Ptrick Peterson wrote: (snip) the 2001 elections were not a rejection of "Old Minneapolis" as much a series of relatively isolated incidences. What are other people's views on this issue?
David Piehl writes: I think there was definately a high level of dissatisfaction with the previous city council's track record, and large corporate subsidies were very high profile at the time, drawing a tremendous amount of criticism; then there were the scandals. I think we got some great new council members out of the election, but some other council members and other elected officials have, as one person stated, "grown a throne" since the election, and forgotten that they do need to stay true to their campaign positions - i.e. if the stadium proposal was bad during the campaign, why is it now something to consider? Yes, perspectives and circumstances can change, but then the reasons need to be clearly communicated, at the very least. In some cases, some of the new council members were simply "the other candidate", which made them more appealing than the incumbant - those folks have a lot of work to do to prove to the public that they are "worth their salt". I think the current council has a lot of potential, there was a learning curve, and major budgetary issues, of course, but I'm definately more than satisfied with the performance of my new council member, Robert Lilligren. David Piehl Central __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ 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
