[Speed Gibson,
Wednesday July 8, 2009 at 10:30am]
Preserve the Minneapolis Park System
The Minneapolis Police and Fire departments aren't the only agencies threatened with budget cuts. The Minneapolis Park Board is seeking downright independence via a Charter Amendment they hope to get on the November ballot. I don't live in Minneapolis, but I'm all for it. It's that rare exception where I'd be willing to pay for a better Minneapolis. Not a lot, but it shouldn't take a lot, either.
The Minneapolis Park system is easily, far and away the best in Minnesota and many other states. It is as much as anything, the very identity of Minneapolis, the City of Lakes. Even most of the neighborhood parks, even in the tough areas, are large and scenic, and compare well with their suburban equivalents. I think I'm qualified to make such an assessment, having walked every street of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Robbinsdale, Golden Valley, Crystal, New Hope, Plymouth, Maple Grove, Osseo, Champlin, St. Louis Park, Fridley, St. Anthony, Columbia Heights, Spring Lake Park, Mounds View, and New Brighton. And close to 40% of Minneapolis to date.
There is also talk of merging it with the Hennepin County Three Rivers park system, entirely the wrong answer. Turn these family jewels over to likes of a Mike Opat and he'll soon pave over Powderhorn Park to build a Vikings stadium.
The truth is, Minneapolis has more than enough income to support police, fire, and its park system. Support this amendment and force the Mayor and Council to cut the real fat, like their political pals in Community Development.
The Minneapolis Park system is easily, far and away the best in Minnesota and many other states. It is as much as anything, the very identity of Minneapolis, the City of Lakes. Even most of the neighborhood parks, even in the tough areas, are large and scenic, and compare well with their suburban equivalents. I think I'm qualified to make such an assessment, having walked every street of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Robbinsdale, Golden Valley, Crystal, New Hope, Plymouth, Maple Grove, Osseo, Champlin, St. Louis Park, Fridley, St. Anthony, Columbia Heights, Spring Lake Park, Mounds View, and New Brighton. And close to 40% of Minneapolis to date.
There is also talk of merging it with the Hennepin County Three Rivers park system, entirely the wrong answer. Turn these family jewels over to likes of a Mike Opat and he'll soon pave over Powderhorn Park to build a Vikings stadium.
The truth is, Minneapolis has more than enough income to support police, fire, and its park system. Support this amendment and force the Mayor and Council to cut the real fat, like their political pals in Community Development.
I hate that funding has gotten so politically volatile that important programs (natural/cultural resources at the State level, park board at the City level) have to resort to amendments to ensure long-term funding. Something about that solution is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Having lived in N.Mpls, I can say from experience that Community Development serves a very important role, or at least it did in my old neighborhood.
I wish it didn't come down to cutting one good program to save another.
If your principles allow you to support this, there will come a point where you will have to contradict yourself in order to oppose most other "good for the collective" ideas.
Yes, potentially more people can use the park system than the stadiums but, Liberty has a point. It's often said that if you surveyed park users, (just like museum goers and other public amenities' users) they would be among the more affluent (despite programs being made available to the less affluent through the park system). In Mpls, I would bet that they would tend to be more from the south, where the parks are nicer and safer. (You guys on the side have a frick'n rose garden, for crying out loud!)
Minneapolis's biggest problem is setting priorities. We always hear how they can't cut anything because everything is in a "separate pot of money" that can't be used for anything else. Should we cut cops and fire but continue to have a magnificent parks system because other money can't be used to fund basic services?
I don't think turning it over to Hennepin County is the answer either, just that I find the idea that we have these individual fiefdoms in city government really problematic. For example, I don't really see the need for a separate park police either. The MPD could have a separate division for maintaining a presence in the parks but the same drug dealers, hookers and juvenile deliquents that hang out in parks hang out in other places too. The MPS figured this out when they decided not to renew the the contract they had with the Park Police and give it to the MPD.
I think a stable solution should be found to fund parks, I am not a fan of the no collective goods idea. If you want really low taxes (and a lower level of services and amenities like parks) then don't live in a city.
I'm arguing the extreme because the slippery slope takes you down all kinds of roads that you may not necessarily want to be lead.
Virtually every civilization ever has maintained public spaces for the public good. (Visit any European city, or any American city founded prior to, say 1900 and you'll see squares/greens/parks/plazas).
But now, suddenly, we're ideologically opposed to funding them? I value public safety, but I value the things that add genuine joy and quality of life to our city. And they shouldn't be reserved for only the wealthy.
I'm completely serious when I ask, what has happened to us as a society? Where has this come from, and why?
I'm not arguing history, you're right; parks have been around for a long time. But just because something has existed for years doesn't mean it's morally right. And I really do like parks. But simply because a majority agrees on something they like doesn't necessarily make it beneficial to the minority.
I refuse to get excited about forcing people to pay for something they may not want or afford. To assume I know best for your family is arrogant. To assume and enforce that for multiple, unrelated and varying families is tyranical.
Let's say a majority decides that Limburger cheese is something people like and ought to be a "right"... and we'll supply a generous helping to all who wish to partake and we'll charge EVERYONE for it whether they like it or not. Alternatively, if all those interested in Limburger cheese want to voluntarily contribute to a fund providing cheese to its "members" that's great! And they choose to offer it to those who don't wish to pay for it, I'd call that charitable - a charactaristic of a truly compassionate society.
Again... I'm arguing in the extreme to prove a point. My goal is to reduce government TOWARD its legitimate function:
To protect you from me... no matter how good my intentions may be for your life.
I understand that elected officials have hard decisions to make about how to stretch budgets, and some things will lose funding. But to make a case for not having parks as a public good? Really? Parks aren't cheese--they're, to my mind, as critical to a healthy urban infrastructure as streets and cops.
I think (hope?) you're arguing this for the sake of your ideals, and not because you think parks should really somehow be spun off into private, for-profit entities. Let me play your slippery slope game with you--what's next? No more public access waters in the land of 10k lakes? Yellowstone goes to the highest bidder? Statue of Liberty sold for scrap? Or, heck, what about municipal water? *I* happen to think it's an issue of safety, economy of scale, and quality of life, but maybe you want to have everyone dig a well or buy bottled water.
I assign intrinsic value to some things--not everything is going to neatly line up in the private-funding column. Guess we're just going to be at opposite ends of the spectrum on this one.
Americans VOLUNTARILY contributed over $300,000,000,000 to charity in 2007... with generally no physical benefit. We also voluntarily trade trillions for personal benefit every year. I would expect these trends to continue and grow if we allowed for a more free society, reflecting one closer to that which existed prior to 1913 (not that it was perfect).
I'm inclined to stick to principle so I don't have to contradict myself when I object to govt health care, govt GM, govt AIG, etc, etc. And I understand that most Dems AND Reps are willing to sacrifice some principle to justify a "program" they can personally benefit from.
And Speed, by all means cut the Community Development department first :)
It's what I have been saying about school budgets for years, and should apply here but doesn't. If the government of (insert particular instance here) had a prioritized budget, then taxation would be a cooperative process between government and governed, rather than an adversarial or dictatorial one. If someone thought of a new government service they wanted, it could be put to the voters as: Do you want 1) to pay x amount in additional taxes for this program, 2) to have this program and drop program y (the lowest priority in the budget), or 3) To not have this new program at all? Very simple, clear to everyone. But government won't do that, will they?