Martha Bolinger asks, "This feels like an unusual political world for Minneapolis. These voting patterns are so all over the map. What's their reasoning? There's got to be more going on here?
What is going on here is that the Council Members who are concerned about crime in their neighborhoods are making it an issue. Those with out such concern are discounting its importance. Martha, Zimmerman, Lillegren, and Johnson-Lee represent areas where cuts in the budget for police will have a devastating effect on public safety and quality of life. Martha, Zerby is acting as a person concerned with neighborhoods and a good public servant. Perhaps Zerby takes serious his oath of office and the requirements of the Minneapolis Charter to enforce State and Federal Law. You know Martha, there are some politicians that actually do that? At its full compliment of 900 officers Minneapolis was barely addressing its present crime problem. With cutting the force to levels of the late 1980's (under 700) Minneapolis will once again see its National ranking increase. No not in livability, but in the best place to do crime in the United States. Does anyone remember the 1980's, that was when Minneapolis' Chief of Police (Boza) said, "we do not have a gang and drug problem". When public safety was a very low priority. That unconcern for public safety allowed Minneapolis to become nationally and inter-nationally famous as "Murderapolis" and a City where neighborhoods were requesting Federal recognition as a "National Disaster Area" because of drug crime and associated blight. I guess the present Mayor and Council are again wanting some national press. They are mistaken though because it is old news that Minneapolis doesn't care about poor neighborhoods. It does not even make local news when poor neighborhoods of Minneapolis are considered the most lucrative areas of the United States to do drug business. Minneapolis politicians will again make Minneapolis famous for "SAFETY"; the safety of criminals from the police. When Minneapolis could not fulfill its public safety responsibility last summer to the Phillips Community on the South and Jordan and Hawthorne on the North, why should those neighborhoods have faith that Minneapolis will do better this summer with an even more marginal police force. Don Samuels got elected on this issue in January, I would think he would be leading a revolt at City Hall about this issue. Since Council Members representing "rich areas" do not think public safety is that vital, are they willing to have the officers representing their neighborhoods reduced so that troubled neighborhoods can have adequate protection. The overall cost to Minneapolis of not providing Police protection will again be blight and a reduction in property values in inner-city neighborhoods. The cost to Minneapolis residents will be hundreds of times the cost of those police officers. Is this again the "creation of a housing opportunity"? Is the City Council again attempting to clear land for their development buddies? It certainly worked last time. Things have gotten so good in inner-city of late that for profit developers were competing with "Non-profit" Developers for land and there wasn't enough. Also the "affordable rental housing" market is showing ever increasing vacancy rates. What better plan than to let blight clear some land and "affordable housing" so you can justify giving millions to your buddies? I know the Council is probably not smart enough to conspire and plan what they are doing, but it sure seems strange that they are trying to kill NRP and public safety at the same time. The actual reason for improvement in inner-city neighborhoods are NRP and better policing. Killing one and weakening the other will of course create a need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the future and much of that will go to the "Non-profit" sector. So some can be excused for thinking it is a conspiracy. It is probably NOT. It is nothing more than a pattern of neglect and unwise decision making to mollify special interests for present political concerns, rather than the future good of Minneapolis. A "Pattern" that result in the same old discrimination against poor neighborhoods and minority neighborhoods. Suggestion: Whereas, residents in poor neighborhoods have identified public safety as the number one housing issue for poor people. And whereas, there is presently a rental housing vacancy rate that exceeds 7% and is defined as "unhealthy". Then the City of Minneapolis should use part of the 10 million per year "Affordable" Housing fund to fund public safety measures that protect "affordable" housing from the blight of drugs and crime. If the City of Minneapolis is not going to meet its public safety responsibility, what is it going to do? Deputize gun toting citizens to compete with the gun toting criminals the politicians allow to prowl Minneapolis streets? If crime is out of hand with 900 officers, what is it going to be like with under 700. Certainly not better! Someone needs to truthfully address these issues. Of course that might be a difficult request for some of our present elected political leaders. They have shown little understanding of, or concern for, the issue. So Martha, I would not expect too much truth about the issue from them! Jim Graham, Ventura Village >"The rarest of gems, with the greatest clarity, >and with the greatest brilliance, is not the diamond. >The rarest of all gems is the truth. >Yet as scarce as truth is, the supply has always far exceeded any demand for it. >In fact it may well be the lest desirable commodity in the Universe. >Ask any politician." - Toe 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
