- - Brian Rice wrote > I'm am truly shocked as to the willingness of some > members to ascribe evil motives to people.
I believe that recent revelations/implications of corruption on a local and national level have made many people aware that they need to be skeptical of the motivations of any who are in a position of power, especially when their decisions or actions may lead to personal enrichment (although I see the specific issue at hand more of consolidation/maintenance of political power rather than out and out corruption). I did not become upset with the park board was not because they wanted to purchase this building or because they overrode the mayor's veto. I became upset because they immediately over rode it without addressing the points the mayor brought up. I became upset because I know they heard the requests for information and involvement yet chose to ignore those requests until after the override was completed. I became upset because of the posts which implied that the veto was made to maintain political power rather than because it was the best decision. It felt like there was no interest in considering the points the mayor brought up and that the quick decision was made to reduce the potential of public involvement. What I want is greater accountability and transparency from any who make decisions for the public or have positions of power. I expect policy makers to make decisions that are well reasoned, consider all facts available, are in the public interest, and do not contain the taint of private enrichment and I want to be able to verify that they are doing this. - - Brian Rice wrote > also bothered by the fact that some members of this > Forum believe they are entitled to others to take > their time to respond to their inquires. While public officials are not required to take the time to respond to inquiries in THIS forum, they should feel obligated to listen to the public and address their concerns in SOME manner. Based on what I've seen here, if an official decides to place their response to current issues in the newspaper or in another location, there are list members who are kind enough to provide the rest of us the source. For what it matters, pending further information, here's where I stand: * I agree that investing in property ownership is a good thing, especially when it has rental opportunities. The first couple of years are always a bit painful, but provided that the facilities are worth what is being paid for them, it is likely to prove a good investment over time. * I'm still ticked about the cursory dismissal of the mayor's veto concerns and I think the discussion around the viability of the investment misses the points he made which were: - We need to check if there are better real estate opportunities and we need to check if we can use this opportunity to provide multiple community services within this new facility where ever it may be. It should be noted that while he wished to keep the decision regarding the facility's use, he also made the offer to acquire the property so the opportunity would not be lost. - It is important to make sure that the budgeting on this issue has been done correctly so we don't end up over extending ourselves. - There are some additional ways that we may be able to have the city and park board work together which makes more efficient use of our resources. Specific examples were consolidation of police, garbage hauling, and athletic programs. None of these points state that having the Park Board own a building is a bad idea or even that this particular building should not be purchased. He specifically acknowledged that it may be appropriate to move on the acquisition of this building. I have seen some of the analysis of whether or not the budget will actually work out, but I have seen little or no effort made to address the points of his veto. If you don't recall what they were, it is in the archives: http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2002-August/015451.html I honestly think that all the focus on whether or not purchasing property is a good idea is a bit of a logical game since it has little or nothing to do with why the mayor vetoed the decision. I do not know if the logical game is being intentionally played by Mr. Rice and others, but I hope to see the actual issues of the veto discussed. Regarding the point made regarding one-issue voting (or relevantly, why Walt is in serious jeopardy of losing my vote): In general, I agree that it is wise to consider the complete spectrum of what a politician stands for and achieves, when that one issue is a sense of responsibility for and accountability to the public they serve or an ability to work with other bodies of government in order to achieve the best results, it weighs very heavily. - Jason Goray, Sheridan, NE __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com _______________________________________ 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
