Re: [Mpls] Money Trails
There are non-trivial First Amendment problems with this proposal, not the least of which is defining what an interest group is. Should someone who takes support from, say Progressive Minnesota, be banned from voting on the whole range of public issues that PM has taken a position on? The better approach is public financing of local elections, so that candidates do not have to deal with interest groups as a prerequisite to running. You could structure it very much like the state system, hopefully more robust, where once a candidate reaches a certain triggering threshold of small, individual contributions, they qualify for public funds -- and the candidate's acceptance of such funds would bind them to an overall limit on the amount of money to be spent in the race. That limit could be waived if another candidate in the race refused to agree to public funding and/or a spending cap. I know this idea is a hard sell during tough financial times for the city, but it's the only viable alternative to developer-financed local elections that I see. On Dec 5, 2005, at 5:12 AM, Wendy Wilde wrote: Voluntary recusal would be a great start. David Brauer Kingfield Mandatory recusal. You take money from an interest group to fun for office, you cannot vote on projects for them. Make it law. And cannot take a job from them for 10 years after leaving office. Greg Abbott Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] write-in votes
This reminds me of the 1981 Omaha mayoral election, a bit. IIRC (I was in high school then). Two popular morning show DJ's were pushing a write-in campaign for mayor, for a fictional character in a comedy sketch on their morning show --- Space Commander "Whack" This was the highest-rated FM station -- Omaha's version of KQRS. After the election, election officials refused to release any data about who the write-in votes were for, and IIRC not even the percentage of write-ins -- leading a lot of people to conclude that Space Commander Whack had done embarrassingly well. (There were guess-timates of about 10%) To this day I do not remember who won that election, or even who the candidates were. But I remember Space Commander Whack. Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Nov 18, 2005, at 3:09 PM, Linda Higgins wrote: I see in the PiPress that both Dean Zimmerperson and RT Rybak got votes for mayor in -- St. Paul! They tied with the new pope, Arnold Schwartzenegger, and Rudy Giuliani. Here's the link: http://blogs.twincities.com/city_hall_scoop/ Does anyone know when the write-in votes will be tallied and the info released for the Mpls races? linda higgins old highland REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e- democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls Greg Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Congratulations and Turnout
Congratulations to the winners, and I'd also extend thanks to the non- winners. It is very hard to run for public office these days, even at the local level, and without people willing to do it democracy would suffer. I have to chew on the results before I make any substantive comments about the election. It's clear now 2001 was not an aberration caused by an unpopular incumbent - the city's voting patterns have changed. Part of the turnout decline this year was due to Republicans and Independents staying home. This may be a relatively permanent feature of the new political landscape, given how difficult it is for a Republican or Independent candidate to survive the open city-wide primary. My other tentative theory is that the internet is becoming more and more effective for grassroots organizers to identify and motivate supporters, while at the same time, traditional media is becoming less and less interested in city issues. The result is a noticeable increase in turnout amongst identified issue partisans, but a substantial decline in turnout in other voters who don't get enough information from radio, TV, newspapers, etc. So we have lower turnout, but a higher concentration of voters who are left-leaning ideologues, motivated by issues and not so much by party or group affiliation. But this is tentative, and there are many, many variables that go into election results. Again congratulations and good luck to last night's winners. Greg Abbott Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Election Predictions
On Nov 8, 2005, at 3:47 PM, Loki Anderson wrote: If indeed Greg's prediction regarding the Park Board is accurate, the split will be 5-4, but going in the reform direction. The five reformers will be Annie Young, Tom Nordyke, Scott Vreeland, Tracy Nordstrom and Jason Stone v. Walt Dziedzic, Jon Olson, Mary Merrill Anderson and Bob Fine. That's right, I stand corrected. I do think the Kummer-Stone race is the key one for the Park Board. Greg Abbott Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Election Predictions
On Nov 8, 2005, at 12:24 PM, ken bradley wrote: I know that my predictions will be disputed by both friends and foe, but decided to send them out anyways. The results do not reflect my own personal bias but rather by best guess considering all the factors. OK, my turn: Mayor: RT 55%, McLaughlin 45% (after getting distracted by the smoking ban debate, McLaughlin never got back on track) Easily elected or re-elected: Ostrow (1), Hofstede (3), Johnson (4), Goodman (7), Schiff (9), Benson (11), Colvin Roy (12) Ward 2 -- Letofsky (Gordon will not do as well as he did in 2001) Ward 5 -- Johnson Lee (just a hunch - the new ward boundaries include more of her old turf) Ward 6 -- Lilligren Ward 8 -- Hauser (all the hoopla about the mailing will have little effect on the voters, and Hauser has a hell of an organization) Ward 10 -- Remington (Scott Persons is a friend of mine. Sorry, Scott -- the power of demogogery is hard to overcome) Ward 13 -- McDonald (Hodges has been somewhat quiet down the stretch, leading to speculation she's running out of money. McDonald, OTOH, has put out some very good lit in the last 2-3 weeks.) Park Board: at-large -- Annie Young, Mary Merrill Anderson, and Tom Nordyke (outside chance of Meg Forney instead of Nordyke) districts -- Jason Stone beats Carol Kummer, but Bob Fine defeats Jim Bernstein. Tracy Nordstrom wins. Tracy and Bob spend the next four years arguing.Vreeland wins, replacing Hauser. result - current majority of 5-4 is maintained. Could be 6-3 if Kummer wins. Library Board: Thaden, Krueger, Waterman Wittstock, Hooker, Mains, Duckor Board of Estimate & Taxation Becker, Schwimmer Anxiously awaiting results . . . Greg Abbott Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Ethics of strib "Polls"
