Wish folks would get their facts straight before they start ranting and raving at us.
And I wish folks, especially elected government officials like yourself, would learn to read for comprehension. No where are my facts wrong, not even where you seem to attack them, except perhaps where my source (the Star Tribune) can be blamed. Why does it seem that reactions are in proportion to how much one's ox is being gored?
Examples include:
The parks have come under fire for suggesting cuts to wading pools and toilet facilities, and are now looking for other places to cut, while spending large amounts of money on a questionable new headquarters building.
/As stated many time before - after 120 years of rent it's about time WE OWN IT. And it is not the same pot of money as our programming funds.
It's time you own it? Why, just because you say so? Is there something inherently immoral about leasing? The vast majority of corporations lease their office space, you know. Even the large ones.
Furthermore, I wasn't arguing against owning your own building so much as THE building you bought -- it's overpriced and at a location that's far more valuable for other purposes than having the Park Board occupy it.
Did I say they were from the same "pot" of money? I was well aware of these arguments about it not being the same money as for programming funds long ago. But regardless of your complaints to the opposite, the plain fact is that the Park Board is spending TAXPAYER dollars on the building. That it's a different "pot" in your mind, or on Park Board financial papers, is absolutely meaningless in this context. YOU are spending OUR TAX money. It's all ONE POT when it comes to revenue derived from taxes. What part of that do you not understand?
Here's the real deal: the Park Board does not need the building they have bought and are spending umpteen dollars on to rehabilitate it into space "adequate" for their usage. It's a damn trophy, and ego showplace for the commisioners and executives. I don't know who was behind the idea, but it's clear that the push was based on ego, entitlement and arrogance, not on what would be best for the park system and the tax payers. You have stopped serving the public and are now serving yourselves.
/At last Wednesday's meeting we directed staff to get the application for seeking to change the salary cap which is state driven by the Governor's salary. We have never even talked about the amount we are seeking we are just checking out the process. Several other Administrator's in this city have been exempted from the state regs.
I only report what I read in the newspaper. Take up any accuracy complaints with the Star Tribune. I mention that other administrators in the city have been exempted in my posting -- it's not like I ignored that fact.
/We are working hard on the duplication issue but I assure you a crime in the parks will get lots less attention if it is on the list of the City Police to take care of it.
I completely agree. It was just the most obvious example, and it is also a good example of the missing-in-action counter arguments to my concerns. If there are good reasons for doing things a certain way, let's have them out on the table for all to see. If someone can present good evidence as to why duplication or salary or whatever should exist, I'll be among the first to change my opinion on the subject. I'm open minded. I change my opinion on things every day as I become more informed and see more of the picture. It sure beats being dogmatic solely for sake of never admitting to being wrong.
And then there is the issue of the City Council managing the park system - it's not as if they don't have enough to do already + how fast do you think we would see development around the lakes and other prime park land spaces?
That may or may not be danger. I'm certainly not in favor of having the city council manage the park system directly. I'd definitely like to hear what other cities of our size do with respect to parks, however. For example, how do Denver, Portland, Milwaukee and Atlanta manage their parks? I can personally testify that Milwaukee as a nice park system.
Let's not be bound by history in our creative thinking to solving the problems that face us today. I'm in favor of holding most but necessarily all of our current parkland as park open space in perpetuity. There surely are other mechanisms for providing that assurance without having an imperial park system.
We also are working on more coordinated efforts with the school board especially in the area of youth activities.
/Believe me we are trying to get a handle on this duplicative services issue.
Good. I'll be pleased when I see actual results.
Chris Johnson Fulton
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
