Ken says,
> Among the recommended Green Party platform proposals is a
> residency requirement for police. I doubt too many police
> officers can afford to send their kids to any kind of private
> school. Residency in Minneapolis for most of these public
> employees would require them to send their kids to public schools
> in the city. What would cops say if the most prominant city
> employee chooses, in effect, to be exempt from this requirement?
Yes, lets institute/reinstitute residency requirements across the board for
all city employees and see what the result is. Many employees/potential
employees would simply not even consider a job with city government in Mpls.
With a dramatically reduced applicant/selection pool, the quality of city
employees and services would very likely decline, serving no useful purpose.
Restrict all city employees to using only the city's public schools for
their children; that will also do nothing to improve anything. Why should
public employees/elected public servants be restricted when the general
public is not? What is to be gained?
Lets hear candidates talk about policies and programs that will improve the
quality of urban life and the quality of government services and our public
infrastructure in Minneapolis in an affordable manner-- not policies that
restrict individual freedoms simply because some individuals think such
policies are politically correct. We should be seeking policies that make
Minneapolis a more attractive place to live, work and raise a family.
Arbitrary restrictions on personal freedoms will do just the opposite.
Michael Hohmann
13th Ward
http://www2.visi.com/mahco
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> ken avidor
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Mpls] Re:Private schools, Public Issue
>
>
> Responding to David Wilson:
>
> Public Schools unlike religion or food are supported by the
> public purse and any institution that receives public funding is
> and should be subject to public discussion. Whether a person
> chooses to send their kids to a non-religious, elite, private
> school is a personal decision , when that person decides to ask
> the tax-paying citizens of Minneapolis to give him a job that
> requires him to be a booster for the public schools , that
> private matter becomes public.
>
> I also want to point out that for most of us who can't afford a
> $14000 tuition, there's no such thing as "choice".
>
> I thought the Strib article was very good at stating all
> sides of the debate except it only had opinions from the two
> major parties. Saturday, June 2 , R.T. Rybak will be seeking the
> endorsement of the Green Party for Mayor. The Green Party has a
> very strong social justice platform.
>
> Among the recommended Green Party platform proposals is a
> residency requirement for police. I doubt too many police
> officers can afford to send their kids to any kind of private
> school. Residency in Minneapolis for most of these public
> employees would require them to send their kids to public schools
> in the city. What would cops say if the most prominant city
> employee chooses, in effect, to be exempt from this requirement?
>
>
>
>
>
> Ken Avidor
>
> Kingfield
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
> Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> http://e-democracy.org/mpls
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