On Nov 6, 2005, at 2:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know it's tough when you open up your Sunday paper and you see that your candidate is 20 points down. However I don't think you can blame the Strib. I'm sure when they conducted the poll, they had no idea it would show a 20 point lead. What should they have done with the story? sit on it? Doing a poll, and reporting the results on the Sunday before the election means that no one has any time to adjust their strategy to the new situation. Doing a poll, and reporting on it the weekend **before** the last weekend, 9-10 days before the election, is OK. The down ballot candidates would have time to adjust. It provides virtually the same information to paper's readers -- for example, I doubt there's been much change in this year's mayoral race between Oct. 30 and Nov. 6. But reporting on a poll like this, 48 hours before the election, just depresses turnout. This year, I suspect it'll depress R.T.'s turnout, because a lot of his voters will think they're not needed. Greg Abbott Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Ethics of strib "Polls"
The Strib did this four years ago, publishing a poll on the Sunday before the election that had RT 20 points ahead of Sayles Belton. As an estimate of the poll's impact on Sayles Belton supporters, RT's actual margin was 30 percent, which occurred as turnout dropped substantially across the city. This had a huge impact on the down ballot races. I was the DFL- endorsed candidate in Ward 13 that year, and in the previous two general elections, total turnout in Ward 13 had been about 13,000 voters. In 2001, total turnout dropped in Ward 13 to 10,500. What's worse is that IMHO the drop-off consistently primarily of Sayles Belton voters who decided not to vote because the outcome was decided (RT supporters were energized by the prospect of voting Sayles Belton out of office, in contrast). I lost that election by 1,000 votes, in a situation where 2,500 mostly DFL voters didn't go to the polls because the Strib declared that the outcome was decided. Would I have won if the Strib didn't publish that poll? The answer to that is unknowable -- but the drop in turnout destroyed whatever chance I had to win. The outcome of local elections are highly dependent on turnout, and in my view it is grossly irresponsible for the local newspaper to tell voters two days before the election that they needn't bother to show up. Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Nov 6, 2005, at 8:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just got my morning Sunday Strib and there in the headlines was "Rybak,Coleman hold big leads" based on a poll done by the Strib. The reason the media has been stopped from yakking on voting days about projected numbers for or against candidates during voting hours is due to the undue influence they have on voter turnout. REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Who's got the voting power in Minneapolis
The most interesting statement in Mr. Blackshaw's post is the following: I agree that Mr Wagenius' comments were idiotic and full of naive bravado. Is there trouble brewing in Team Rybak, when the campaign manager criticizes R.T.'s long-time political adviser? (disclaimer -- in my experience Peter Wagenius can be insufferably full of himself and his opinions, and I think he's given R.T. some terrible advice about how to operate in a weak-mayor system, but despite it all I rather like him. An bit of an unfair hit, IMHO, even if his comment to Nikki was inappropriate). But Blackshaw's following statement is also problematic: I read Nikki Carlson's post with sadness. Invoking the name and memory of Paul Wellstone to suggest that Mayor Rybak is less than honorable in his failure to endorse Mr. Lopez - for whatever reason - is disrespectful. I really didn't read Nikki's post as claiming that R.T. was "less than honorable" or that her reference to Paul Wellstone was disrespectful. Nikki's point is a valid one -- Wellstone was someone who frequently encouraged and endorsed underdog challengers to established candidates, and when faced with a similar situation, R.T. did not do so. Nikki did not use the word "honor" in the post -- she was saying that R.T. had made a politically safe choice with which she fundamentally disagreed. And it's hardly disrespectful to the memory of Paul Wellstone to say that R.T. played it safe when Wellstone would not have. Virtually every prominent Democrat I can think of has played it safe at times when Wellstone would have made a courageous and risky decision. Lastly, I suspect Wellstone himself would be amused that any comparative reference to his political characteristics would be considered disrespectful to his memory. Greg Abbott Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Who's got the voting power in Minneapolis
The fact that R.T. is an incumbent makes this pattern look stronger than it is. And the fact that Sayles Belton was such an unpopular incumbent made this pattern look stronger than it was in 2001. If this were an open seat election McLaughlin would be picking up more DFL votes in 7, 10, 11, and 13 than he is this year. (As a matter of fact, were this an open seat election, McLaughlin probably would have gotten the DFL endorsement and consequently would be getting the majority of the vote in 7, 10, 11, and 13). I think you're reading too much into the available data. Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Nov 2, 2005, at 8:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see the historical patterns not only prevailing in future elections, but also hardening. Whether you agree with the candidate or not, RT has shown that this is the way to win a majority of the vote in a City- wide election. It's hard to see a different coalition arising to to challenge it. REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Yes, size matters.
