In a message dated 12/6/2000 9:47:47 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes in part:
<< ...Neighborhoods DO have the right to allocate their NRP
$ for operational costs pretty much as they wish. However, funding
operations, especially of otherwise mandated municipal services, out of NRP
$$$ is probably not a particularly good idea. It may give some short term
relief to a particular problem, but it just postpones the more basic
debate... >>
Our use of NRP funds to keep public school gyms open was in effect a 'new'
program that couldn't take place without added funding from some source--
hence NRP. Use of NRP funds to get something started can demonstrate an
unmet need and make future funding more likely when compared to the untested
alternative new projects and services so often proposed. Building a new
gymnasium for several million in capital funds plus ongoing operational funds
and loss of green park space was the alternative being proposed.
Taxpayers and voters should take more responsibility for demonstrating the
need for alternative programs, projects and services and helping to establish
priorities for various options on the table at any given point in time-- for
operational budget priorities as well as for capital spending projects. It
takes time and effort however. Do we want our tax dollars (via TIF for
example) supporting large retail, hotels and commercial space downtown or do
we want a new library and extended operating hours downtown and at branches,
and more basic services downtown and in the neighborhoods? Do we want
existing public gymnasiums and computer centers open for extended use by
neighborhood residents? We can't do it all. Where are our priorities as a
community? Who defines our priorities and how our money is spent-- beyond
the Mayor and City Council?
M. Hohmann
13th Ward
