Our Park Board staff have asked me to forward the following message so people are not confused about next Wednesday evening if they choose to come down and visit the Park Board.
I like John Erwin's response except for the comments about signage. Not only do I have a problem with signage of any size and shape but the fact that DQ will be printed on the napkins, cups and other throwaway items. Garbage - maybe I should at least get them to pitch in to help pay for the extra garbage that will be generated from all those food items. Now even though I worked in the co-ops for years and I now a lot about organics and healthy food I am not exactly the same at practicing what I preach - but I do still preach about good food and especially for a kids. These kids do not need as much sugar as they get - period, over and out! I know lots and lots of people who love DQ products - I maybe go to one once every three or four years. I just think the kids and the health folks should have healthy options as well. And I don't happen to consider Orange Julius real healthy either but enough on that angle/ But I try to base my work on the sustainability principles and thinking out seven generations. It means meshing The Three E's in helping me make a balanced decision. So the Three E's = Is it economical, efficient, viable; is it environmentally friendly or conscious; and three is equity - meaning social and community (constituent) impact. So according to the info I have at the moment this DQ deal could be considered as meeting the criteria for the first E = economics. Although the sustainability purists will tell you that the corporation or business needs to take into account its full life cycle of manufacturing and production of that Dilly Bar and what that takes to get the item on the counter ready for your stomach. From that angle DQ has a long way to go. Meeting environmental needs - you be the judge? And equity - is it good for the community? Finding out what people think about its impact on the community. You are helping with that input and you are doing a good job. As John Erwin says and my talking with Vivian it seems to be a tossup yea's and nay's although I am sure there will be more comments that will drivel in. But what I want to say that I have learned on this issue in the last few days... the value of this e-list. How on earth did we ever get input from 50-100 people in a 72 hour period? I am impressed with all of you who have responded and everyone with good points one way or the other. Thank you very much. For me this is democracy in action and this has made this very difficult decision a little easier to swallow. I feel I have heard from you and what you want. At this point, I am not changing my vote but I think you all have raised the level of thinking for Park Board Commissioners as a whole and your thoughts about these issues is very meaningful. Now remember the problem lies in the fact that you elect us and pay us (the big bucks- yeah, right!) and we have to make the final decision. Back to between the rock and a hard place. Please read below. Annie Young citywide Park Commissioner >From: "Hill, Dianne S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Young, Annie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: >Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:45:31 -0600 >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) > >Annie - Shannon McDonough's document on the Mpls List is incorrect. People >wishing to speak on matters not on the agenda may do so by signing up for >Open Time prior to the meeting. Can you put this out on the list so we do >not get flooded with calls. I have told folks who call in that normally >discussion takes place in committee, however, the Board does sometimes allow >public testimony at the full Board Meeting. I know Don S. said there would >be further discussion at the 3/6 meeting. _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
