Jan writes: There was a very interesting piece tonight on KARE 11 news at 10 p.m. about the number of police officers (160) the City of Minneapolis has cut since 1997.� The most interesting part was that while everyone blames state and federal cuts (the Clinton cops) for the loss, the reporter pointed out that the surrounding suburbs had not cut cops and that St. Paul had actually added five during that same time frame.� The only official on camera was Robert Olson trying to explain it and finally said, "You're asking the wrong person that question."�
Me: Good post, Jan. The was one of the main reasons RT wanted to fire Olson: unlike Rocco Forte, he wouldn't give the mayor a plan to handle cuts. Kudos to KARE, too - up to a point. The suburban/St. Paul comparison is good reporting. But not finding a Minneapolis elected official - the ones who make the budget decisions - isn't. (Did they say no one was available?) In our experience at SW Journal/Skyway News, we've always been able to find someone...including city finance staff, who are extremely helpful explaining budget realities. As for the reasons for the cuts, I wouldn't be so quick to blow off state and federal cuts. Did KARE compare LGA cuts as a percent of suburban budgets versus Minneapolis's? I'll be most suburbs were hit a lot less. Also, the Sayles Belton administration was one of the most aggressive users of Clinton cops, although that program always had a flaw - the federal money went bye-bye after a few years, so if you used them, you had to find a way to replace the money in a few years. That bill came due came about the time the economy cratered. The third not-to-be-forgotten factor is state property deform. By cutting rates so aggressively, they took a bite out of cities - such as Minneapolis - who rely more on commercial property taxes than a state- and Fiscal Disparities-subsidized St. Paul. (For example, Downtown once paid over 40 percent of the city's tax base; now it's around one-third.) I don't want to discount profligate spending/debt from the Sayles Belton years - debt always reduces your room to move in a fiscal crisis. But it's there, the city has probably refinanced it to the lowest interest rate possible, and you can't wish it away when making current budgets. Blaming NRP is easy. However, critics don't consider where the money goes. It's spent on public works. And cops. And yes, housing. And other city priorities. The spending generates taxes. MCDA/CPED? Not much cash in that till these days. Parks/Libraries? Those areas are being cut, too (except for library referendum money the voters clearly approved). I do know the city has cut almost all departments to respond to the budget beating - and police received smaller cuts that other major departments, such as Public Works, that make up the bulk of our budget. One thing I wonder about is relative level of policing per crime in the various locales (hard to measure, I know). It's possible Minneapolis added more officers in the '90s and got creamed more in the '00s (in other words, Minneapolis hired a cop bubble, and St. Paul didn't). Pure speculation on my part. I do know the city is raising the property tax burden 8 percent per annum while making double-digit cuts in its major departments such as police, fire and public works. It's easy to decry the cuts, but having followed the budget process, I wonder how people would solve it if given the city's starting point. More taxes? The planned burden will provoke screams soon anyway. Higher cuts elsewhere? Given that police, fire and public works make up a lot of the budget, you're pretty much stuck dinging those areas - and then you get the KARE report about people dying in Minneapolis for need of paramedics, or potholes the size of canned hams (to paraphrase David Letterman). I give the current crop of city leaders perhaps their highest marks for having an actual long-term plan to pay the city's debt down ... a major improvement over the mayor and council of 1993-2001. You could torch that, but you're throwing the problem on the next crop of leaders. So these things are tough, tough, tough. Criticism is deserved, but we as citizens need to be as solution-oriented as we ask our leaders to be. I appreciate Vicki stepping up to the plate: she'd get rid of NRP, CPED, the park and library board. What are other people's plans? (Also, not to overwhelm one of Jan's requests: we do need to hear from elected officials here. We are your constituents. Most of us are reasonable. Obviously, public education and public discussion is sorely needed as we try to make our way together through the next few years...) David Brauer Kingfield Not afraid to leave his Minneapolis home 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. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ 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
