Michael Hohmann wrote:
I found property taxes to be the top issues on people's minds. ... And I think
the city budget will
increasingly be on people's minds as the general election approaches ... I
predict that choices for Mayor and City Council in the 13th, ... will be
influenced primarily by budgeting and spending priorities advanced by the
candidates. [Either]commit to using and following a multi-year planning and
budgeting process ... Or, regress back to a deficit-laden, credit
card-spending mentality in order to provide all the varied special interests
with the jobs, wage and benefit increases, and programmatic spending they expect
Those are not the only two choices. To discuss city issues as though
there are only two choices inevitably means you cannot solve problems.
Nor does the characterization of the Fraser-SSB years do justice to what
they faced when they were in office. The focus your post outlines makes
it impossible for any administration to position the city to cope with
expected growth or to respond to the cataclysmic shifts in DC and at the
state capitol. We do not elect people to run a private business, we
elect them to lead us through the processes for growth and to make sure
we get our fair share of the money we hold jointly as a people.
The whole point of the NRP was to create a paradigm shift to keep the
city from drifting any further down the drain and losing more of its
ability to sustain business. Both Fraser and his council, as well as SSB
and her council, had agreed to pour massive amounts of money into making
the loop more viable on the theory that the loop was moribund and an
impediment to businesses moving and staying here. It was more than
theory. Businesses were--and still are-- dictating the terms under which
they will move here and stay here. For that very reason, both McLaughlin
and RT will be forced to support carrying some of the cost of a
stadium--more than $10 mil certainly--whether we like it or not.
As a matter of reality, Minneapolis is bound around by municipalities
while capitalism requires the city to either grow or die. On that level,
we are required to make the best use possible of all the limited space
we have. Between the 30 year disinvestment in the core city and the
onset of organized drug gangs, the center could not hold. If your core
city goes to hell, your entire city will suffer in the long run, making
the cost of running it higher and higher while the quality of life drops
lower and lower, making it less livable, therefore less valuable.
In that respect, those who got in office during the Fraser-SSB
administrations were far-sighted. McLaughlin's light rail is one such
example of how to grow as a city. The NRP was another. Unfortunately,
when it came to looking at land and new buildings in terms of greening,
too many opportunities were ignored in favor of getting businesses on
line. The current administration has not improved that situation a
nickel's worth. And what you suggest will not improve the situation either.
The tax squeeze home owners are experiencing is the direct result of the
changes in the federal and state tax code coupled with the incredible
jump in housing valuations. Regardless of who runs the city, they cannot
be held responsible for those changes. If a house in my core city
neighborhood can increase in value and taxability by six times in just
eight years, while at the same time more and more of the burden of
financing a city is shifted to the homeowner, it is not the policies of
either the Fraser or SSB administrations which are largely responsible.
The tax code changes and the state's responding changes make the
spending of the Fraser-SSB years, coupled with the increasing cost of
fossil fuels and other stupidities we're pursuing, make those
projections of income no longer operable. Under the previous tax code,
the projections were operable. Under the current tax code and budget,
the 13th ward and the rest of the city's taxpayers are paying the
freight for both business and the wealthy.
What is being proposed is reactionary, rather than forward looking. It
forces us, as a city, to constantly swing back and forth, the plaything
of every shift in DC and the state. It costs us in city cohesiveness and
livability. The more incohesive, the greater the cost of police and
security, the more we produce a bunker mentality that lowers the city's
viability for steady, intelligent growth.
How much of which services do we want, or more importantly, how much do we
NEED?
That depends on whether or not we want to be a functional big city
(defined as anything over 100,000 souls) or to be a sink hole. What
you're suggesting here is the route down the sink hole precisely because
it puts the onus on the city to overcome the stupidities created on the
federal and state levels.
WizardMarks, Central
________________________________
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
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
