Thank you for your prompt and thorough response. Actually while you were writing your response, I was enjoying the sunshine on Lake Harriet and taking pictures of birds at the south end of the lake -- it was beautiful. After staring at mallards all the time, it was great to get close to some wood ducks.
On Apr 12, 2004, at 11:22 AM, John Erwin wrote:
Just a couple quick comments to Andrew's Post
1) The $75,000 I referred to before is for all the rec centers internet
access citywide. This access allows thousands of people - mostly kids - to
access the internet even though they don't have service themselves
relatively close to their homes.
Great News!!! I just saved the Park Board a lot of money!!! I did not remember seeing any internet access at my local rec center (Linden Hills), so I drove over there and asked if they had any. Nope. I continued with my questioning by asking if there were any internet programs for kids? Nope.
Well, I figured it is a small rec center, so I drove over to Lynnhurst. Same answer. How about a place that is not quite as economically well-off? I then drove to Painter on Lyndale and 34th Ave S., and they do not even have any computers there anymore.
If my math is correct, you can ask for about a $4500.00 refund from your internet service provider, because they are not providing any access to the people you think they are. And that was after visiting only 3 of the 49 rec centers -- there might be even more savings out there if we ask any of the other 46 rec centers if they are providing any internet access to anyone.
2) The existence of wireless equipment in the park board buildings does not
mean we are in the telecommunications business! This is a cost savings
measure that could benefit more than the park board. Increasing internet
access for Minneapolis citizens while reducing internet costs to the Park
Board is simply a win-win for everyone!
You are absolutely correct about not being in the telecommunications industry, any more than Starbucks or Dunn Bros. is. But the question remains why you would be offering internet access at all. In business terms, this is considered moving away from your core-competence. Perhaps this is something that would be better served for the library to do, as they are in the information business, and the Park Board is in the park business. Wouldn't internet costs be lowered even further by not having to install Wi-Fi systems in all the rec centers? I can't believe it would be free for the Park Board to set up Wi-Fi broadcasters in each rec center, nor free to keep those systems up and running. And who would this really benefit, the poor kids? They aren't the ones who are going to be able to carry their WI-Fi enabled laptops to the park to get free internet access at the Park Board's expense.
3) We are looking for grant dollars and donations at this time for solar
energy equipment and it looks hopeful. There are also programs in existence
where you pay the same as the cost of electricity against the cost of the
unit. This turns into a long term savings with little/no up front cost.
Perfect. My concern here was simply spending now for something that is a marginal value-add at this moment when people are hearing about major problems with Park Board funding of the parks themselves.
4) BY law, we cannot cut all the milfoil out of the lakes - DNR. FYI - we
have not reduced milfoil harvesting at all this year - as per the last
meeting. Having said this, the cost of trying to keep the milfoil in check
has gone up dramatically since there is so much more milfoil! Milfoil
harvesting is not a low priority of this board!
So I called the DNR. Talked to someone there in charge of the milfoil issue. Turns out the Park Board did not apply to harvest all the milfoil in Calhoun and Harriet, and that it is not a law issue, rather a policy issue. He did say that unless the Park Board could show a strong position of returning native plants to the lake, the DNR would be quite skeptical about harvesting ALL of the milfoil.
That aside, I am glad to hear that milfoil harvesting is still a priority of this board, but I do feel the need to point something out. If the milfoil population has increased so much, and you are spending the same amount on the harvesting, isn't the net effect an increase in milfoil in our lakes? And wasn't there a recent reduction in milfoil harvesting; not this year, but last or the year before, causing a further increase in the amount of milfoil in our lakes? I believe that is the quality of our parks issue that people are complaining about.
5) The Park Police are needed as a separate entity. We will simply
disagree with each other on this. There is next to no efficiency savings in
combining - where would it come from? Reduced admin. . . .nope - have
checked. The savings do not simply exist. Regardless, I think that
enforcement could and should be increased as well as more foot and bike
patrolling.
I can't talk about reduced admin costs, but on first take your statement that there are no cost benefits associated with combining the two forces is counter-intuitive. I would need to see the numbers to truly believe there are no savings there. But let me ask you this question from a different angle: what is the percentage of overall budget money spent on your police force now versus five years ago and ten years ago? My guess is that police costs will rise (or have been rising) faster than the increase in the Park Board's overall budget. If I am right, wouldn't it be better for the Park Board to have a smaller budget available, but all of it going directly to the parks and programs instead of employing its own police force?
6) North Minneapolis is not a low priority with me! I am trying to bring
much needed resources to that part of town. Just this year, I have worked
to bring a doubling of the tree planting on the north side, a skate board
park, an increased winter rec program in Wirth, and increased policing to
north Minneapolis. Most of this was through additional dollars acquired
outside of our base budget.
Thanks.
Although you may be frustrated with the Park System or Board, realize that
we all care deeply for the park system and are working hard to stretch the
resources to maintain what we have and improve the system for the future.
Although I have had differences and disagreements with some Commissioners, I
believe every Commissioner on the Park Board is very committed to the park
system without exception.
I promise I believe each and every person on the Park Board does care deeply for the park system. They would have to to put up with people always questioning their positions on everything, including me. :) That said, I would like to see the Park Board refocus its attention away from major projects towards more of the day-to-day operations of the parks.
Sincerely, Andrew Reineman Linden Hills
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
