> David Brauer wrote: > > "You forgot the REAL step 1: Be lucky enough to live in a high-tax > state with an excellent public university that, by your own admission, > turns your life > around. After all, the dude wasn't inspired by the University of > South Dakota." > > Vicky says: Good point. > > So what can we do to keep these people in Minnesota and specifically > in Minneapolis?
Not overreact. Some people will, as you indicated, seek their fortunes elsewhere in low-tax climes. We simply can't compete with them, and shouldn't. Remember, Minnesota - not South Dakota - has had the highest population growth in the past decade. That clearly benefited Minneapolis, which reversed decades of population loss. Despite sparring with Vicki recently, I think we both agree that wasteful city spending - on many development projects, and some inefficient housing initiatives - only hurts. We should be smart enough to understand taxes=investment, as well as taxes=waste. (The notion that public spending somehow doesn't produce jobs and growth while private spending always does is so much bilge.) With so much of the rest of the country in an anti-tax mood, I think one of Minneapolis's competitive advantages is a belief that smart public spending equals a better place, even if it means more spending. Keep that philosophy. Sadly, this philosophy was abused in the '90s. The debt we racked up was sometimes productive (riverfront investments appear to be paying off handsomely, and no private entity would have risked the seed capital), but often reckless (Block E). So for Minneapolis, we have to be unafraid of public investment but a whole lot more humble about it. Sadly, our goal will be treading water for the next several years - a combination of debt from city spending good and bad, and big state cuts. But (with the possible exception of sports stadias), our leaders appear to have learned from their predecessors' mistakes, as the recent five-year financial plans and debt workout shows. But the philosophy is sound, provided we don't forget our mistakes. The other thing - and it's a tough, rough thing, as this list often shows - is to boost citizen participation, involvement and power. Yes, it can (as Doug Grow recently quipped) tie things up in "process," but in my experience, thorough reviews with all affected are a good thing, on balance. The community is truly empowered and more important factors come to the fore. We need "involvement equity" all the more with finances slumping. So Minneapolis must continue to be the "citizen participation city," and constantly work to improve that. Not easy, but the alternative - a lower-tax, top-down government - would be worse. Then we'd be South Dakota with a huge infrastructure that would really crumble, and that would be a competitive advantage over no one. David Brauer Kingfield REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
