Re: [Mpls] Smokers' rights
Smokers' rights do not exist. There are no inherent rights for smokers anywhere. Why smokers believe they possess the inalienable right to smoke, therefore poison others in the process, is beyond me. If any such right existed, it would dissolve in the offsetting requirement of society to protect the public health as many other perceived rights have. It is possible that a right to smoke in one's own house could be upheld, but you have no right to smoke anywhere in public where others can breathe it. Oh, it may be legal for the moment, but that doesn't create a right. We've banned many things we considered legal once and now do not because of their harmful effects. It's all part of an evolving society that cares for its people as it should. Comparing yourself to protected classes of color, religion and sexual orientation strikes me as disingenuous in the extreme. You are not a protected minority by the fact that you smoke. Being Black, being a senior, or being gay, among others, is protected under the Constitution and other statutes because discrimination occurs on the basis of being those things over which a person has no control, none of which which has an adverse effect on others by their very existence. Talk about slanderous. Arrogant is a word I would use when such comparisons are drawn. In fact smokers ARE using an abusive substance which is harmful to others - and it's intentional because you know it's harmful both to you and others and you continue to smoke in the presence of other people whether they smoke or not. All smoking is abuse. It's one thing to abuse your own body, your own health, but, knowing how harmful it is to others makes your abuse of others intentional. I submit that smoke-delivered nicotine should be illegal to consume in the presence of anyone else, including one's own children, but that's an issue for yet another day. Gail and others arrogantly assume because a substance is legal to consume that anyone harmed by it is choosing to be so and have no rights. Now that's the selfish, self-serving posture of an addicted individual if ever I heard one. It is so typical for addicts to any substance to reach irrational conclusions about their mainstream positions such that any look back after recovery from such substance makes us wonder how we ever concluded that by our abuse of a drug, we constituted the same percentages of the population as ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, we therefore deserve the same antidiscrimination deference as the latter. We soon learn just how ridiculous we made our assumptions just to protect our addiction. As to compromise: there is none and should be none. Compromise on this issue is no compromise at all; it is folly. Compromise is merely selectivity by another name and would result in a far more complex system of political favoritism for those seeking exception to the rule. Again, once the law starts being selective, it's inherently unfair because someone will get the raw end of the deal. A blanket ban is the fairest way to go and will result in the least competition and the least litigation when the inevitable challenges are lodged. To suggest that bar and restaurant owners haven't joined tobacco companies in serving the interests of smokers in this debate is to be blind to reality. They want you smoking, and they're defending your ability to do so with plenty of money and pressure. That makes you pretty well represented. But they're only defending your smoking because your smoking makes them millions richer both through cigarette sales and much heavier alcohol sales. It's all about the booze in the bars, not the smoking. If bar owners could be sure of selling as much booze going nonsmoking, they wouldn't care, but Big Tobacco is indeed telling them they'll go belly up if they do. In truth, bar and restaurant owners have made a killing wherever smoking has been banned, despite the lies perpetrated by smoking bar owners in Duluth and elsewhere. The Boston, New York, California, Florida and other experiences with smoking bans have all reported significant revenue and profit increases with concomitant drops in tobacco use. Any other assertion is an out and out lie to fear-monger at the expense of public health. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul -- on 6/19/04 10:58 PM, Gail wrote: The more I see smokers' rights denounced either implicitly or explicitly in this forum, the more I wonder why such rights are so easily dismissed. Like most guilt-ridden smokers, i've been undone by the attacks and too discouraged to attack back. For one thing, I'm not much of an attacker, but I've also lost track of the fact that I am part of a minority estimated to comprise 20 -30% of the population. Wouldn't most of you call that fairly substantial? According to the 2000 Census, 20% is the equivalent of the US population over age 55 - that's ALL age groups over 55. Since the Boom began with my birth year, I can tell you that the first 3 years of boomers are
Re: [Mpls] Council delays smoking ban decision
--- Andy Driscoll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a delay and a task force allows a more thorough and thoughtful presentation of the reasons to issue a complete ban on smoking in public accommodations already regulated by other health measures, then fine. But the beverage association - a front for tobacco companies in this matter - has had the good fortune to have both money and a disproportionate voice in these deliberations already. Do not be fooled by civil rights arguments or fear-mongering over the perceived collapse of livelihoods. Neither has a leg up on the public health issues involved, those issues being precisely the same as all other health requirements in the service of food and beverage establishments. If you can't serve dirty water, contaminated food or drinks, filthy floors and storage areas, you shouldn't be able to have foul air as the source of breathing in those same places. Let's repeat again to ourselves: this is about increased liquor sales and profits, not smoking rights. Alcohol - the other addictive substance in these places - is sold in far greater quantities when smokers are drinking and smoking. They feed off each other and increase alcohol consumption by a significant amount - often dangerous amounts. Bar owners using smoking to increase liquor sales are as disingenuously self-serving as any major polluter who fights any attempt to stifle profits over the children and public health. In any case, it's murder by degrees. Smoking encourages drinking which encourages more smoking and so forth. Smokes aren't sold by the ounce, but alcohol is - and if you can sell more of it when drinkers are smoking than when they are not, then you sure as hell want your customers smoking no matter what the smoke is doing to them and the people and workers around them. We subordinate rights to the public interest all the time. This is, repeat, among the more obvious of reasons to put whatever rights people believe smokers and bar owners have to serve the public health. Period. No exceptions. No smoking rooms. No nothing but a ban. Why? Because once one exception is made, every vested interest will believe they should be the exception, the result being chaotic competition for the exceptions and lawsuits clogging the works. No court will ignore a well-crafted complete ban, but bans that are seen as selective will be struck down as discriminatory. