The way I see it
a.) Minneapolis and St. Paul would always be in control. Never a good thing for the rest of the Metro area.
As it is now with the way the legislature works, it's screw Minneapolis all the time. Exhibit A is no bonding for the Planetarium - but lets have taxpayer funding for lots of Eagan Zoo projects. I like the elected Met Council because the core cities are VERY affected by what goes on with the Met Council. The strike is a good example of that.
Elected Met Council Reps would prevent the type of Met Council Rep who is appointed on the Northside of Minneapolis (Annette Meeks) from holding that spot. Meeks could not get elected for a seat in this area. Meeks has been the biggest proponent of abolishing the council and moving all operations to the state.
On Mpls-St Paul control of the Met Council with elected Reps:
Although the current met council is appointed, the districts from which members are appointed are redistricted by the legislature every decade. If you look at the existing districts the proposition that "Minneapolis and St. Paul would always be in control" is completely wrong.
Minneapolis has 2 1/3 of the council districts (the other 2/3rds of district 6 being suburban). St. Paul has 1 1/2 district (the other 1/2 of district 13 being suburban). So Minneapolis and St. Paul combined can effectively control only 3 and possibly 4 of the council's 16 districts.
EY: Exactly. I know some good moderate Republicans on the Northside who support transit who would be excellent Met Council Choices - but Meeks serving in that role in this area - it's an outrage.
Eva Young
Near North
Minneapolis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog is up:
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Twin Cities Metropolitan Issues Forum http://www.e-democracy.org/tcmetro Rules: Sign posts with real name. You may not post more than twice a day.
