Chris Johnson and Jim Mork have posted about taxes vs. amenities and the role of the 2 central cities in the economic, social, and cultural lives of the metropolitan region.
I believe that they stated the FACTS (emphasis added) and then gave a brief political economic analysis of their positions.
I would hate to see this discussion fall into the sewer of polemical, ideological, us vs. them, arguments.
To characterize these problems merely as city versus suburbs reduces the issues to mush. They are important to the entire region and they deserve to be discussed and argued about without reducing people to cardboard stereotypes.
David Wilson Loring Park
I, in "fact," agree. I apologize for the above average muddiness in recent posts. The facts are that the central cities are key pieces of the economic, social and cultural lives of the metro region and the state.
My OPINION is that there are too many people who fail to see the inter-relatedness of our mutual economic, social and cultural destinies, and that most of those people presently live in the suburbs.
An us versus them attitude is not a likely candidate for successful problem solving. I have tried, and perhaps not succeeded, at emphasizing the need for cooperation to improve the lot of all state of Minnesota residents, Minneapolis and elsewhere.
I will admit, though, that I really get extremely tired of arguing with people, many of whom are even my close, personal friends and not on this list, about the subsidies and financial incentives that resulted in suburban growth and the inter-relatedness of a metro region. In my frustration, I let slip some poor argumentation. My apologies.
While I remain open-minded to their (my suburban friends) viewpoints, and willing to let them live their lifestyles as they see fit (despite my distaste for the aesthetics of same, and even despite some good economic and ecological arguments to the contrary), I am ever frustrated by their steadfast belief that it was simple free market choices that led here. The reality is suburban-style growth has been subsidized at the federal, state and local levels for many decades.
I don't claim that was wrong -- only that it's not a level-playing field from a free-market point of view. Now that such sprawl has become a problem, I think it only fair that people be fully aware of the real costs of all the various community lifestyles available, and that perhaps, the costs be more directly borne by everybody so that free-market forces can actually function to produce a more desirable result.
One question: how do we in Minneapolis counter being reduced to cardboard stereotypes by the likes of Pat Awada?
Chris Johnson Fultong
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
