Regarding proposals to close MPRB wading pools, Annie says, in part: > ... I (and we) are > getting lots of responses. Unfortunately, only one person out of dozens > has offered an alternative solution. I am still looking for > "which Peter I > am to take the money from in order to pay Paul". Again, I am very open to > suggestions.
As a kid many years ago, the city lakes and backyard sprinklers seemed to work fine in the hot weather... and every now and then someone would get an inflatable backyard pool big enough for a half dozen little ones-- where parents were handy to supervise. Today's wading pools and tot-lots have become neighborhood gathering spots where adults socialize while their kids play and cool off. If their value/priority is demonstrated to be very high, what are the options? How about leasing park land for community gardens? $50,000 isn't that much money in the overall scheme of things (the cost to keep wading pools open). Sell naming rights for memorial park benches, walkways, fountains, park buildings, wading pools and tot lots, etc. Establish 'adopt-a-wading pool' or 'tot-lot' programs. Liquidate underutilized assets. Combine recreational activities/programs with Community Education programs (on annual basis) in targeted neighborhoods or on a city-wide basis, reducing overhead and duplication in the process. Coordinate programming and space utilization with other units of government-- schools, libraries, senior centers, city and county, places of worship, daycare, etc. Get innovative; break down some old, cracked walls and institutional barriers, that have served to distinguish and preserve turf for decades. A side note-- Just yesterday in a public meeting, I heard someone expressing concern for preserving public jobs as the budgets get cut. It is important for city leaders/managers to recognize that maintaining jobs is not the goal; the goal (and guiding principle) should be delivering needed public services in a cost effective manner while eliminating redundancy and inefficiency in the process. Duplicity in program delivery and facilities programming represents waste in both capital and operating budgets-- the proverbial targets of opportunity! And, yes-- these concepts apply to more than just the MPRB. Michael Hohmann Linden Hills > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Annie Young > Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 11:13 AM > To: David Brauer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Mpls] Wading pools > > > Yes - on the open list there has been little talk but believe me people > have found out how to write off line or from other sources... snip > Annie Young > citywide Park Commissioner snip > > At 08:38 AM 3/29/03 -0600, David Brauer wrote: > >Although it's not as high-profile as the war, there's been surprisingly > >little debate about the Park Board possibly closing wading pools near the > >lake. > > > >Do members think this is an appropriate cut, given the context of a $3.5 > >Park Board shortfall? How important are wading pools? And do > they deserve to > >be the first cut restored if the Park Board can find other cuts. > > snip > > > >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
