This may be an ignorant question, but what is so terrible about the
census bureau wanting to drop the "St. Paul" from their designation of
the "Minneapolis-St. Paul area"?
It's just a name, isn't it? Many on this list have protested about
unequal treatment amongst cities and suburbs, and perhaps government
could capture many economies of scale if we moved to a "regional
government".
Are there no merits to this idea at all?
I realize that the census bureau's change in how it designates the area
wouldn't change anything "real", but maybe calling the Twin Cities metro
area by the name "Minneapolis" would give the "engine of the regional
economy" the recognition it deserves.
Please hold your cries of protest about the civic pride and history,
hurt feelings, etc. caused by using the name of one city versus
another's. Sure there would be some pain, I'm thinking it might be fun
to play through a "what if" discussion about any advantages. (Like
eliminating one bureaucracy? That's bound to save some money over the
long haul and after the initial costs of change over).
Barbara Nelson
Seward
~~
Barbara Nelson
EMAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To be an artist means never to avert one's eyes.
— Akira Kurosawa