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul on 6/19/04 10:51 AM, List Manager wrote: Five-week postponement, plus a new task force. From the Strib: Mayor R.T. Rybak, whose position had been less than clear, said the action wasn't a cynical move to delay a ban. I fully intend to sign a smoking ban that is well-crafted, Rybak said. And Council Member Scott Benson, who is viewed as the crucial seventh vote for passage, said: The issue is not whether we are going to adopt a resolution. We are. The issue is not whether we are going to have a long delay. We are not. http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4836372.html David Brauer List manager 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 Andy and everyone else, second hand smoke has not been proven harmful! Alcohol has been and continues to be a great health risk yet it does support the system with large amounts of taxws so noone suggests we rid ourselves of this most dangerous vice.Andy doesn't support this but he and many others rail against tobacco and yet noone mentions the garbage burner downtown spewing mercury and other dangerous toxins into our air. Noone feels the need to ban cars which poison the air and kills people and the earth. Why? This appears to me to be a power grap for the edification of miss guided folks trying to prove they care only after they gave us the problems I've just mentioned, and profited from them. Let the owners of bars and resturants set their own agendas and let US choose where we would like to go. Surely those who wish for a nonsmoking (but polluted) environment will pay to for it(such as the dakota bar and grill) and let those who choose otherwise be able to choose. Dain Lyngstad/edina/phillips __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it
Re: [Mpls] Council delays smoking ban decision
Well, where in the name of all that's holy does this assertion come from? Of course, every agency and research institution in the world affirms not only the dangerous effects of second-hand smoke, but new evidence shows that short-term exposure to relatively small amounts of smoke is highly toxic to human health. You may start with the National Institutes of Health, the University of Minnesota and the World Health Organizations of the UN, then add the American Cancer Society, Heart Association and the American Lung Association plus every pulmonary and oncology organization in the world. If you believe you have evidence refuting 60 years of increasingly solid research affirming the dangers of second-hand smoke - produce it. Now - what? I don't support what? Ridding us of alcohol? Or the garbage burner? How do you know what I support and don't support? First of all, we tried prohibition and it created far more health risks as a bootlegged product of criminal enterprise than it has as a regulated beverage. Furthermore, the mere use of alcohol, while possibly dangerous for some (we don't know how many) is not lethal when used as directed - moderately.. The consumption of alcohol in and of itself is not a health hazard even to the user, let alone those in the vicinity of the user. Abusing it very often leads to addiction and self-destruction plus the fact than about 95% of domestic abuse cases and other assaults can be directly attributed to alcohol abuse. All are illegal results of abuse. Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous to both user and everyone in the vicinity of his/her driving. I would support a screening test for potential alcoholics if that were possible today if only to be able to predict the likelihood of addiction by a young drinker genetically predisposed to the disease. Alcoholism is a deadly disease to the alcoholic and her/his family. But that's yet another story. Tobacco is *always* addictive and lethal when used as directed. Nicotine is the most addictive substance on earth, including heroine, opium and cocaine. It's use is predictably lethal with every drag and every breath taken in a room full of it. It usually takes far longer to die from smoking than it does alcohol, which can be immediately lethal when its influence spawns a murder or a DWI fatal accident. But both are deadly. I'm recovered and recovering from both. Now, as to the garbage burner and polluting cars: Dain's apples and oranges comparisons ignore reality. Anyone concerned with clean air is concerned with all clean air - burners and automotive exhausts and all other pollution. Obviously we deal with those sources in different ways. And efforts to mitigate those polluters is always under way. Not as quickly as we might wish for, but we're working on them as well. But don't dare suggest those issues are not being addressed when they are. Trying to address the unreadable remainder of this post I'll leave to others, but it's clear, Mr. Lyngstad is either confused or deliberately muddying the issues by linking unrelated matters to a smoking ban. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul -- on 6/20/04 1:41 AM, dain lyngstad wrote: Andy and everyone else, second hand smoke has not been proven harmful! Alcohol has been and continues to be a great health risk yet it does support the system with large amounts of taxws so noone suggests we rid ourselves of this most dangerous vice. Andy doesn't support this but he and many others rail against tobacco and yet noone mentions the garbage burner downtown spewing mercury and other dangerous toxins into our air. Noone feels the need to ban cars which poison the air and kills people and the earth. Why? This appears to me to be a power grap for the edification of miss guided folks trying to prove they care only after they gave us the problems I've just mentioned, and profited from them. Let the owners of bars and resturants set their own agendas and let US choose where we would like to go. Surely those who wish for a nonsmoking (but polluted) environment will pay to for it(such as the dakota bar and grill) and let those who choose otherwise be able to choose. Dain Lyngstad/edina/phillips 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
[Mpls] Murderapolis, the sky is not falling.
