Allow me to use R.T. Rybak�s query about the lack of a Park Board referendum
to segue to a discussion of the Park Board in its current form. Why, with
all the previous discussion of the charter reform, has no one brought up the
Park Board?
Last night�s WCCO piece on the delayed openings of the dog parks in
Minneapolis is one more example of how the current system does not work.
The park board was allotted $100,000 to open these sites in 2000. M-ROMP,
the group supposedly working in partnership with the Park Board on this
project, has been treated more like adversaries than like partners, has
been kept out of design plan meetings and basically has been relegated to
the role of watchdog group for the Park Board on this project. This task is
darn near impossible given the fact that the commissioners are part time
employees, so the lion�s share of the work is given over to the staff who
are accountable to no one. To see Mary Merrill-Anderson, the
superintendent of said staff, giving out completely false information on a
news piece was the last straw. The system as it exists now, with part time
commissioners, some of whom hide behind staff efforts (or lack thereof),
knowing full well that the staff have no constituents, does not work. The
vast majority of the people who have worked with the Park Board and staff
have come away frustrated and disgusted.
I would have loved a chance to vote on whether or not to give the Park Board
10.4 million dollars over the next four years. Given that on this project
alone, countless hours of staff and volunteer time, thus your tax dollars,
have been wasted on excessive and ineffective process (with no end in
sight), my vote would have been a resounding NO.
Beth Popalisky
East Harriet Farmstead Neighborhood
>From: "R.T.Rybak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: re: Referendum
>Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:22:55 -0500
>
>Wally Swan's letter really nailed many of the issues facing city
>spending...but the real question we have to ask is: Should the library have
>to pay for the questionable financing schemes for other types of projects?
>
>Stop for a second and think about what the library represents....as a
>library itself and also as the one common space for everyone.
>
> Minneapolis, like so many other cities, has gone though an alarming
>period
>of privatized public space. The common places where people can gather are
>more and more shopping malls, office building atriums and other spaces
>where
>private security guards control who is "welcome" and who is not.
>
>Meanwhile, the one major common facility we have---the library---is
>woefully
>out of date with almost 9 out of every 10 books in the collection hidden
>away. No matter what happens with the referendum, millions will have to be
>spent on basic repair of a building from the "Ozzie and Harriet" period
>that
>is struggling to compete in the age of George Jetson.
>
>I have felt for many years that a new central library was the top priority
>for downtown Minneapolis, far more important than shopping malls or
>entertainment centers or stadiums or light rail. In a city that is still
>far too often segregated into groups on their own turf, this would be the
>one place that belongs to everyone, for the best of reasons. Common ground
>that gives EVERY person in the city a level playing field to broaden
>themselves.
>
>Over the years there has been some really innovative thinking about what
>this new library could be as a people place, a technology center, as well
>as
>what we think of as a traditional library. I've been on a couple of these
>committees and have come away recognizing that this project would be
>something dramatically beyond anything we now have. The referendum
>committee has really no money to make this case which is a shame because
>when people begin to understand this whole plan it's clear to me that this
>is something we can get truly excited about as a great civic project.
>
>I have to agree with Tim Connolly that my first impression of the community
>library part of this plan was that it was a cynical ploy to get
>neighborhood
>support for a library. But when you really go through this piece by piece
>it's possibly the best part of this plan. Some of it is for dramatic
>change, i.e.. a new library in the Grain Belt brewery, and some is for
>needed change, i.e. handicap access at Roosevelt. But when I got into the
>details it's very good stuff, and very necessary. Anyone who has been in
>the
>Hossmer Library, especially the technology center that gives universal
>access to many people who could never otherwise be part of the Internet,
>can
>see what a great community library can do for a community. So I've really
>come around on the community part of this referendum.
>
>I could go on and on about the upside of all this but the financial part is
>really problematic. As Wally Swan points out, this project is coming on at
>a time when the overall city spending patterns seem clearly out of line.
>So
>we face a situation where we can have votes on a series of extremely
>expensive development projects that are of highly questionable
>value....raising all sorts of justified anxiety among voters....but the
>only
>project that has to face the electorate is the library. It's especially
>troubling that the library is being put in this position while the Park
>Board was just given the money it would have sought in a referendum in the
>Mayor's budget. As someone who has coached a lot of teams I can say the
>parks have very pressing needs, but why couldn't the voters choose?
>
>I come out of all this pretty confused about how to vote on the library
>referendum. I feel very strongly about the library so I will vote yes. As
>Swan and others make very good points about the city's questionable
>financial situation, I don't blame people who vote no.
>
>But I think it is extremely important we don't come out of this period
>thinking that the city does not need a new library. It is a serious need
>and if we don't build it this will be a serious missed opportunity. It's
>just a shame that we spend so much time and money making other less
>important projects go that it has jeopardized the one we have needed for a
>long time.
>
>If you compared all this to family dynamics, the library is the ninth kid
>in
>the family who never gets to use the car because his eight older brothers
>got Dais.
>
>Not really fair.
>
>R.T. Rybak
>Washburn Library user
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
