Constance Nompelis wrote:
I'd argue that police and public safety are public health issues. And that public health issues are city public safety functions.CN: I'm going use that to jump on a new question:
Should the City of Minneapolis be actively working on "public health issues," particularly when more practical city functions are in need of, shall we say, touching up? (i.e. police and public safety, infrastructure, budget balancing, etc.)
Well I would argue that the city need not repeat the
work of other layers of government, and furthermore,
that the city is only effective at a number of things,
like basic services. It is wasteful and redundant for
the city to be addressing "public health issues,"
particularly when it such a drastic impact on business
and consumption of products/services in our fair city.
I'm all in favor of getting rid of redundant goverment, but I don't see the county or state inspecting establishments for food or other public health or safety concerns. That is the city's job. Or would you rather take your chances on eating botulism-contaminated food in a building with no fire exit?
Chris Johnson - Fulton
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