I do have the numbers and have posted them, both on this forum and the City of Minneapolis web- site. Serious reported crime is down. Significantly. Minneapolis is safer than it was 10 years a go and citizens, and in part the police department, have realized this goal. See link http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/crime-statistics. Statistics are valuable because policing and other governmental services are based upon them. They (statistics) allow policy makers to make fact-based decisions rather than purely knee-jerk dones. Staffing, programs, and even budgets are based on the numbers. Is it meaningless to look at your bank account to see if you have more or less discretionary spending money than last month compared to this month? So it goes with crime analysis, public health policies, road constructions and all other governmental services. That being said, crime, poverty, social, injustice, and prejudice are all influenced by uncalculated coefficients. How do you measure attitudes, beliefs or predisposition to violence? It is a standard business practice, to know the bottom line. Its unfortunate, the most often quoted statistics used in policing represent people who have been victimized. The bottom line in policing however has and continues to be, the people we served. In the next few days, the police department will be releasing its 5 year business plan. It will take several weeks of presentation and decision before it is implemented. Statistics, in part, have played a significant role in the formation of this vision. They have provided a baseline of facts to make projections of future services balanced with current and projected needs. Lt. Gregory W. Reinhardt Minneapolis Police Department CODEFOR Unit 612-673-3587 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
Re: [Mpls] Council delays smoking ban decision
Back in the dayprobably the summer of 1990 it struck me that all cars need to be taken off the road because of the threat to our collective healthexcept for emergency vehicles. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt how much destruction cars cause to our culture and environment. A clean car will still hit and kill people. So the only solution is getting rid of them. No compromise. Is driving a right? No, not anymore than smoking, but they aid in the pursuit of the good life, for some, at least. But a higher consciousness will ameliorate many problems, without a law. Not smoking anymore, I find it odd that I defend anyone's right to smoke, but I would still think it's covered under the constitution in pursuing your version of the good life. As goofed up as it is. You would think that if you did not go into bars you would be free of smoke, but it's amazing how just walking down the Nicollet mall how you can catch a good whiff of smoke every once in a while. And so I'm wondering how banning smoking in bars and thus forcing smoking onto the streets is making me safer, wouldn't it be better for them to be inside where the smoke is contained and filtered? Am I missing something? Because the way it looks to me now is if this ban goes through, I won't be able to walk down the mall without catching whiffs of smoke on every block? And according to some any amount is too much, so isn't this ban making those inside the bars safer, while those walking down the mall less safe? Or am I missing something? I used to believe that line that nicotine is the most addictive substance...it's people who are addictive in varying degrees to the stuff. Because many people grow out of their addictions, they do not need them as they get older, the cigarette hasn't changed, but the person has. It's our culture that is addictive and needy and searching. Constantly trying to find satisfaction outside of itself. If this campaign against smoking wakes us up to air quality and what we breathe, then good. But then do not stop with smoking pursue this to it's end, get rid of everything toxic that we HAVE to breathe. Robert Yorga St. Anthony West A Little fish swims up to his older and wiser fish friend and says, ' You go on and on about water. I have been searching for it everywhere and it is nowhere to be found. I have studied all the texts, practiced and trained diligently.but it has eluded me.' The wise old fish says, As I always tell you, not only are you swimming in it right now but you are also composed of it.' The little fish shakes his head in frustration and swims away, saying, maybe someday I will find it. _ MSN Movies - Trailers, showtimes, DVD's, and the latest news from Hollywood! http://movies.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200509ave/direct/01/ 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
Re: [Mpls] Cool transit idea
This is in the planning stages for Metro Transit buses here. They have been installing AVL systems on all buses here for the past couple years. I think they must be close to %100 by now. I believe one plan is to put displays at some bus stops giving bus ETA times. Probably a $$$ issue. --- Mike Jensvold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Porland, Oregon has realtime displays of streetcar arrival times at stations and online at: http://www.nextbus.com/predictor/publicMap.shtml?a=portsc __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 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
Re: [Mpls] Murderapolis, the sky is not falling.
A question for the Lt, I recall hearing an interesting point regarding homicides, especially gang narc related. That a major cause for the record number of murders in '97 was due to increased competition and battling over drug turf. And the gradual decrease in the last 7 years shows territories have been agreed upon and a reduction in internecine gang conflicts. I recall a year or two ago there were some blow-ups between Latin gangs, some shootings at Cinco De Mayo on Lake St, etc. Then a few months ago there was some Asian gang conflicts up on the north side. I'm curious as to how organised these gangs have become. I recall back in the late '80s and early '90's Mpls seemed to have a Wild Wild West or Gold Rush feeling to it, with established gangs (Vice Lords Disciples) battling each other and forging alliances with and/or fighting new comers (Crips, Bloods, etc). Lots of posturing, gang graffiti colors as ways of marking territory. Eventually things settled down. Driving through Bloom 26th St yesterday I saw several young men in uniforms - black pants white shirts openly dealing. Not a huge amount of black gang graffiti though. Has street level dealing reached a fairly organised point? Large shipments brought up and then divided to salesmen or is it still fairly open - some guys put a few grand together and drive down south or to Chicago, make a buy and the come back and do a start up? Some mix of the two? Obviously I don't want a classified info or intel - just curious as to what the reality is for several of our neighborhoods most lucrative employer. We also have seen a dramatic increase in the Latin gang graffiti on the south side in the past few months - Surenos 13 Vatos Locos - tagging and crossing each other out. But I don't recall hearing of too many murders/shoots on the south. Are these guys still meeting in the board rooms to discuss strategy or should we expect some hostile takeovers soon? Many thanks for your insight John Keewaydin PS - Great job to the 3rd Pre guys that were on scene of some car prowlers last week in our area, arrived within a couple minutes and nabbed one of the yahoos. --- Gregory Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do have the numbers and have posted them, both on this forum and the City of Minneapolis web- site. Serious reported crime is down. Significantly. Minneapolis is safer than it was 10 years a go and citizens, and in part the police department, have realized this goal. See link http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/crime-statistics. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 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
[Mpls] Fine Line owner threatens Warehouse District exit over safety issues
http://www.skywaynews.net/articles/2004/06/18/news/news13.txt Offensive occupants. No person shall ... carry on ... engage in ... any business ... which shall be dangerous, hurtful, unwholesome, offensive or unhealthy to the neighborhood. The chief of police, director of inspections, commissioner of health or other authorized representative shall give notice to such person to forthwith cease and desist from such business or trade, and if such person shall refuse or neglect to do so within forty-eight (48) hours from the time of such notification, then such person shall be guilty of a violation of this Code. (Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Chapter 227.110) Enforce 227.110 and close Tabu and Daddy Rocks forthwith. Neal Krasnoff Loring Park 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
Re: [Mpls] Fine Line owner threatens Warehouse District exit over safety issues
It appears the same ordinance could be used to enforce no smoking. Jason Stone Diamond Lake --- Neal Krasnoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.skywaynews.net/articles/2004/06/18/news/news13.txt Offensive occupants. No person shall ... carry on ... engage in ... any business ... which shall be dangerous, hurtful, unwholesome, offensive or unhealthy to the neighborhood. The chief of police, director of inspections, commissioner of health or other authorized representative shall give notice to such person to forthwith cease and desist from such business or trade, and if such person shall refuse or neglect to do so within forty-eight (48) hours from the time of such notification, then such person shall be guilty of a violation of this Code. (Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Chapter 227.110) Enforce 227.110 and close Tabu and Daddy Rocks forthwith. Neal Krasnoff Loring Park 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 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
Re: [Mpls] Murderapolis, the sky is not falling.
