The real question about this is not the acquisition of yet another park for Minneapolis. Minneapolis already has one of the highest acres per capita of parks in the country for a city of our size. The real question that everyone is involved with this is where is the money going to come from to operate yet another park. Coming up with the capital money is much easier than money to maintain the space, mow the grass, police the park, staff the park, etc. Over and over we come up with good reasons to add park land and then when we get the park, we end up disappointed that the grass isn't mowed, the equipment maintained, etc. The question to the people advocating for this park is where are they going to go for the money to maintain it?
Carol Becker Longfellow > I think it is quite arguable that the larger 5.3 acre park, without JADT, > could actually cause 'more' nearby redevelopment in the long term, than the > smaller 3.4 acre park with JADT. > Dave Stack, Harrison > > > > On Nov 26 Keith Reitman wrote : > >> ... river front types and naturalists should support the JADT > development proposal for many new housing units and a big park at the > Riverview site. It will guarantee a new group of stake holders, hard-wired > for a clean, safe and quiet river front. These new home owners on the river > will be present to monitor conditions and speak with a clear voice. The best > outcomes for the river will be the best outcomes for these new stakeholders. > Think about it. ... >> > > > _______________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________ 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
