Good show Mayor Rybak. Not only do I approve of your veto of a silly expenditure when we are talking of cutting essential services, but your other suggestions are great. The combining of Police jurisdictions are a great idea.
The combining of park programs with the PAL program is an even better idea. This would include police officers in activities that would insure their enculturation into the Communities. The Park programs in inner-city neighborhoods are problematic at best and the PAL program would help. Many Pal supported programs give direct access to Olympic Trials and give inner-city kids a better chance of participation than traditional "Amateur" programs. We need to save money AND increase services at the same time. Your suggestions, Mayor RT, should be implemented even if you get a lot of "territorialism" from an outdated political entity. One suggestion, look for allies on the City Council and take it to the neighborhoods. I think you will get support there, when neighborhoods realize they deserve better service for their money. We in the inner-city have known that for a long time, of course look at our parks compared to those in "Better" neighborhoods. While the City was getting some National Award for its Parks, there were shoot outs going on at ours. The community identified Peavey and East-Phillips Parks as the "most dangerous places to have an unattended child in the Phillips neighborhood". It is only a glimmer now, so I am not getting overly excited, but I think we just saw the first light at the end of an eight year long tunnel. But it is going to take a lot more digging to clear this collapse, but it looks like RT just took the first shovel full. Jim Graham, Ventura Village ----- Original Message ----- From: Sether, Laura S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 5:03 PM Subject: [Mpls] Rybak veto letter to Park Board > This is a copy of the letter that was delivered to the Park Board earlier > this afternoon. It explains the reasoning behind the Mayor's veto. > > Laura Sether > Office of Mayor Rybak > > August 13, 2002 > > President Bob Fine > Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board > 400 South Fourth Street, Suite 200 > Minneapolis, MN 55415-1097 > > > Park Board Chair Bob Fine and Park Board Members: > > I have vetoed Park Board Resolution NO 2002-143, authorizing execution of up > to $3,100,000 mortgage note and mortgage to finance headquarters building > acquisition, and the following actions: 7.8, 7.9, 7.10, 7.10a, and 8.3 as > passed by the Park Board on August 7, 2002. > > I support the independence of the Park Board, as outlined in the City > Charter. I also respect the judgment of each of you as individuals and > intend to use the veto power the charter gives me sparingly. However, I'm > vetoing this for three reasons: > > 1. I have offered to work with the Park Board on a comprehensive > assessment of our common real estate before constructing another building. I > make that offer again. In that process, we may find property we already own > that may be suitable for Park Board headquarters. Even more promising, that > study could offer opportunities to co-locate other neighborhood services. > Any comprehensive assessment should include locating a community-based > one-stop shop service center, providing convenience for citizens and savings > for taxpayers. These more innovative uses of our facilities may affect how > much space is needed at a potential headquarters. > > The argument has been made that there's a need to act quickly to > secure this property. I repeat my offer to work together on a comprehensive > assessment, while at the same time moving forward to acquire this property > as long as we do not presume its ultimate use. Pending that comprehensive > review, we should leave open all possibilities, including putting it back > into the private market, designating it for housing or placing a public > facility there. > > 2. I challenge whether this is an efficient use of public resources: > * The chief financial officer for the City questions whether there are > any savings to taxpayers. > * No RFP for competitive bids for property or other options. > * The site in question has limited access to mass transit. > * There has been a lack of public consultation with neighborhood > groups in affected communities. > > The City, Park Board and Library Board have been in the habit of > building capital, without factoring in long-term maintenance and operational > costs. All three have made this mistake in the past; we don't have the > luxury of making it anymore, under our current financial constraints. The > Capital Long-Range Improvement Committee (CLIC) can help us avoid such > mistakes. We need to respect the time and wisdom of this citizen-led > process, and I'm concerned that this is not happening. > > 3. This comes at a time when all public organizations are struggling > with scarce resources. I'm confident we can work together to solve these > issues better than we can solve them individually. Along those lines, let me > take this opportunity to formally make the offer I described in my budget > address last week. These are ways the City is prepared to assist the Park > Board with its financial situation: > * Place more police in the parks for less money. > a.) A savings to the taxpayers of $208,000 if the City > were to take over Park Board investigations > b.) A savings to the taxpayers of $433,000 if the > current Park Police becomes a precinct under the Minneapolis Police > Department. > c.) A savings to the taxpayers of $1,048,000 for a > complete merger, including collapsing the command structure and integrating > the officers into existing geographically based precincts. > * Have city garbage haulers serve parks and libraries. > * Coordinate current Park Board youth athletics programs with the > Police Athletic League (PAL) > > While the Park Board, Library Board and the City are independent on policy > matters, they are not fiscally independent. We're all on the same checkbook > with the taxpayers. The Charter gives the Mayor veto power over Park Board > actions because it is my responsibility to look out for the interests of the > City as a whole. This means making sure our financial house is in order and > that we are delivering services in the most efficient and effective way > possible. > > R.T. Rybak > Mayor of Minneapolis > > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls > _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