This is the aspect of the DeLaSalle football field debate that has always puzzled me: why does the status quo have such a privileged position? If the arguments about the unique historical and ecological nature of Nicollet Island are true, why aren't we trying to roll back existing development -- why isn't there a program trying to get the residents and/or the high school off the island? Just curious. Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Oct 30, 2005, at 4:43 PM, wmmarks wrote: Christine Viken wrote: History nuts like me consider the present richer for their existence and preservation. But you're only interested in 200 years (Zebulon Pike signed the first shameful treaty with a band of the Mdwaketon (sp?) Dakotah in 1805) of a history that probably spans thousands of years. You are talking about only the history of industry on Nicollet Island. That does not encompass all the "we" we are at this place with a history attached to Nicollet Island. REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Errata . . . Ryback Campaign Calls for Halt to Distortions
I almost forgot . . . 5. Spelling. There's no "c" in Rybak. Greg Abbott Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Ryback Campaign Calls for Halt to Distortions
There are several problems with Mr. Blackshaw's letter: 1. Protocol. The protocol is that candidates should address candidates, and campaign officials should address campaign officials. Blackshaw's letter should have been addressed to his counterpart at the McLaughlin campaign. It's actually quite an insult to McLaughlin for the opposing campaign manager to address him directly in the letter as if he should respond. It is curious, actually, that R.T. didn't sign the letter himself. Other than insulting McLaughlin, there's no reason R.T. couldn't have signed it. 2. The Law. By law, the McLaughlin campaign cannot be involved in any independent expenditure. Blackshaw's letter is an invitation for McLaughlin campaign to violate the law by coordinating the message of an independent expenditure. 3. Efficacy. The Police Federation is going to do what the Police Federation is going to do. Even if McLaughlin took R.T.'s request seriously, in my opinion it would make no difference whatsoever. 4. Hypocrisy. Why is the letter addressed to McLaughlin, and not to the Police Federation itself? Because the Rybak campaign is more interesting in creating a political issue than stopping the mailings. The letter is intended to achieve an objective other than the one it states on the surface. That about covers it, IMHO Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Oct 26, 2005, at 9:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rybak Campaign Calls on Commissioner McLaughlin to Halt Negative Attacks In a letter hand delivered today to Commissioner McLaughlin’s campaign office, Mayor Rybak’s campaign manager John Blackshaw called on Mr. McLaughlin to publicly request his top supporter, the Police Federation, to curtail its expected distorted attack campaign directed at Mayor Rybak. . . . REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] R.T. beats a dead horse, and takes credit for the inevitable.
1. Sharon Sayles Belton is not on the ballot this year. Peter McLaughlin is, a candidate with a long history of effective and responsible government service behind him. 2. Everyone compliments R.T. on cleaning up the budget mess. The truth is the situation was so bad he had no choice. It is my opinion that had Sayles Belton been re-elected, she would have been forced to do many of the same things. I think because of R.T.'s presence there is a longer-term focus and a cleaner process than there might have been otherwise, but 95 percent of the policy decisions would have been the same, IMHO. 3. Sayles Belton gets a lot of criticism for letting the situation get so bad. Much of that is deserved, particularly with respect to borrowing from the Internal Services account. However, it was the governor and legislature that initiated the "perfect storm" of reductions in LGA funds and severe reductions in the ability to use TIF revenues for other purposes. It is unfair to blame Sayles Belton for not anticipating the effects of Jesse Ventura's big tax reform plan, in combination with Tim Pawlenty's LGA cuts. 4. How much of the credit for budget reform should go to R.T., as opposed to say Barb Johnson and Barrett Lane? R.T. takes all the credit, but from what I can see R.T. has been the passive vessel through which decisions made by staff and the Council have been carried out. Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Oct 22, 2005, at 11:19 AM, Dorie Rae Gallagher wrote: Whomever that person is in the state making the comment should realize the mess RT took on the first day of office. The debt left by the beloved SSB. The Southwest Journal has some good articles with the facts and figures listed. Had we not elected RT and had gotten SSB back in office, I can't imagine the financial nightmare the city would be in. Thank goodness the people of Minneapolis voted her and part of the council out...with others going to jail. Time to clean up Minneapolis politics... Greg Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Six Budgets?