I think the crack house on my block is an anomaly. It isn't like it was back in the early 90's when they were everywhere. The corner store has always been a low life place but even that wasn't engaged in drug dealing activity until the most recent people started running it. What's different this time for me here is that there are more families living on my block that give a damn. I have a great deal more help and interest in dealing with this problem this time than I did the last time around. I actually feel like we have a team. Having the Whittier e-mail group to use and this forum has been a tremendous asset. What's also different are the remedies available from the police. The technology is way way better than it was in the early 90's. Again, computer technology has really helped with the communication and education thing. The police are better prepared to deal with these situations especially in the aftermath. They have better tools to help landlords learn that they don't have to rent to criminals and methods to show them how to avoid it. They also have way better systems to track repeat criminal offenders. I don't know about the gang turf stuff. Unless I have my head completely stuck in the sand, Whittier doesn't appear to have a huge gang problem. I may be wrong. And the uniform thingbe careful there. My son and his friends wear white t-shirts and black shorts or pants and they are no where near being gang members. My son finished the 8th grade year with 5 A's, passed the 8th grade basic skills test, is enrolled in a good high school and his own personal goal is to graduate from college. Conversely, the thugs across the street also wear white t-shirts with black shorts or pants. I would be willing to bet these kids didn't finish the school year at all, they didn't pass the basic skills test, their parents don't even care if they go to school let alone which one and the only place they seem headed is prison. Barb Lickness Whittier = Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead 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
Re: [Mpls] Murderapolis, the sky is not falling. Not for Mr. Reinhard, t but maybe for some!
John, your supposition that there is less gang violence because their is less conflict for territory is correct. Also when the heat of the shoot-ups of 97 brought U.S Attorney David Lillehaug armed with the BATF, DEA, and other Federal Agencies down on Gang leadership then the word went out that it was not alright to shoot to kill. A bunch of those leaders went away and the remainder knew what side of the bread their drug butter was coming from. It did not mean that there was that much less drug dealing, it just meant that the leadership exercised more control and dealing and gangs became more organized and effective. The existence of those (now more organized) Gangs is the reason we continue to need the State's Gang Task Force. Also, it is why I am glad that Captain Mike Martin is heading that Gang Task Force. Mike Martin is the best of the best cops in Minneapolis, and probably the most effective Police official serving Minneapolis at this time. Under then Inspector Brad Johnson, Captain Martin once cleaned the Whittier Neighborhood of drug dealing, and was directly responsible (with now Deputy Chief Sharon Lubinski) for re-organizing and making effective of the Third Precinct after years of disrepute. While Mike Martin would have made a wonderful Chief of Police, Minneapolis is fortunate to have him where he is. Minneapolis has wonderful police officers, who really do care and who do a great job. They are to be commended for the great job they do given that they are short handed. We just have about 200 to few of them John, your observation about 26th and Bloomington were correct the dealing is very organized and the uniform is correct. I see young Black men walking to work with their uniform shirt over their shoulder. I assume they don it when out of the Franklin area zone. They did make a showing last year, but apparently were warned so they moved back to 26th and Bloomington. The young boy assassinated at the Super America last year, was killed for violating and trespassing on that turf. Word on the street was that Maniac carried out the shooting at the order of some one called Money. Money apparently thought he owned the Bloomington Ave. turf between 25th and Lake Street. While Gregory Reinhardt may be correct about the statistics, statistics only give a very distant snapshot of a City's problems. It is a bit like saying that in 1968 America was fighting a real war with hundreds dieing every day, so in 2004 a few Americans dieing in Iran is not much of a problem. For the families of those few young men that are dieing, statistics will not make them believe that a world shattering catastrophe has not happened. For the young man or woman ducking bullets and RPG's in Baghdad it is not much comfort to tell them they should not worry because statistics say they have not nearly the problem that the soldiers in Quang Tri City or Phoc Long experienced in 1968. For the family suddenly caught in the middle of a gunfight (or who have Thugs openly selling drugs all night on their corner), Mr. Reinhardt's statistics are not much comfort. For the family who has a child murdered, Mr. Reinhardt's statistics are NO comfort. For them, they have experienced a World Catastrophe that affects 100% of their family and 100% of their life. As long as we have even one street or corner in Minneapolis where open dealing is regularly occurring then the only statistic that matters is that our whole City has a drug and crime problem 100% of the time. Anything less is an insult to the concept of Equal Protection Under the Law! Until the children in the poor communities of color can enjoy the same safety and freedom from crime as the children in Better neighborhoods then using such smug statistics is a mockery. For the family that sits up all night with the fear that someone will be coming to shoot up their house the SKY IS INDEED FALLING. As I recounted last spring Robert Cook and I spent every night for a week guarding and protecting a family who were being threatened by a drug gang. That family's only fault was being Indian and moving into a former drug house previously occupied by Indian drug dealers. Statistics did not comfort me when I heard a small girl seriously ask her Mother, Are those bad people really going to come back and kill us tonight? Imagine the same thing coming from a child of yours, or even one you know, and then tell me if you would comfort that child and that mother with statistics? No, we must all refuse to take ANY comfort from statistics while even ONE person in Minneapolis lives under the conditions that the residents of our Impacted Neighborhoods live under every day. For what ever happens to even the least of us happens to all of us. And statistics should not cover our shame for this. By the way those cowardly jerks called Surenos 13 have spray painted their logo on my stucco wall. Anyone have a suggestion of how to remove black spray paint from a stucco wall? I have
Re: [Mpls] Smokers' rights
