This is another long post. A friend suggested that due to the length of my posts, they may be disregarded by many on the list. If anyone out there feels that they would prefer to read my posts if I kept them shorter, please send me a private email.
My general concern is that I don't like sound bites and slogans, so I tend to try and fully explain what I mean in order to try and avoid as many assumptions and preconceptions. There's also the issue that, of the three "R"s, I was always stronger at the third one (arithmetic). Anyone want to volunteer to be my editor? (The sad thing is, I do actually attempt to edit these things) - - - Anyway, on to the post. Three topics in this one (I'll tackle smoking in a different post): * Budget Cuts * Cub * Library - - - RE: Budget Cuts Vicky Heller Said: > Minneapolis dug its own financial grave. > > The City has been on a mindless spending spree for a > decade and has racked up unprecedented debts - $1.5 > billion + the pension shortfall. > ... This isn't getting a lot of disagreement. There may be some discussion over which projects were the foolish ones, but, yes, the city is in trouble. However, those of us who still live and/or work here don't want to see it collapse, so we're going to have to figure out how to fix it rather than consigning it to the grave. I encourage you to continue being a watchdog and raising flags when you see them, but fatalism is pointless as we're going to have to figure out a solution or watch it collapse. > The Legislature should be thanked - for subsidizing > the richest City in the State for so many years. > Instead, the whining about reduced subsidies has > already begun. This is a perfect example of the > "spoiled brat syndrome." I would be interested in seeing how much we've paid out compared to how much we've received. This should account for things in the city that have been built to support the greater twin cities area and the whole of Minnesota as well as the income that those in the satellite cities earn because they have the option of working in the city. I don't know how such an analysis would turn out, but I'd be interested in seeing one (and the challenges made to the assumptions). - - - Re: Cub First of all, regarding the TIF financing, I'd be very concerned that the TIF would be funding more than just the development of affordable housing. If it is replacing existing housing, it seems pretty darn silly, but even if it weren't I'd want to be darn sure we weren't subsidizing a grocery store or any other private business. I'm developing a better understanding of why people like CM Goodman are so aggressive when grilling developers who come with hands outstretched. I'm also developing less sympathy for the developers who seem so put out when a detailed explanation is requested. Robert Yorga said: > This thing with Cub smells fishy, let's have some > real neighborhood involvement, for a change. Vicky Heller said: > I think people are starting to see the > deception used by these developers to get their > hands on excessive amounts of public money. The > strategy to use the local CDC (Community Development > Corporation) is not new to Mr. Sherman. Jim Mork said: > THIS is where I'd love to see Victoria Heller > ranting. "Public subsidy"? How about "the city > learning to live within its means"? We have all > this debt from past public sugar to private > recipients. We have Republican-sponsored funding > cuts coming reliably down the pipe. And we're > STILL talking about building a Cub within walking > distance from available grocery stores? Vicky Heller replied: > The Minneapolis DFL has dished out hundreds of > millions of dollars in the form of corporate > welfare at the expense of working families: Maybe > they're really undercover Republican operatives! Robert Yorga, Jim Mork, and Vicky Heller all sounding off on the same side of an issue. If nothing else, that should be enough to let CM Ostrow know that it might be a good idea to rethink this idea and get some community involvement. Ideally, this would be done because its the right thing to do, but if that is not sufficient, there is always another election coming up. Dain Lyngstad said: > You folks must realize that change means changing > let the dfl wither and begin again with people who > have the guts to make mpls a great city. I could be mistaken, but I believe that's why the city now has CM Zimmerman, CM Johnson-Lee, and Mayor Rybak. Yes, Rybak is a Democrat, but he is of a different stripe than Belton or Cherryhomes Wizard Marks said: > To me, but this is a personal quirk, it sound like > heaven to have the coop next to the supermarket. > Then I could get everything done in one shot. If Sherman Associates can put this together by purchasing the land from the owners, building the development, selling/leasing the space, they're welcome to. If the community supports the development by patronizing the new businesses and living in the new apartments, great. By all means, shop there. However, if they expect public money and the weight of "eminent domain" to assist them, they should be shown the door. Businesses should not be given a competitive advantage on the public dime, especially when it involves displacing existing businesses and houses. They can make a go of it in the free marketplace, or they can decide not to do it. - - - Re: The Library Michael Hohmann made a lot of suggestions regarding ways to offset the costs of the libraries. Although I think the details would need to be thought through, exploring these ideas seems very worthwhile. His post: http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2002-November/018041.html Jim Mork replied to an earlier post I made. > Jason Goray says: > "A rose by another name would smell as sweet. A > library with another $15 mil of non-taxpayer > money in it will smell even sweeter, (almost) > regardless of the name". > > JM: That's something I do not and never will > agree with. What is this urge to spend as much > money as possible as though money is the main way > to get quality. ... > I think we need a FUNCTIONAL library and we need > to build it on a BUDGET. If only to convince the > library board they can LIVE on a budget! And to > dabble in "naming rights" simply because they > couldn't make do with $110 of taxpayer funds is > just indulgent. Hey, the sports commission built > a pretty good stadium with the dough they got. > Certainly the intellectuals on the library board > shouldn't say "I can't". I agree that an extra $15 mil does not necessarily mean that we will get a better library. (and I did overstate that in my original post) I agree that we need to make sure the library board spends their resources in the most effective and intelligent way possible. It sounds like they've been doing this fairly well so far, but I am certainly not an insider. I disagree with the idea that an extra $15 mil can not get us a better library if we follow the second point. If they spend their $110 as effectively as possible and come up with the perfect solution, with another $15 million, they can accomplish more. Since this $15 million is presumably from a private donor (or donors), Minneapolis gets a better library for the same amount of public funding. If that $15 mil is known to be available during early planning, it can be spent more efficiently since there will be no remodeling expenses. My impression was that you were more concerned about throwing more money in an open pit, but as far as the naming rights aspect goes, I think that people have made a pretty good case that it isn't a big deal. The city naming a building after a donor is no different than a university naming a building after a donor. Actually, if anyone wants to make a sizable contribution to facilitate property improvements, I offer naming rights to my duplex. All offers will be pending approval. I need to build a new garage too, so if a second donor wants their name on something... Tim Connolly also posted: > On the other hand if a donor funded the Planetarium, > by all means, name it after the donor. Name a wing, > a bldg in a complex like the University but not the > institution. While I don't think naming the Planetarium after the donor is a bad idea (actually, I like it a lot), I'd disagree that naming the library is any different than naming a University building. The library is one building in a complex. It is part of the Minneapolis Library system and at a broader level, Minneapolis municipal buildings. - Jason Goray, Sheridan, NE __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
