|
Agreed, Carol.
Put
the city park lands into a public trust to preserve them in perpetuity-- thus
eliminating any potential for land swaps or sales in the future for various
unforeseen political purposes. Eliminate the administrative and
operational redundancy associated with the Park Board (i.e. duplicate street
crews, garbage collection, police, information technology, personnel functions,
etc.) and roll those functions into existing City agencies/departments.
Sell the City-owned golf course located in St. Louis Park (solicit proposals),
and solicit competitive proposals seeking multi-year contract(s) for the
operation and maintenance services for other City-owned golf
courses.
The
City could then subcontract with MPS Community Education programs and
the 'Y' (as examples) to deliver appropriate park programming for
pre-schoolers, K-12 youth, young adults, families and elders in
our communities, using both public school and park facilities. Year-around
early childhood, after-school and summertime, life-long learning and
recreational opportunities targeting all residents citywide-- delivered more
efficiently, with less bureaucratic red tape, more direct
accountability and lower cost to the taxpayer.
Eliminate the redundancy and streamline public service delivery. I
suggest the City and Park Board jointly perform a timely cost-benefit study of
such a reorganization (i.e. a 3 month effort). Simultaneously, the
City should contract for completion of a independent study and
evaluation (with recommendations), regarding the net costs and service delivery
efficacy associated with such a reorganization of City-Park Board functions,
including the implementation strategies and timelines.
Given
the separate 'organizational structure and political entity' legal status
of the City and the Park Board, is this something the Charter Commission
should be examining as part of its current study... along with strong mayor type
issues, etc.
Any
Park Board candidates running on a 'eliminate the Park Board' theme?
Michael Hohmann
13th
Ward
I think that an alternative solution to making
the Park Board full time would be to substantially reduce its duties or
eliminate it completely and have the City oversee the parks
The Park Board was borne out of a desire to
create a board that would set different policy from the City Council and we
still live with that today. In many ways, we have two cities with two
sets of departments. We have two sets of police
departments. Two street planning departments. Two garbage
collection departments. Two information technology departments.
Two benefits offices. The list goes on. And this duplication is
costly. And we live with even more subtle consequences like parkways
that have fallen apart because the Park Board staff chose to build them to
lower standards than other city streets and confusion at crime scenes because
you have two sets of police officers reporting up two different chains of
command.
Minneapolis loves its parks. But I think
the need for an independent Park Board with a host of duplicative functions is
something that bears questioning.
Carol Becker
Longfellow
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:19
PM
Subject: [Mpls] re: Let's have some
park, school, and library board chatter!
Hello
Mpls Issues,
I
would like to respectfully respond to the question about the infighting and
rifts at the Park Board.
I
have heard and seen some of what is being referred to. I think part of
the problem is that some of those folks have been there for a looooooong
time and think that their seniority somehow dictates that decorum and
decency no longer hold sway. I think differently. I also think
an infusion of new blood (mine!) will be good for what ails the Park
Board.
Here's
why:
I
respect the voices of those who have served the park board for a long
time. I'm sure many of their constituents thank them for their
service. I think, however, there is a new constituency out there who
wants to see the Parks and established programs maintained, but who would
like to see water quality improved, pedestrian (and cyclist and stoller and
doggie) safety increased, and see the Park Board move away from politics of
"EITHER - OR" and begin to adopt a policy of "AND."
Example One:
There is this notion out there that if one is for increased or enhanced
green space (ie fewer chemicals in use, sustainable forestry methods,
invasive species removal, shoreline preservation) that one is somehow
against children (and playgrounds, t-fall fields, sliding hills, and the
community that surrounds such activities/amenities). Absurd.
Also: the notion exists that if one is in support of, say, off-leash
dog sites that one is against children. Doubly absurd.
This
notion that the parks' primary participants are families with
children only partly reflects our city's citizenry. Some of the
current park commissioners will fight (as I understand it) tooth and nail to
make sure that t-ball fields and basketball courts remain and are added
wherever empty space exists. I support organized athletics-- I played
t-ball, softball, football, broomball, and ice-hockey growing up and coached
high school girls' fast pitch softball. But kids in the age group of 8
to 13 are not our only, nor main, group of folks in need of park space and
programs. What about seniors? What about new immigrants?
What about singles? Dog owners? Disabled folks?
Teenagers? Families without children, or who have children who do not
participate in organized athletics?
What
I'm saying is that we need to look at our citizenry as a WHOLE, and be
INCLUSIVE whenever possible. As elected park officials, it is
their (my) obligation to represent EVERYONE. The current Park Board
seems to turn a deaf ear to many who are actively and vocally calling for
new amenities, new policies, new practices, a new
philosophy.
It
will be an uphill battle, and sometimes it's easier to pick and fight than
it is to make hard decisions and work for those who elected you. If I
make it to the Park Board, it will be my honor to think OUTSIDE OF THE
CURRENT BOX and work to make sure many voices are heard, not just the
bickering inside the Park Board.
Tracy
Nordstrom
Candidate for Park
Commissioner, District 6
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ECCO
- Ward 10
----------------------------------------
Tracy
Nordstrom for Parks!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
612.386.6257
|
