Jordan K. argues:
>The critics would do better to address the substantive merits of the
>pamphlet. If the reporting of votes are inaccurate, that should be
>exposed. If the votes were selectively chosen in a manner that misleads
>readers about council member's positions, it is really important for
>someone to provide information about the other votes.
I agree with Jordan. We are losing the forest for the trees. That this has
happened is proof of City for Neighbors' foolishness in not fully disclosing
their size & interests.
That said - and to mix my metaphors - we are throwing the baby out with the
bathwater. Steve Cross is right - these scorecards can be manipulated. BUT
City for Neighbors documented votes on many unarguably huge populist issues
that have come up on Minneapolis-Issues in the past two years: Block E,
Target Store, stadiums, affordable housing, the Guthrie versus Parade
Stadium, etc. (I didn't see the issues Julie Mattson Ostrow mentioned, such
as moving the Shubert Theater, 800 megahertz or remodeling the council
chambers. Is that another group's scorecard?)
I think City for Neighbors has added something very useful to the public
debate. The scorecard is but a snapshot, but it is a detailed and considered
one. We should critique the people doing the snapping, but not fail to look
at the big picture.
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
