[Mpls] Park Board Digs

[Becker]

I think that there are two fundamental issues that have to be addressed with the discussion of the Park Board buying the Riverview Supper Club.    First off, the park system has grown too large to be supported.   The way that this happens is that the Park Board has a policy of "no net loss".  What this means is that no park anywhere can ever become smaller.  Meanwhile the Park Board can aquire other land at other sites.  Which means that the "no net loss" policy is really a "continuous growth of the park system" policy.   I sometimes have this vision of the city in two hundred years where everything is owned by the Park Board (well and possibly the MCDA).   If the Park Board needs a building (and I believe that for a governmental entity, owning will always be cheaper than renting) why can't it use existing land rather than aquiring yet another piece of land?  Or antother way of asking the question is when, after 150 years, is the park system big enough?    Second, Minneapolis has had a history of giving its choice sites to non-revenue producing activities.  The Federal Reserve now occupies possibly the finest location in the downtown  and it will never generate a dime of tax revenue.  Lots of people talk about all the things that they would like to do in the City but to be able to do new things, you have to generate tax revenue.  And taking prime developement locations for government simply works against being able to grow the tax base and do these things that citizens need.  And it also ultimately works against the Park Board itself who is in desperate need of a growing tax base.    Carol Becker Longfellow