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 08:58:48 -0500 Mike Jensvold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Snip) Lets save rights for the basics: speech, religion, etc. Arguing for smoker's rights is a dead end, arguing that Clean air is your right is simplistic. Don't ban smoking in bars, and clubs. Leave the people a few vices. COMMENT: Although I am a chain smoker, I agree smoking is a vice and not a right. Further, most estimates that I have seen indicate that only 20 to 30% of the population smokes. Where is the market incentive to cater to people like me? We have a clear policy in the United States and Minnesota and particularly in Minneapolis to regulate allowed vices with fees and taxes. Why are we talking about a total ban? Where is the city income in that? The 70 to 80% of the people who do not smoke and many who do smoke, do not want to be trapped in a smoke filled room. Specially designed rooms with special ventilation are costly. Perhaps bar and restaurant owners could have a special cover charge to enter those smoking rooms to defray expenses, special fees, and new taxes? If there is no market for such rooms, that will end the discussion. After a through sterilization, the cover charged space might then be used for hyper allergenic customers who may be increasing as a percentage of the population? I also think that we should amend the 1996 Minnesota Clean Air Act rather than piece meal enactment of city ordinances. Tourism works best with a consistent policy. Thanks. John O'Neal Holland Neighborhood 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
[Mpls] Need a Smoke-ban Break? Let's talk housing
There was an interesting article in the Strib on Saturday about cohousing. Ever since I joined a housing cooperative in my first years of college, the idea of this sort of living for transforming a culture has been apparent to me; and this article caused me to revisit and articulate it here. I've often thought that instead of the status quo hodgepodge of federal, state, and local housing policies resulting in the inadequate system we have now, e.g., Barb Lickness's Section 8 neighbor who hosts gang bangers and druggies, what we really need is a mix of housing types metrowide that actually lifts a culture of poverty into the mainstream, for better or worse. Transition housing for the homeless when available now is limited to our concentrated housing projects in Mpls and not much different elsewhere in the metro outside of Section 8 housing, I believe. It is a remedy that results in the perpetuation of the culture of poverty that many on this list have talked about. Section 8 housing in certain parts of our cities is not a great deal better as Lickness's experience attests. It is a big jump from this transition housing to unsubsidized rentals or home ownership. Co-housing and cooperatives could provide a stepping off place that makes the jump above a bit more managable and more likely; and if it never happens, this sort of living provides a stable and healthy environment for many folks over the long haul. The opportunities for synergistic collaborations in public housing on this model are staggeringly large. The potential for breaking the chain of poverty, both economic and intellectual, is huge for the public housing agencies willing to explore how to finance them as part of the mix they provide. Some ethnic groups move through transition housing quickly, but some stay for several generations; and one has to consider the possibility that the latter phenomenon results from the enabling practice of our public housing agencies, i.e., a sort of codependency has evolved, if you will consider that pos sibility. I think we should see what happens when we break up this codependency with a new sort of housing mixing generations of folks from all sorts of backgrounds to share their experience of life and enrich the cultures of each resident in this way. I don't think it happens in our present system, but it should. Bill Kahn Prospect Park 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
[Mpls] Put up or ?
In a message dated 6/20/2004 8:59:23 AM Central Daylight Time, Andy Driscoll writes: Of course, every agency and research institution in the world affirms not only the dangerous effects of second-hand smoke, but new evidence shows that short-term exposure to relatively small amounts of smoke is highly toxic to human health. You may start with the National Institutes of Health, the University of Minnesota and the World Health Organizations of the UN, then add the American Cancer Society, Heart Association and the American Lung Association plus every pulmonary and oncology organization in the world. If you believe you have evidence refuting 60 years of increasingly solid research affirming the dangers of second-hand smoke - produce it. Actually Andy, that's not the way the process works. You are the one who wants to ban an otherwise legal activity; thus it's up to you to provide the evidence which supports your proposal. There's one little problem: you won't be able to. All of the organizations you mentioned base their arguements on the 1998 WHO report and the 1993 EPA report. In the case of the former, the report admits it finds at very best a weak and statistically insignificant link. With the EPA report, a federal judge found that the agency had ignored contrary data to produce a report which agreed with the agency's political motivations. In other words, they cheated. So, if you have good information, produce it. Otherwise, you're free to rant any way you like. But don't act as if the weight of scientific evidence is behind you, because it isn't. M. G. Stinnett Jordan 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
RE: [Mpls] Smoking Ban Info: Two Super Resources
I'd like to apologize in advance for repeating some old arguments, but I think that they're important and are either being sidestepped or ignored. Andy Driscoll wrote: This focus on rights and privileges vs. public health is getting very old. Well the debate on rights vs. government intrusion is very old, more than two hundred and fifty years in this country. What would Americans of the 16th century have thought if the British had tried to ban the public use of tobacco when they were so irritated by the price of tea? We regulate all sorts of behavior to protect the public health, behavior that many see as their inalienable right - personal or commercial, but that has not stopped wise policymakers elsewhere from seeing the larger picture, let alone their official responsibility. It is what the public interest is about. It's true that our government has regulated all kinds of behavior. Some of these restrictions have unjustly prohibited or legitimatized various practices: slavery, women's suffrage, interracial marriage, intra-gender marriage...etc, etc, etc. Many of these issues could be addressed more equitable if the Framers had maintained the belief expressed in the Declaration that all individuals are endowed with the unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I don't think that we need an Amendment banning gay marriage; I think that we need an Amendment protecting personal decisions related