I suggest (again) that city residents be allowed to participate fully in MPRB planning efforts-- including policy and budget formulation/prioritization, to include a full examination of operating AND capital budgets.
Are current MPRB assets held consistent with long term, resident-defined goals? What are the long-term goals and how/when/by whom were they developed/established? Are said goals consistent with what city residents deem (or would deem if asked in an objective/scientific manner) to be of primary future importance-- things like equal opportunity recreational options across the city; adequate parkland development and management throughout the city (including the north side and the upper river; maintenance of surface water quality throughout the city, etc. Why can't city and park police be combined, with assurances provided that existing ratios of city:park street or field staffing levels be maintained into the future, while realizing overhead savings? And, I'm sure other list members/city residents could add to this brief list of suggestions for future MPRB policy/budget development formulation strategies. Any MPRB candidates supporting non-status quo planning options in this election year? Let the politicking begin! Michael Hohmann 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