I saw in today's Strib the following quote from R.T.: "I will do my next four budgets like I've done the last six, which is pay off the credit card, focus on basic services and know when to say no," Mayor R.T. Rybak said. By my count R.T. has "done" only three budgets, 2003, 2004, and 2005, with the process for the fourth (2006) underway but not complete. Did the city go to a semi-annual budgeting process while I wasn't looking? Greg Abbott Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Dirty Campaign Tactics
Linden Hills Boulevard has usually wide boulevards. It is not uncommon for political lawn signs to be placed on the boulevard for this reason -- otherwise they'd be 20+ feet off of the street. In fact, IIRC, list member Lynnell Mickelson, who lives on the other end of Linden Hills Boulevard, has 5 or 6 lawn signs in her boulevard. FYI Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Sep 19, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Chris Johnson wrote: # 1. Wednesday evening, September 14, Scott Neiman and Bob Fine's son Andy were spotted installing a campaign yard sign for Bob Fine on city property. They placed this sign on the city-owned boulevard at 4001 Linden Hills Boulevard. Greg Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Primary Turnout
It is a mistake to draw conclusions from this low turnout primary
election.
There was nothing at stake in this election. Both Rybak and
McLaughlin were going to advance to the general, and supporters on
both sides knew that. Given the low stakes, plenty of folks in both
camps sat this one out, particularly given the rainy start to the
day. This is also true of the most council races. Most wards did
not have a primary or a hotly contested race. The only real drama
was in 8, 10, and 13.
The results tell me that chronic voters (people who vote in every
election, rain or shine) have a slight preference for Rybak. But
given that turnout in the general election will more than double,
perhaps even triple, from the primary, drawing any conclusions from
Tuesday's results is a fool's errand.
As an example, take the 13th Ward. Betsy Hodges got over 50 percent
in this primary, which is amazing for a DFL-endorsed candidate in
13. Yet her total vote was only about 2700. When I ran and lost in
13 four years ago, I got 4724 votes in the general election. The
vote totals for the winning candidate in the last three general
elections ('93, '97, and '01) were approximately 6800, 7400, and
5700, respectively. Hodges needs to find another 3000-3500 votes to
win, and in Ward 13 that's going to be a challenge for a DFL-endorsed
candidate.
So it's a mulligan for everyone. Tee it up, and take another swing
in November.
Greg Abbott
Linden Hills
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Feels Like Low Turnout
I voted in my precinct, 13-3, at 9:15 am. There was almost no one there, and I was voter #56. This is from a precinct that had 2300 voters in 2004 general election (IIRC). Last year I voted at about the same time, and was #280 or so. I don't know how this plays out city-wide, but low turnout in Ward 13 is going to hurt RT. Greg Abbott Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] FBI Searches Dean Zimmermann's Home
Strib story: http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5604473.html Judging from the interest in Zimmerman's financial records, I'd say they're looking for a Sabri link. I like Dean personally - I hope this turns out to be an unsuccessful fishing expedition. Greg Abbott Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Rybak retort to Minneapolis Police Federation
Has RT complained about the decline in County Sheriff staff? If he has, I haven't seen it. And what, if any, responsibility for law enforcement within the boundaries of Minneapolis does the County Sheriff have? Criticizing someone for failing to condemn someone's else's behavior is a form of "guilt by association" frequently used by right-wing blogs to imply, for example, that all liberals secretly support Saddam Hussein (while else would they have failed to condemn Saddam's human rights violation). It is a very poor form of argument designed to change the subject. But, hey, if it's good enough for Powerline and Instapundit, it's good enough for RT. Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Sep 6, 2005, at 11:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And while we're on the subject of cheap campaign ploys and inconsistencies, why is it that McLaughlin supporters will criticize RT for sending police officers down, but aren't complaining about the County Sheriff staff that are going down? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Cost of Stadium and Tuition at D
On Sep 1, 2005, at 9:10 PM, Shawne FitzGerald wrote: My knowledge of De La Salle is about 10 years out-of-date so perhaps others, like Ms. Carlson, will correct me. But De La Salle's mission has nothing to do with saving kids from the clutches of poverty and crime. Perhaps the point I made was too obscure -- the nature of DeLaSalle is irrelevant to the debate over the stadium, so there's no point in arguing about it. The only meaningful question is whether there's a net public benefit, or not. (With the caveat that the benefit to DeLaSalle is not a public benefit). If DeLaSalle were run by dirt-worshipping pagans, it wouldn't (or shouldn't) change how we evaluate the stadium proposal. Greg Abbott Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Cost of Stadium and Tuition at D