to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Smoking, though legal, is NOT an inalienable right, especially when, like drunk driving, it's a choice that harms others. I would argue that smoking which doesn't impact other people is an inalienable right as stated in the Declaration. I believe that consenting adults should be able to gather together in public places and smoke (or whatever) as long as it doesn't impact others who are not forced to be in their presence. I will readily admit that such a right does not currently exist, but there are also currently laws in Minnesota prohibiting sex outside of marriage, adultery, and sodomy. Interestingly, my position would prohibit smoking on Nicollet Ave, or outside of doorways, and in any business that decided that it wanted to prohibit smoking. It would permit smoking in rooms designed to limit exposure or in establishments that are, by declaration, designed to serve smokers. Stop it now. This discussion about rights and responsibilities is so obvious on its face that all the libertarian and civil rights issues are overwhelmed by the public health evidence, whether you wish to believe that evidence or not for your own purposes or agenda. Excuse me, but what bearing does public health have on an adult's decision to partake of a behavior that has no impact on others? What moral basis allows you to restrict the behavior of other adults when that behavior has no impact on you or anyone else (other than consenting adults)? Comparing yourself to protected classes of color, religion and sexual orientation strikes me as disingenuous in the extreme. Although race and sexual orientation may not be choices, religion is. It is just as offensive to me to limit other individual choices simply because you don't like them or don't understand them. I submit that smoke-delivered nicotine should be illegal to consume in the presence of anyone else, including one's own children, but that's an issue for yet another day. I actually agree with this statement (if the others are not consenting adults). As to compromise: there is none and should be none. Compromise on this issue is no compromise at all; it is folly. Compromise is merely selectivity by another name and would result in a far more complex system of political favoritism for those seeking exception to the rule. I would agree that until we provide blanket acceptance for individuals' personal choices we will have a complex and inconsistent set of laws. Again, once the law starts being selective, it's inherently unfair because someone will get the raw end of the deal. I couldn't agree more with this statement and the ones who will get the raw end of this deal will be smokers. Tobacco is *always* addictive and lethal when used as directed. Nicotine is the most addictive substance on earth, including heroine, opium and cocaine. It's use is predictably lethal with every drag and every breath taken in a room full of it. It usually takes far longer to die from smoking than it does alcohol, which can be immediately lethal when its influence spawns a murder or a DWI fatal accident. But both are deadly. I'm recovered and recovering from both. I can understand the struggle necessary to change certain behaviors. I have a great deal of trouble managing my emotions, but I have been able to eliminate a number of addictions from my life. Personally, I think that relationships are far more addicting than most
RE: [Mpls] Need a Smoke-ban Break? Let's talk housing
Bill Kahn wrote: I've often thought that instead of the status quo hodgepodge of federal, state, and local housing policies resulting in the inadequate system we have now, e.g., Barb Lickness's Section 8 neighbor who hosts gang bangers and druggies, what we really need is a mix of housing types metrowide that actually lifts a culture of poverty into the mainstream, for better or worse. [Me]: I agree Bill Kahn's general point to suggest the need for a mix of housing types. But just want to cut to the quick on some unfortunate stereotypes that he suggests. The overwhelming experience with Section 8 (now called the Housing Choice Voucher Program) is positive. Section 8 is not synonymous with 'gang bangers and druggies,' nor should Barb's experience be seen as an example of the 'inadequacy' of the federal Section 8 housing system. A misperception, yes, but it's a misperception just as damaging and demeaning as assuming that most people in Minnesota who receive welfare are black (they're not). Bill Kahn again: Section 8 housing in certain parts of our cities is not a great deal better as Lickness's experience attests. [Me]: The Minneapolis Public Housing Agency (MPHA) administers some 5,000 or so Section 8 Vouchers city-wide (though it may be 6,000 or so, my brain and the MPHA site are both fritzing at the moment). The vast majority of the tenants who benefit from the vouchers are lease and law-abiding, just as the vast majority of tenants generally are lease and law-abiding. There are always bad eggs, just as there are bad eggs in every situation, organization, municipality, and neighborhood. All this said (and said as more of a check on misperceptions than as a suggested direction of the discussion), I'm a fan of co-housing myself and would like to see more opportunities for it in the city. Gregory Luce St. Paul 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
RE: [Mpls] Put up or ?
Andy Driscoll writes: If you believe you have evidence refuting 60 years of increasingly solid research affirming the dangers of second-hand smoke - produce it. MG Stinnet: Actually Andy, that's not the way the process works. You are the one who wants to ban an otherwise legal activity; thus it's up to you to provide the evidence which supports your proposal. Me: Though I never wrote it up for publication, my 1984 high school senior science project in Tulsa, Oklahoma, boldly demonstrated how environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) significantly impaired the growth of the common house plant. Too bad I've since lost all that valuable research. In any case, while the burden may be on those proposing a ban to provide evidence for its need, the evidence doesn't have to be irrefutable, beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, compelling, or even indubitably correct. The city council just needs to base its decision on a reasonable basis. And I think most everyone--with perhaps the exception of those who have a conspiratorial mind--would agree that it would be reasonable, for purposes of public health and providing a safe workplace environment, to prohibit ETS in indoor enclosed spaces. You may think it's unreasonable and council members and others are unreasonable for thinking that way, but ce'st la vie at times. Gregory Luce St. Paul 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
[Mpls] Re: Mpls Digest, Vol 6, Issue 30 - smokers' rights [7/7]
