government and expanded regional government funding would come increased regional government influence and control-- and never underestimate the potential conflicts between regional, county and municipal government. While county and municipal government might welcome the increased 'regional' funds, I don't think they would welcome the increased 'regional' influence and accompanying loss of 'local' control. Witness ongoing discussions over an appointed vs elected Metropolitan Council, and recent unsuccessful efforts by Washington County to preserve rural green space by placing limits on personal property ownership rights. In my experience, more government means more taxes and controls, not less. As much as people hate to admit it, the private sector is the sole-source of all government funding, be it local, municipal, state or federal funds; and is likewise the sole-source of all our public and private sector paychecks and benefits packages. Corporate taxes, personal income and capital gains taxes, personal property taxes, etc., and licenses/fees of all shape and size support the government. And all that tax money comes out of our pockets as individuals and families. Again, there's no free lunch. Lets let business owners and their potential customers take care of development in Minneapolis-- restrict TIF to brownfield cleanup, sewer/gutter/curbs, and utility-like assistance. Forget the $30-40-60 million public subsidies for individual retail developments. M. Hohmann 13th Ward