I have followed the DeLaSalle stadium debate, but I have drawn no conclusion one way or the other. In my judgment the opponents of the stadium have completely lost perspective if they think pointless quibbling with DeLaSalle supporters over tuition and scholarships advances their cause. DeLaSalle is a fine institution, and contributes greatly to the quality of life in Minneapolis. It is counter-productive to deny or minimize that fact. If the debate becomes a referendum on DeLaSalle generally, the stadium opponents will almost surely lose. So, let's stipulate for the record that DeLaSalle is an excellent, amazing, divinely-inspired school that saves thousands of kids from the clutches of poverty and crime. That fact is not a sufficient condition to permit a private religious entity to use public park land. The only way this deal makes sense is if the public as a whole benefits. From the perspective of the Park Board, the larger question is -- does the stadium proposal improve the use and access of the affected park land by the public as a whole? From what I can see on the list, no one has discussed this particular point. Someone needs to provide some hard data on current public use and enjoyment of the tennis courts, compared to potential public use and enjoyment of the new facilities. Use and enjoyment of the facilities by DeLaSalle is not a public benefit, even if helps keep kids off the street. Justifying use of public land by private religious groups on the basis of the good works done by those religious groups sets a very dangerous precedent, and is wholly inconsistent with the principle of church/state separation. If the public benefits, as well as DeLaSalle, then it's a win-win. But without a direct public benefit, it's a no-go. So let's reframe the debate, and leave the discussion of tuition and financial aid on the table, OK? Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Sep 1, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Chris Johnson wrote: I would like to make my own comparisons, and draw my own conclusions. To repeat the question: how much is DeLaSalle's tuition? The correct answer is a numerical value, expressed in dollars and cents, not an opinion on its relation to the amount at "most" private schools. Carlson thinks the tuition went up about $500 and another parent said around $1,500. Which is it? How many students get more than a token amount of financial aid? How many students get 50% or more of tuition? Giving over half the students a few dollars might qualify as financial aid, but would not be representative of the real financial needs of the student body. One other note about financial aid. All students at Catholic high schools in the archdiocese are eligible for need-based grants from the Archdiocesan Annual Catholic Appeal. DeLaSalle is hardly unique in that aspect. Greg Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Mayor's Race: assured outcome?
Well said. On Aug 26, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Aaron Street wrote: It seems to me that if the Minneapolis DFL was the machine that you say it is we would have had a mayoral endorsement in one of the two past elections. I get pretty frustrated with some people's idea that the Minneapolis DFL is controlled by Gary's so-called disciplined, unified "party elite". If this concept is meant to refer to Minneapolis DFL candidates, then why are so many local elections contested between DFLers (Mayor, Ward 8, Ward 10, etc.)? If it's meant to refer to the Party's officers, I wish you had seen the Minneapolis DFL Nominations Committee meetings I chaired this spring - we were a rag-tag group of new and veteran, young and old, connected and not, DFLers united only in our desire to find decent people who would work in the best interests of the organization. Finally, if it's meant to refer to "party elders" or "financiers", then why did the Kaplan's and Walter Mondale's endorsement of R.T. not result in his endorsement? . . . The Minneapolis DFL Party is not the monolith you claim it to be. Greg Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Naming the Library
On Aug 23, 2005, at 12:32 PM, Ray Marshall wrote: In two years there won't be 50 people who would be able to identify Countryman, other than by guessing that she was a librarian or something. Being that a library contains books, how about naming the new building after Sinclair Lewis? I was going to suggest F. Scott Fitzgerald, but I can visualize the trauma that would be caused "east of the river" if I were to suggest that. F. Scott Fitzgerald and Sinclair Lewis don't need any help to be remembered by history. Gratia Countryman does need help to be remembered. Your statement -- that less than 50 people know who she is -- is actually an argument FOR naming the library after her. Greg Abbott Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] City Pages: Confederacy of Dunces
Interesting blog entry over at City Pages -- http:// blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2005/08/confederacy_of.asp I especially like frequent list contributor Barb Lickness' comment down below -- people forget that RT ran four years ago that he was going to set a "higher standard" for ethics in politics, and yet four years later, RT's position seems to be "if it's not obviously illegal, it's OK." This is not what people voted for in 2001. Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th ward REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] RT and "Risky Behavior"
On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:35 AM, gemgram wrote: They [RT's staff] do a great job of running a campaign, Not this year, at least so far. but they suck at running the City. The performance of RT and his staff has been very uneven. They deserve credit for addressing the budget issues, although they've dropped the ball on the number one obligation of any elected city official - public safety. The problem with RT is that he's caught between his substantive obligations as mayor, and the rather shallow political rhetoric that drives his base. This is why RT flip-flops so much. Take the stadium, for example. As mayor, he needs to be a player in the stadium debate and he can't do that in opposition. But at the same time, RT has to send anti-stadium signals to his base to reassure them he's still with them in spirit. A similar dynamic is at play with the NRP issue. RT's base wants traditional, top-down liberal agenda setting when it comes to allocation of NRP resources, but it's quite impolitic to come out and oppose decentralized neighborhood decision-making. The result is plenty of pro-neighborhood rhetoric on the surface, but a behind the scenes an effort to reallocate both