om/Agt;BRContent-Type: =20 text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCIIBRBRIn a message dated 6/20/2004 = 8: 59:23 AM=20 Central Daylight Time, Andynbsp; Driscoll BRwrites:BRgt; gt; Of = course,=20 every agency and researchnbsp; institution in the world affirms not=20 BRonlyBRthe dangerous effects ofnbsp; second-hand smoke, but new = evidence=20 shows thatBRshort-term exposure tonbsp; relatively small amounts of = smoke=20 is highly toxic toBRhuman health. You maynbsp; start with the = National=20 Institutes of Health, theBRUniversity of Minnesota andnbsp; the = World=20 Health Organizations of the UN, thenBRadd the American Cancernbsp; = Society,=20 Heart Association and the American LungBRAssociation plus = everynbsp;=20 pulmonary and oncology organization in the world.BRBRIf you = believe you=20 havenbsp; evidence refuting 60 years of increasingly = solidBRresearch=20 affirming thenbsp; dangers of second-hand smoke - produce=20 it.lt;lt;BRnbsp;BRActually Andy, that's not the way the process = works.=20 You are the one whonbsp; BRwants to ban an otherwise legal = activity; thus=20 it's up to you to provide thenbsp; BRevidence which supports your = proposal.=20 BRnbsp;BRnbsp;BRThere's one little problem: you won't be able=20 to.BRnbsp;BRAll of the organizations you mentioned base their = arguements=20 on the 1998nbsp; WHO BRreport and the 1993 EPA report. In the case = of the=20 former, the report admitsnbsp; BRit finds at very best a weak and=20 statistically insignificant link. With the BREPAnbsp; report, a = federal=20 judge found that the agency had ignored contrary data to = BRnbsp;produce a=20 report which agreed with the agency's political motivations. In=20 BRothernbsp; words, they cheated.BRnbsp;BRSo, if you have good = information, produce it. Otherwise, you're free tonbsp; rant BRany = way you=20 like. But don't act as if the weight of scientific evidence isnbsp;=20 BRbehind you, because it isn't.BRnbsp;BRM. G.=20 = StinnettBRJordanBRBRBR--BRBRMessa= ge:=20 13BRDate: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:06:53 -0500BRFrom: Michael = Atherton lt;A=20 href=3Dmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]/Agt;BRSubject: = RE: [Mpls]=20 Smoking Ban Info: Two Super ResourcesBRTo: 'Minneapolis Issues' = lt;A=20 = href=3Dmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]/Agt;BRMessage-ID: = lt;A=20 = href=3D01c4572c$0b4a6920$d3f86580@michael">mailto:01c4572c$0b4a6920$d3f86580@michael;01c4572c$0b4a6= 920$d3f86580@michael/Agt;BRContent-Type:=20 text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCIIBRBRBRI'd like to apologize in = advance for=20 repeating some BRold arguments, but I think that they're important = BRand=20 are either being sidestepped or ignored.BRBRAndy Driscoll=20 wrote:BRBRgt; This focus on rights and privileges vs. public = health is=20 BRgt; getting very old.BRBRWell the debate on rights vs. = government=20 intrusion is BRvery old, more than two hundred and fifty years in = this=20 BRcountry.nbsp; What would Americans of the 16th century = haveBRthought if=20 the British had tried to ban the public use of BRtobacco when they = were so=20 irritated by the price of tea?BRBRgt; We regulate all sorts of = behavior=20 to protect the public BRgt; health, behavior that many see as their = inalienable right BRgt; - personal or commercial, but that has not = stopped=20 wise BRgt; policymakers elsewhere from seeing the larger = picture,BRgt;=20 let alone their official responsibility. It is what the BRgt; = public=20 interest is about.BRBRIt's true that our government has regulated = all=20 kindsBRof behavior. Some of these restrictions have unjustly = BRprohibited=20 or legitimatized various practices: slavery, BRwomen's suffrage, = interracial=20 marriage, intra-gender BRmarriage...etc, etc, etc.BRBRMany of = these=20 issues could be addressed more equitableBRif the Framers had = maintained the=20 belief expressedBRin the Declaration that all individuals are = endowed with=20 BRthe unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the BRpursuit of=20 Happiness.BRBRI don't think that we need an Amendment banning = gay=20 marriage;nbsp; BRI think that we need an Amendment protecting = personal=20 decisions BRrelated to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.=20 BRnbsp; BRgt; Smoking, though legal, is NOT an inalienable = right,=20 BRgt; especially when, like drunk driving, it's a choice that = BRgt;=20 harms others.BRBRI would argue that smoking which doesn't impact=20 otherBRpeople is an inalienable right as stated in the = Declaration.BRI=20 believe that consenting adults should be able to gatherBRtogether in = public=20 places and smoke (or whatever) as long as BRit doesn't impact others = who are=20 not forced to be in their BRpresence. I will readily admit that such = a right=20 does not BRcurrently exist, but there are also currently laws in = Minnesota=20 BRprohibiting sex outside of
Re: [Mpls] Council delays smoking ban decision
On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 12:02, Andy Driscoll wrote: But the beverage association - a front for tobacco companies in this matter - has had the good fortune to have both money and a disproportionate voice in these deliberations already. Disproportionate to what? People who have nothing invested in the businesses which will be affected by this regulation? Do not be fooled by civil rights arguments Why? Civil rights are not important? The very notion of rights is no longer applicable when vague threats of public safety are at issue? If you can't serve dirty water, contaminated food or drinks, filthy floors and storage areas, you shouldn't be able to have foul air as the source of breathing in those same places. Have you ever met anyone who wants to eat in restaurants that serve dirty water, contaminated foodstuffs and which keeps goods in filthy condition prior to service? Next question: have you ever met anyone who wants to smoke while they have a drink? Let's repeat again to ourselves: Isn't that more like Let's repeat ourselves ad nauseam until the other side gives up? Why does this debate remind me of the stadium funding issue? Alcohol - the other addictive substance in these places - is sold in far greater quantities when smokers are drinking and smoking. Do you have any evidence that there is any sort of causation at work here or are you just guessing? Isn't it likely that people who feel the need to self-medicate are just more likely to self-medicate, often with whatever might be available and socially acceptable? Bar owners using smoking to increase liquor sales are as disingenuously self-serving as any major polluter who fights any attempt to stifle profits over the children and public health. How can you compare someone who provides a private and enclosed space at their own expense in which none of us are required to spend time to someone who dumps toxins into the air and water which we all must use and which rightfully belong to society as a whole? Smoking encourages drinking which encourages more smoking and so forth. Do you have any evidence of this at all? Do you not know smokers who do not drink or drinkers who do not smoke? Am I the only one who knows folks who are either smokers OR drinkers, but not the other? We subordinate rights to the public interest all the time. This is, repeat, among the more obvious of reasons to put whatever rights people believe smokers and bar owners have to serve the public health. We might do it all the time, but does regularity make it a good habit? We not also have a Bill of Rights-- did they pass a countervailing Bill of Public Health when I wasn't watching? No exceptions. No smoking rooms. No nothing but a ban. Your way or the highway, huh? Isn't it possible there is some sort of compromise that might be worthwhile to protect the rights of the individuals involved, as well as make some progress on this issue without it being an all-or-nothing battle? - Michael C. Libby, Cleveland Neighborhood. 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
