Well I certainly agree after meeting with them on off-leash dog parks this
morning. What a group. They go through a citizen participation process,
promise parks and then when all is said and done we only get two of them,
virtually guaranteeing they will be overrun and a failure.
As to the issue of the land,it can be put in a public trust through charter
so you would never have to worry about any of it being sold off. Then the
duplication in staff can be taken care of by merger. Ms. Becker and I have
had some excellent discussions on this and she has the real info on how much
duplicate spending goes on because of this.
Lisa mcDonald
Tenth Ward Council member
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Batzel [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 2:43 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RE: Park Board-- who needs 'em?
>
> Re: Park Board.
>
> This is as good a subject as any to make a first posting to the list. It
> has
> always been a mystery to me why there needs to be a separate park board
> (and
> park police, and park public works, and .....). It appears to entail a
> significant waste of money and energy. The MPRB does not have a role in my
> perfect local government universe. However, I would not want to scrap the
> Park Board without first placing park lands into some kind of trust. Give
> the Parks DEPARTMENT enough flexibility to respond to changing
> circumstances
> but not the City Council enough to even start thinking about hawking
> lakefront property to the highest bidder one little piece at a time
> if/when
> city government next finds itself in tough financial straights. It would
> be
> a pity to have saved so much shorefront for over a century only to leave
> it
> exposed to even the remote possibility of depredations by desperate
> politicos.
>
> Geoff Batzel
> Ward 10
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 9:05 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Park Board-- who needs 'em?
>
>
> In a message dated 10/18/2000 8:42:23 PM Central Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << This is legitimate recreation and I guarantee you, with 90M dogs
> (compared
> with 45M school aged kids) this has tremendouse public support.
>
> If the Park Board can't get its act together to implement this project
> (which is already approved and funded) this year I'm betting it will
> become
> a significant issue in the 2001 elections.
> >>
>
> Just another log on the fire burning under the Park Board... evidently
> they
> still don't feel the heat, which isn't at all surprising. They have got
> to
> be the most unresponsive, unaccountable and non-productive unit of local
> government in Minneapolis-- the top management/administrative folks
> anyway.
> I expect nearly every neighborhood in Minneapolis that has tried to work
> with
> them in recent years has experienced major frustration, but I don't want
> to
> beat a lame horse... you know what's done with lame horses!
>
> >From a budgetary perspective, how much saving is possible by eliminating
> the
> MPRB and rolling the functions into Public Works? Eliminate all the
> administrative overhead and management layers, and use the annual savings
> to
> reduce current deficits. Keep the needed functions, and get rid of the
> rest.
> Eliminate the duplication of roadway and police overhead, etc. Just
> curious... a priority evaluation, if you will... Any astute city budget
> hawks aware of the savings potential? Vote YES to dogs and a more
> efficient
> local government!
>
> M. Hohmann
> 13th Ward
>
