This is interesting. John Erwin was one of the more vocal supporters of the purchase in this Forum and quite frankly gave some very compelling reasons to support it. I sure hope he'll be able to post an explanation as to why he changed his mind.
I read the letter from Mayor Rybak explaining his veto decision and while I applaud his offer to work collaboratively, I wonder where that spirit was several weeks ago when the Park Board got smacked upside the head with their budget cut, courtesy of the mayor. As Megan Thomas pointed out, the Park Board played nice and waited their turn while the School Board did their referendum and the Library Board did theirs. All the while, the City falls all over itself to extend subsidies to any downtown developer that stuck their hands out and now the Park Board gets to pay for the City's mistakes. Is it any wonder that the Park Board might be just a little PO'd right now? Granted those subsidies were not the fault of Mayor Rybak or many on the current council, but they sure could have shown a greater sense of history. While there may be financial savings through the various proposals involving the Park Police and Minneapolis Police, I honestly can't say I'd fault the Park Board from wanting to keep their distance from the Minneapolis Police these days. We read repeatedly on this list about the ungodly number of calls some of out City Council members get with complaints about the police force. I couldn't blame our Park Board commissioners one bit for wanting no part of that. I am, however, curious about one little item in Mayor Rybak's letter. He mentions having city haulers serve parks and libraries but there's no projected savings attached. Can that number be posted? And if having city haulers serve the parks and libraries would save some money, how much might be saved if the Council would actually finally consider expanding the city hauling service area to cover all of Minneapolis? I believe the Division of Solid Waste and Recycling has prepared reports on this only to have them ignored by previous councils who didn't want to give the appearance of being too labor-friendly. (I seem to remember one being quoted as saying something along the lines of he "wasn't on the council to create union jobs" - a gold star to anyone who can name who made that now-ironic statement.) With the "current financial constraints" cited by the mayor in his veto letter, might the current council members be a little more receptive to considering the potential cost savings of having Minneapolis fully-served by city waste haulers? I know the last council extended the contract of the private hauling consortium (without an RFP) but as Mayor Rybak states in his veto letter "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." I look forward to learning more about how Mayor Rybak and the council are proposing to do this within their own jurisdiction (besides McKinsey) and not just dictating to the Park and Library Boards how they should run themselves. Mark Snyder Windom Park (59A) [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 8/14/02 8:50 PM, "List Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The vote was 7-2, with Vivian Mason and John Erwin voting no (Erwin > switched sides from the original vote). Bob Fine, Rochelle Berry-Graves, > Jon Olson, Annie Young, Walt Dziedzic, Ed Solomon and Marie Hauser voted > yes. > > Thanks to the irrepressible Steve Brandt for the instant web update: > http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3164789.html > > David Brauer > List manager _______________________________________ 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
