Mr. Bernstein wrote: Actually, all five of the resolutions are easily implemented if there is a will to do it.
Making the budget available is a very simple step, as is adopting non-divestiture and moratorium policies or resolutions. Choosing to not allow public parkland to be transferred to private or commercial interests requires nothing more than the backbone to say no, letting neighborhoods and citizens have a say on issues that affect them seems like good government to me, and choosing not to go deeper into debt until paying off two big mortgages is not hard to do - if there is a will do take that stand. Long range plans are oftentimes controversial but they do not have to be if there is a concerted effort to achieve consensus on goals and objectives. While I am not a fan of long range plans that reach past 10 years, there are certainly many public agencies and private companies that do engage in that and there is no reason the MPRB cannot do it if they choose to do so. All of the DFL resolutions are quite workable and make a lot of sense to me. I happen to agree with all of them. I have no doubt that if the Reformers had achieved a working majority on the Park Board, all of the DFL resolutions would have been implemented. I write: Mr. Bernstein, I agree, long range planning is a good thing. Setting goals based on vision planning and brainstorming are how many companies become successful. However, to expect that you will get consensus from ALL neighborhood groups and rec orgs, etc. on those long range plans and current decisions makes no sense. Let me illustrate. A number of years ago it was Pearl Park's turn to receive improvement dollars. All the planning was done by the book and the supposed consensus was to add a gymnasium to the park building (among other things but this was the major addition). All seemed well until the public hearings when a few citizens in the neighborhood to the west complained about the "element" that would be brought in by the addition of a gym. This argument went on for months with threatened litigation, etc. The effect of this was to take out about ten feet of gym so that now you have no place to put a group of spectators. There is barely room for one row of chairs on each side. I am sure that there are many other examples. I am not saying that the thoughts in the resolutions are not bad in their ideas, just short on the process and the expectation that all orgs in the city will be willing to work together. My hope is that with this new board there can be some movement towards these resolutions. I just think a more realistic group of them would be better. Rick Kuhlmann Hale/Page/Diamond Lake - HPDL 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
