What is a city? Is it a collection of buildings, laws and roads, or is it composed of people? I offer that first, a city is a group of residents, loosely bound together by common geography, and the common interests of shelter, safety, and commerce. We elect representatives to government to protect our common interests and perhaps improve our living conditions in the city. Taxing an income class of "natives" out of the city in favor of higher income "immigrants" is unconscionable, and runs contrary to what should be the very core interest of the city/community: Self preservation. Minneapolis would exist as a community without buildings put up by government, without any programs. If we all lived in tents, and there were no roads, or trains, we would still be a community, a village. Were there no people here, no matter how many buildings and roads there were, it would not be a community, it would not be a village, it would not be a city. We residents ARE the city. My point is that the simple ability of a resident of the city to continue to live in the city should come first in consideration of any new plan by our representatives. What can possibly be more important or fundamental than that?
> One issue that we should tease out from the outrage is how much of > what people see as waste is actually money that could be used for some > other purpose. Dan is outraged by the car-sharing experiment. But > does the money going into this project take away from something else? Yes. It takes away from my food budget, my ability to pay my mortgage, my very ability to dwell in Minneapolis. Now, my share of the hOur Car expense is probably pennies, or less but added with all the other frivolities, it becomes a substantial sum. > And some of the issue is that we have to combine our concerns with > those of others. Dan's angry because of the libraries, which he > doesn't use, because he buys books. I hardly ever drive, so I could > be seething about the money we pay to take care of the roads. And > everyone who no longer has kids in school should object to that... If > you take this to its logical conclusion, we should all go off and live > in the outback and do everything for ourselves. What's the criterion > for distinguishing between a reasonable public expenditure and an > unreasonable one? My guess is that most of us think schools and > libraries are ok. Myself included. I'm glad we have the ability to provide schools, libraries, quality roads and transit, plowing services, police and fire, but our homes must come first, followed by basic services to make life more livable. Food and shelter are the most basic requirements of any society, and must not be put in jeopardy for the sake of luxury. I'm not angry about libraries. I'm angry that construction of a lavish new library with amazing amenities takes precedence over my ability to live. There has to be a limit on what government spends, or as wonderful as the city may appear, who can afford to live here? As Cathy said, only the very rich, or the very poor. The "working class" will be kicked out. So, what is Minneapolis? We, the residents, or the things we build? Dan McGrath Longfellow http://www.smokeoutgary.org REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