decision-making and resources back to City Hall. The crime issue is a bit different. It wasn't on the radar for RT's base, and consequently he was way too slow in reacting to it. RT's comment about victims of crime engaging in risky behavior did not pop out of thin air. That's the sort of opinion that many well-off, south Minneapolis liberals would express themselves. Isolated from the "bad" parts of the city, RT's base sees crime as an abstract policy issue, not a short-term public safety issue. And when RT blames the crime problem on Pawlenty, the Republican legislature, and the Bush Administration, he is simply channeling the opinions of his supporters. RT's not entirely wrong - Pawlenty and Bush are responsible in part for the present crime problem. But people who are dodging drug dealers and prostitutes on a daily basis are not interested in waiting for the next election cycle. They want answers now. RT's reply to these people -- a dressed up variation of "It's Not My Fault" -- just isn't going to cut it. Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Redistricting
In addition to that, I would add that downtown is pretty much up for grabs in terms of Council Member activity. To the extent that other Council Members defer to the wishes of a Council Member regarding projects in their own ward (it's happening less and less, see, e.g., the recent Lagoon Project vote), that principal has not applied to downtown which is viewed as belonging to the City as a whole. I'm not defending the redistricting by any means. But IMHO the "they took downtown away from the Fifth Ward" argument is not a very good objection to the new boundaries. Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Jul 9, 2005, at 3:46 PM, Anderson & Turpin wrote: There've been many complaints about a part of downtown being stripped from the North ward in the latest re-districting. How exactly does having a rich section in one's district make a council person more powerful? They all have 1/13th of the vote. REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] In Ballot Box: "Vile and petty misrepresentations"
I concur. Of course, none of this has anything to do with substantive municipal issues. Mr. Remington, of course, would not be the first candidate to complain about campaign tactics as a means of avoiding a debate on the real issues. And, as I said before when R.T.'s campaign briefly raised the "Karl Rove" analogy, nothing in Minneapolis politics today comes close to what Rove has done. For example, discussing an endorsement block is not the same as what Rove did in an Alabama judicial race, when he put out anonymous fliers attacking his own candidate, fliers so offensive they created a backlash for the "victim" of the attack (as they were intended to do). The real news here is how thin-skinned Mr. Remington appears to be -- a bad trait for a prospective Council Member given how thick the fur flies around City Hall. Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Jul 6, 2005, at 5:24 PM, Dean Carlson wrote: I'm "shocked, shocked" to hear that one candidate for the DFL endorsement would take steps block other candidates, who also want that endorsement, from getting it. Boy has campaigning stooped to a new low ;o) Also Mr. Remington accuses Mr. Persons of personal attacks and then accuses him of conducting a "Karl Rovian" campaign, which in most Democrat's book is about as low and personal as it goes. Looks like a muddy summer in front of us and Mr. Remington's got a sloppy big bucket. Dean E. Carlson Ward 10, East Harriet REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] New 5th Ward : Re-elect or not Re-elect
If I recall correctly, state campaign law governs use of the term "re- elect." If any portion of the new district includes part of the old district where the candidate was previously elected, then a candidate is entitled to use the word "re-elect." Otherwise, no. I don't have the citation, I may look it up when I have the chance. So the Johnson Lee v. Samuels race is a rare case where two candidates, running for the same seat, are both entitled to use the term "re-elect." I think Robert Lilligren might be out of luck, though -- although as I recall his campaign lit has an artistic twist to it and probably won't need to use the term "re-elect" to catch the voter's eye Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Jun 23, 2005, at 3:54 PM, megan goodmundson wrote: Michelle Hill writes: I would also like to tell Don Samuels campaign manager that I received his literature and would like to say thanks, however, it is an error to ask the constituents to vote to "re-elect" him. Since he has never ran in the 5th ward, CP Johnson-Lee is the incumbent running for re-election. CP Samuels would not be up for re-election in the 5th Ward. Perhaps it should have said, vote for Don Samuels to be "re-elected to the city council." The literature is misleading, but I think it was just an accident. Michelle Hill Cleveland REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] City kills affordable housing deal, says CP
This is a recurring problem with projects of this kind. People who raise objections in good faith are lumped in with the NIMBY types, and real problems with the proposal are dismissed out of hand. Layered on top of this, of course, are developers whose vested interests colors their opinion about the how thorough neighborhood outreach has been, among other things. Yes, more of these type of units need to be built. But they need to be built right, which sometimes means having the courage to walk away from the particular developer or proposal in front of you, and looking for new proposals. At a glance (and I know nothing of this, other than what's appeared on the list), it looks as if CM Colvin Roy has done precisely that. Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward On May 26, 2005, at 1:49 PM, ken bradley wrote: Barb, Thanks for your very informative response. I hope you are right, and it is more an issue about creating a reliable funding structure that the city will not have to bail out, then actually oposition to having affordable housing built in the 12th Ward. I am only afraid that it was pressure from people that don't want "those kinds of people" moving into our neighborhood that had an impact on the decision. I have often been surprised that people that would appear to me to be reasonable, even liberal, have great anxiety about helping the poor when it involves "their neighborhood". I was one of "those kids" growing up in a upper middle class neighborhood, and benefited greatly from that experience. Ken Bradley Sandy has been on the council when the "bills" to stabilize the cooperatives in my neighborhood have been presented to the council on many occasions. Perhaps it is from seeing those expenses that she is raising the questions and asking the developer to rethink how they are structuring this development. Barb Lickness Whittier REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Where's R.T.? (no clear plans for a second term)
On May 18, 2005, at 7:53 AM, Joseph Barisonzi wrote: a seasoned political veteran who has yet to articulate how he would be a step forward rather then a step backward. I'm curious about why Joe thinks that Peter is the candidate with unanswered questions, and not R.T. R.T. has given no indication of any major items for a second term agenda. R.T.'s website has an "R.T. on the Issues" section which is 90 percent about what R.T. has done in the past, and which makes no effort to prioritize or organize the issues by relative importance. Even that minimal bit of information requires you to drill down -- the front page is simply "Help R.T. with the Summer Campaign" and some links to lists of people who have endorsed R.T. R.T.'s convention speech was also fairly vague about future action: "Give me a chance to do more great things" was the gist of it. R.T.'s political past is equally murky as a guide to his future actions. It is beyond dispute that R.T. broke every significant promise he made during the 2001 election (i.e., opposing a stadium, adopting 24-hour snowplow, and no political fundraising between election years). From R.T.'s perspective, he was forced by circumstances to break these promises -- but even still the record is clear that R.T.'s words are not an accurate predictor of his future actions. So what would R.T.'s second term look like? I follow city politics as closely as anyone, and I really don't have a clue. This is a big problem for voters trying to evaluate the candidates. For example, the Police Federation flyer that was mailed to DFL delegates before the convention claimed that another 90 cops are scheduled to be cut in R.T.'s future budget projections, on top of the 150 or so that have already been cut. Is this true? I may have missed it, but I have yet to hear anyone from the Mayor's Office deny it. And if R.T. does deny it, who's to say that he won't change his mind after the election (again) and implement the cuts? Peter, unlike R.T., has a track record of following through on his political objectives (Exhibit A: light-rail). No candidate is perfect, but at least with Peter what you see is what you get. Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] And the winner is...
On May 15, 2005, at 12:35 PM, David Brauer wrote: We need a bigger hall, obviously - back to the Convention Center, home of the 1993 Sharon-versus-Rip brouhaha - I was city DFL chair during the 1997 election cycle (I was elected at the '97 convention, and participated in the planning that led up to it). The problem with the Convention Center is the overwhelming expense. The debt that the city DFL incurred from the '93 convention was substantial, and it took until 2000 before the party had fully recovered from the economic hang-over of '93. The truth of the matter is the Minneapolis DFL party, as a organization, is the unwanted step-child of city politics. No one really has an interest in contributing to the party organization for the sake of an efficient process. Contributors would rather donate to campaigns or PACs run by elected officials than to the city DFL, which between elections has little or no impact on policy outcomes. Brian Melendez is getting some flack for the arrangements screw up (from Doug Grow among others). But the fault really lies in elected DFL officials who pay no attention to the party infrastructure or finances until they need another endorsement. I will give Scott Benson some credit for trying to address the problem -- after he was elected, Benson tried to form a separate DFL City Council caucus to raise money for DFL-endorsed candidates in the city, and give the city party some resources. But the idea fell apart from a lack of interest from other DFL-endorsed council members. And it's not just a lack of community spirit -- IMHO some DFL council members **prefer** a weak city DFL. That way the party isn't strong enough to stop or counter their own interference in other ward elections, frequently at the expense of endorsed DFL candidates. As effective as it is, the DFL sample ballot just doesn't compensate for the failure of elected DFL'rs to respect the city party's endorsement. City party unity, never strong to begin with, broke down almost entirely in 2001 and has not recovered in 2005 (a situation that the incumbent DFL mayor has repeatedly exploited to his political advantage). So while R.T. fiddles, the city DFL burns. And in the meantime we have dozens and dozens of dedicated volunteers trying to put on ward and city DFL conventions without nearly enough resources to do the job they are asked to do. and we seriously need to explore faster voting methods. It's 2005 and we're still using paper ballots! We need IRV for the mayoral endorsement. The move this year for IRV at the ward conventions just came too late to be incorporated into the rules and arrangements process. Greg Abbott 13th Ward Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] R.T.'s over-the-top rhetoric
