In my opinion, the letter (below) from the Belfreys seems to
combine some legitimate citizens concerns with what has become a
typical, anti-government rant. John and Mary want excellent parks,
but no growth, no commercialization, no "foundation," no increase in
fees, and no increases in staff costs---although I've never figured
out how we're supposed to run a park without actual human beings
fixing, cleaning, mowing, shovelling, running youth programs, etc.
etc. And these folks do need to be decently paid. And they do need
health benefits.
If the Minneapolis Park Board is like any other
organization, private or public, they are being hit with huge
health-care benefit increases. I would wager that much of the Park
Board "growth" simply involves continuing to pay health care benefits
for its workers.
So do the Belfreys really want their neighborhood park staff
to join the growing ranks of the uninsured? Is paying your staff and
giving them health benefits an "unbridled urge" for "government
growth?" The Belfreys are full of complaints, but seem pretty low on
solutions.
I share their contempt for consultants and the typically
lame, unreadable reports that consultants seem to generate every
where they go. And I hate big legal bills. But these are problems
that run across both public/private spheres. I wasn't a fan of the
new park headquarters, but I know that there are financial numbers
that can argue it's a good long-term investment.
Belfreys: "We also have Fort Snelling. What a complex!! Who
is going to use it? What does it do for Minneapolis youth
sports?......
Lynnell: Well, I have two sons who play soccer. And from what
I can tell, the Fort Snelling fields are in CONSTANT use during the
soccer and baseball season, which starts pretty much as soon as the
snow melts and runs through October. I believe Fort Snelling has the
only tournament-level playing fields in our park system. Most of
other city soccer and ballfields are in very poor shape compared to
what's out in the suburbs. Every time I was out at Fort Snelling this
summer and fall, I was really pleased that the Park Board turned the
old polo grounds into playing fields.
So I would challenge the Belfreys---you say you don't like
growth. But with health-care costs going through the
ceiling.......growth happens--as in the old bumpersticker slogan. So
what specifically would you cut or shut-down, besides the Fort
Snelling playing fields? Ice Rinks? Dog Parks? After-school programs?
Running and walking path maintenance? (You mentioned walking arond
Lake Harriet. The park board plows a running/walking path arond Lake
Harriet--- should they stop this and let folks stomp their own paths
in the snow?) Or should we close the tot lots and playgrounds or at
least let them deteriorate? (But then, get ready for those hateful
legal bills.) Should the parks stop mowing Eurasian milfoil in the
lakes? Stop putting up the fishing and boating docks? Shut down
neighborhood gyms aand park buildilngs--which ones? The list could go
on and on.
If we're going to stop all government growth, these are some
of the items that will have to be on the list. Which ones are you
willling to live with?
Lynnell Mickelsen
Linden Hills, Ward 13
Who believes single-payer health insurance is the answer to
an awful lot of problems.
From the Belfrey post:
How can we keep the Mpls Parkboard's spending spree in front of the
citizens? Does anyone care or even bother to call Bob Fine or other
Commissioners? This appeared in the last SW Journal.
SW Journal Letters 12/02
Park Board: excessive growth
The Park Board is operating as if they have a mandate to grow. If
they pay attention to the recent election, they may decide to scale
back -- but I would be surprised.
Instead, we have the new headquarters coming. No matter whose figures
you use, there will be cash flow impacts from the move in the short
term.
We also have Fort Snelling. What a complex!! Who is going to use it?
What does it do for Minneapolis youth sports? Couldn't the golf
course revenue be used elsewhere in the system?
Now, a foundation (SW Journal, Nov. 4-20). Not a bad idea, if it were
done totally outside of the Park Board. They could facilitate private
volunteers and end up with something much bigger than People For
Parks. I have heard questions about a government established-and-run
foundation asking for donations when they also have the authority to
tax. I think an independent Conservancy would be a better approach.
My biggest concerns come in growth. Growth in staff. Growth in legal
bills. Growth in consulting fees (on youth sports, beverage
contracts, architects, foundation development). Growth in public fees
(permits, rec fees, parking, etc.). Many of the costs get buried and
are hard to identify -- probably intentionally.
To pay for all of this, I don't want to see commercialization. I
don't want to go for a walk around Wells Fargo Lake Harriet (not that
I have anything against the bank).
The clear mandate should be to take complete and proper care of all
existing facilities and promote activities in the neighborhood parks.
That is what I thought we elected them to do. I don't want growth in
government and will vote against any "public servants" with such
unbridled urges.
John Belfry, Tangletown
Mary Belfry Tangletown
--
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
