We don't have a chance to vote on it because we live in a representative democracy. I don't remember having the chance to vote directly to fund the new Guthrie, or to enact a smoking ban, or to authorize the building of Light Rail Transit, or (your issue here).
Also how can you characterize this as a "backroom deal" when all the details are have been widely dissemanted through the media, the County will vote on it in a public forum and the State Legislature will take up the issue as well, undoubdtedly holding public hearings on the subject. Again were you at the table when financing the new Guthrie came up, how about LRT? We elected representatives to conduct the public business. If we don't like what they are doing, we have the right (and the duty) to elect someone else who more closely represents our views. Dean E. Carlson Ward 10, East Harriet ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruxe Shoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, April 25, 2005 0:40 am Subject: [Mpls] re: County, Twins have ball park deal > In some ways I should probably be happy with this. I love outdoors baseball and, beyond semi-regular attendance at Saints games in St. Paul, I have even made a point of attending games in other cities with "retro" ballparks, like, for instance, Camden Yards in my old hometown of Baltimore. I can't stand the idea of going into the dome on a June evening to watch the Twins play on artificial turf and I haven't..for > years and years. The location, by the end of the LRT and (hopefully) Northstar lines, makes a lot of sense. What bugs me about this deal? In a word it is "Democracy." This is so blatantly a backroom deal by Those Who Think They Know What is Best and are going to push it on the rest of us whether we want it or not. Not unlike the Social Security privatization deal going down on the national level. The initial Strib article makes it pretty clear. It both straight up admits that > county officials don't want to allow a vote on the tax due to the likelihood of > it failing, (referencing past negative opinion on public funding and implying it would be unlikely that this proposal would be approved by a fair vote of the citizens who live in the area who will be taxed for it if such a vote was permitted) and then in the same article quoting pro- stadium politicians as claiming the reason a vote can't be permitted is because it would "delay" the deal. Well, yeah, I guess a "no" > vote would delay the deal, wouldn't it? OK, a certain county commisioner wants to be mayor of Minneapolis. He claims he cares about "neighborhood participation" and the input of citizens into the decisonmaking process of our elected bodies. Well, in > an election Minneapolis voters clearly said they don't want more than $10 million of our tax dollars spend on a new stadium without a referendum. How much money will is "county" tax raise from the city of Minneapolis? I'm guessing a lot more than $10 million. Isn't this quite an end run around the expressed will of the voters? > > How does the rhetoric of our mayoral candidates square with denying county (and Minneapolis!) voters a right to decide whether we support this or not? > > Ironically, I'm not even sure that I wouldn't vote for the proposal, although I would want to hear a lot more of the pros and cons. But I sure want to be respected enough to be asked..... > > Bruce Shoemaker > Holland neighborhood > REMINDERS: REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
