Jim Graham writes: > Lets start with the basis of your concern, the forced choice between NRP and > more police officers. This is falsehood and deception of the worst kind. > NRP and the Police are funded out of two totally separate revenue streams. > It is not the same money at all. Any politician who brings this up is a > liar, or just incredibly miss-informed, so please be skeptical of all other > things they might say.
I believe Jim is wrong. His is right that NRP DOES have a dedicated revenue stream - TIF proceeds from the Downtown Common Project. However, tax increment revenues were cut dramatically by the 2001 state legislature. I believe there is not enough NRP-dedicated TIF to pay the $11 million currently obligated to the program. So that means if you want to "fully fund" NRP - either at the current $11 million annually or the old $20 million per year - you need to get the money from a property-tax-supported place. You can use a special levy or you can cut city departments such as cops (or fire, or public works, or ITS, or licensing, etc. - it doesn't have to be cops, but it does have to be some city function). This is not a comment on NRP's worth. Like Jim, I'm a fan. But after decades of pushing off debt (including repayment of NRP's first-10-year bonds until...now), we need to be honest about our finances. Bottom line: NRP has dedicated revenues, but not enough. We have to make a collective choice where, or whether, to get the rest. David Brauer King Field TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ 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