Re: [Mpls] Need a Smoke-ban Break? Let's talk housing
On 6/20/04 9:03 PM, Gregory Luce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Section 8 is not synonymous with 'gang bangers and druggies,' nor should Barb's experience be seen as an example of the 'inadequacy' of the federal Section 8 housing system. A misperception, yes, but it's a misperception just as damaging and demeaning as assuming that most people in Minnesota who receive welfare are black (they're not). Most, as in absolute numbers, or as a proportion of their number in a specific racial group? All this said (and said as more of a check on misperceptions than as a suggested direction of the discussion), I'm a fan of co-housing myself and would like to see more opportunities for it in the city. What is co-housing? Neal Krasnoff Loring Park 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
RE: [Mpls] Need a Smoke-ban Break? Let's talk housing
I am absolutely in line with Greg Luce on this one. The craziness and evil behavior going on in the house across the street from me is not a reflection of section 8, public housing or low income people. It is a reflection on one family. A family that is completely out of control. A family that as Victoria Heller put it was able to slip through all the tenant screening mechanisms built to prevent problem tenants from renting the place. I have 6 2 1/2 story walk-ups on my block as well as several duplexes. I am sure some of the tenants are using section 8 certificates to rent. One of the buildings is an affordable housing cooperative. All of the tenants in these buildings are fine neighbors. Public Housing has made extensive attempts to locate families into their housing portfolios that exist all over town. There is even some in affluent neighborhoods. Quite frankly in most cases you wouldn't know the difference between a scattered site house and a regular house. The families in these houses blend into neighborhoods just like anyone else living there. Unfortunately, when we get one out of control family people want to start condemning the whole system. The system works just fine. It does not need fixing. The out of control family needs fixing. It does not appear to me right now that they want to be fixed. I have heard people say on this forum and the Whittier forum that we need to support this out of control family, nurture them and help lift them from their problems. Give me a break! You are assuming they want to be lifted from their evil plight. I am here to tell you that there are mediation services, treatment programs, social programs and tons of other intervention processes in place to help people and families who want to change. The problem is you have to want to change. You can't make somebody do something they don't want to do. Like any behavior change it must begin from within. Ask any recovering alcoholic or drug addict. Right now it appears to me that this family is more driven by the perception of material wealth gained from drug dealing and selling guns than they are in finding a way to live a productive contributing life, gramma included. Don't condemn section 8 and public housing because a few people on these programs screw up. Both of them are working just fine for the most part. Barb Lickness Whittier = Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead 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
[Mpls] Retail at 27th Bloomington
Someone with a gorgeous sense of humor recently tagged a deserted commercial building fronting the sidewalk at 27th and Bloomington where drug dealers regularly congregate. The large graffito read Crack 4 Sale. I'm told that buyers were fairly reluctant to pull up in front of it and that retail activity languished as a result. It has since been painted over, and I can't help smiling when I think of who must have done it, and why. Paul Weir Phillips 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
Re: [Mpls] Smokers' rights
After having a couple of addictions myself I think I can say a couple of things. People, not cigarettes are the most addictive substance in this world. People depending on their background and their development either stay in their addictions or grow out of them. Growing is not always easy and can be looked at as being a struggle. I understand the remorse of smoking all your lives away and making those you love sick as well.there's a lot of guilt. But public policy, must be thought out, rational, and if possible integral. Meaning, creative expression of creative thought. Banning and prohibition is the knee-jerk reaction to things.nearly 80 years ago it spawned an underworld of crime, so as I said earlier the cure better not be any worse than the disease. I have moved on in my life and happily can say that smoking and drinking are not part of what I call the good life anymore. But at one point I did think that way, and there are others that do.let them come along when they are ready. I remember pestering my mom about her smoking and I think my cure, my incessant pestering about her smoking caused her more stress than anything, I wish I just would have left the house when she smoked, I think that would have been a stronger message. She felt incredibly guilty and I just heaped more on her. Let people have a place to go and have their thing, guilt free.as long as I don't have to breathe it,( like car exhaust, thanks) I don't care. This city is full of people doing illegal things that you are unaware of. Not making any trouble for you or the police and being really cool. Day after day year after year pschyconauts taking meaningful trips through their consciouness and are really trying to find out what this human experience is about, they still need a substance to get them there, it's not the ideal, but they are getting there. Best of all is finding it through the breath, and this is what my wife has always thought smokers are doing when they smoke, sort of a wierd form of meditation, pranayama, breath work. Let's have some perspective about this..it's 2004 the president wants to take us back a thousand years and act as if the Enlightenment never happened and smoking is not an issue as long as you don't exhale in my face, then there will be a problem. Robert Yorga St. Anthony West No one like to be criticized, but criticizism can be something like the desert wind that, in whipping the tender stalks, forces them to strike their roots down deeper for security Polingaysi Qoyawayma, Hopi, 1964 _ MSN 9 Dial-up Internet Access fights spam and pop-ups now 3 months FREE! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/ 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
