RE: Minneapolis Parkways New Signs Why not, indeed. Living on the other end of town, I have not seen the signs mentioned by Karen Cooper in her June 25 post about parkway street signs that bear the name "Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board."
But I do find this subject interesting considering that under the "deal" cut in 1999, the city basically agreed to shoulder the burden of capital maintenance/replacement from the park board of the parkway paving renovation program (PV001 proposed at $3.8 million 2004-2008), the parkway "Park Board" capital storm drain (SW007 proposed at $3.6 million for 2004-2008 and funded from sewer enterprise revenue), the Parkway street light replacement program (TR008 proposed at $200,000 for 2004-2008 with complete replacement of 2,043 lighting units and underground electrical cabling costs estimated as high as $11.5 million beyond 2008). For the record, I strongly support the proposed $4.8 million 2004-2008 program for renovation of Park Board community and neighborhood centers to address basic building infrastructure needs. I think the Park Board's name on these community assets is appropriate. Jeffrey L. Strand Shingle Creek =================================== Earlier Posts: Then I guess we should ask, why not put City of Minneapolis, transportation Department on street signs? Why not put Minnesota Department of Transportation on state highway signs? Why not U.S. Department of Transportation on Interstate signs? Sounds kind of silly when you play it out that way doesn't it? Maybe that's why not. Steve Kotvis Kenwood On 6/25/03 8:09 PM, "Annie Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: AS you point out, the new signs are appearing thanks to Federal IS-TEA money and our Scenic Byways designation. This Federal Pot of money is the only safe/positive money we have for doing information and marketing of the Scenic Byways (aka the Regional Parks system and the Grand Rounds). And we have been able to keep at least a couple of more jobs because of this Federal money because they have allowed us to make the signs with our own carpenters and painters on staff - no outside contracts. All of your points may or may not be valid, so will ask staff for an answer to those concerns. But my first response is WHY NOT? For the moment, Annie Young citywide Park Commissioner At 05:57 PM 6/25/03 -0500, Karen Cooper wrote: Does anyone have any information on the new parkway signs I'm seeing along Minnehaha Parkway between the Falls and Portland Ave.? It looks like the Park Board is replacing the old signs with a new design. Perhaps the old signs were structurally unsound and replacing them in this era of budget shortfalls is necessary. Or perhaps the money for this was already allocated, or came from some non-budget source. But I have two comments. First, East Minnehaha Parkway and West Minnehaha Parkway are different roads, according to addresses along them. The house numbers count up in each direction from Nicollet and you can find the same house number on East Minnehaha and on West Minnehaha and these will be different places. The old signs told you which you were on, which had to have been helpful. Sure, the street signs are correct, but these decorative parkway signs are less helpful than the old ones. I consider that a mistake. Secondly, the signs all say: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. Whatever is the reason for that? Why not have the signs say, "National Scenic Byway", (which this is)? Why not have the signs say "Grand Rounds"? Or both? I just don't see the point of having the Park Board's name on there. Karen Cooper, Tangletown ________________________________ TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ 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