On May 13, 2005, at 10:23 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've not decided who I'm supporting tomorrow, and his rhetoric maybe over the top... perhaps a little sloppy. However, this is a bizarre place to attack R.T... In context, he was saying that Peter is using fear as a way to win which is exactly the way Karl Rove and kronies operate. From seeing some of the debates and one on one conversations and mailings it doesn't seem that far off. In my opinion, the attacks McLaughlin is making on Rybak's record are no different in scope and tone than the attacks Rybak made against Sayles Belton in 2001. That's what happens when you're an incumbent running for re-election -- your record gets attacked. The only difference between R.T. and Sharon in this regard is that R.T. appears not to understand that attacks and harsh criticism are part of the job. The question is not whether negative attacks occur, but whether they hit the mark or not. In 2001, they hit the mark. In 2005, the jury is still out. R.T.'s problem is that there are very legitimate concerns about the direction of crime and neighborhoods in the city -- the only real question is the level of culpability R.T. has for the current state of affairs. And a "Karl Rove" reference goes well beyond invoking fear. There was an Atlantic Monthly article last year about Rove, and his M.O. includes a level of deception and dirty tricks that is light years beyond what anyone in Minneapolis has ever done. My original point stands - R.T. is invoking the dread name of Karl Rove, despite its inapplicability, as a dramatic rhetorical device to get attention. And regardless of whom one supports for mayor, that's a bad thing. Greg Abbott 13th Ward Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] R.T.'s over-the-top rhetoric
I took up the challenge posed by R.T. in his robo-call and went to R.T.'s website to check out the "truth" on Peter's alleged Republican- style smear attacks. What I found what a brief repetition of some facts in response to claims that crime is up, etc., and the following outrageous statement: "Don’t let the right-wing scare tactics of Karl Rove and his allies scare you away from participating in your democratic process." R.T. has, in so many words, asserted that Karl Rove and Peter McLaughlin are "allies." Only one of two thing are true: (a) either R.T. really means this; or (b) the statement is outrageously sloppy. In other words, the actual truth value of the statement is distorted or diluted in an effort to punch up its rhetorical/emotional impact (something which R.T. has repeatedly done before). Only the second possibility is plausible. It is inconceivable that R.T. actually believes Karl Rove is working with Peter McLaughlin to defeat him. Which in my mind makes the charge even more egregious -- making this kind of wholly fictitious claim, with the is a far worse violation of political ethics than any charge or claim that McLaughlin has made about R.T. I supported R.T. in 2001. In fact, if I knew then what I know now I would still have supported R.T. Four years ago the municipal reset button needed to be pushed. But this is 2005. And in the last four years we've learned R.T. is prone to over-the-top rhetoric which places him at the center of all that is good and light, and casts any opponent into the dark chasm of "politics-as-usual." This shopworn rhetorical device is now totally detached from reality. The real news story here is R.T.'s irrational and paranoid response to Peter's criticism. At a minimum it raises a big red flag about what a second Rybak administration might look like. Greg Abbott 13th Ward Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] IRV will help ensure endorsement
Personally I'm a big supporter of IRV. Adopted city-wide, I think it would have positive effects and reduce the temptation for candidates or their supporters to engage in negative campaigning (negative campaigns work because two-candidate races, like city general elections, are a zero-sum game, what hurts one candidate helps the other despite negative feelings which attach to the candidate who starts throwing the mud). I don't think IRV fits in a DFL endorsing convention right now. First, an endorsement requires 60 percent, not 50 percent. It's not clear to me how IRV would work in a super-majority situation. Standard IRV says the lowest vote getter's votes are reallocated according to preference until someone gets above 50 percent. In a 60 percent situation, however, I could see that leading to having only 2 candidates remaining, one with 58 percent, the other 42 percent, for example. At that point, should candidate B's votes be reallocated to see if candidate A can get over 60 percent? I raise this hypothetical because under the standard rules, in a two-candidate race where candidate A gets to 58 percent, it is virtually certain that he/she gets over 60 percent on the next ballot. The truth of the matter is that a large majority of convention delegates want an endorsement and would willingly change their preferences in order to achieve an endorsement. In my experience, getting into the high 50's quickly leads to endorsement (the rare exception to this IIRC was the Kress-Niziolek Ward 10 convention). And IRV, as it stands now, would not permit that. I would oppose any formulation of IRV for the DFL that would prevent convention delegates from switching their preferences to achieve an endorsement. Secondly, there are practical matters relating to tabulation of ballots. Having served several times as head teller at DFL conventions in the past, I understand and can quickly implement reliable, verifiable counting procedures under the standard rules. To be sure, reliable procedures to hand tabulate an IRV ballot exist, or can be created, but at this point neither I nor anyone else in the DFL has done it. I would hate to be a candidate going through this process in the first place - the uncertainty and possibility for error would be much higher than usual. Lastly, I suspect that the rules of the DFL would have to be amended in order to permit IRV (or so I've been told). The only body with the authority to do that would be the City Convention (assuming -- a big if -- that we wouldn't have to go through the state DFL central committee). A ward convention cannot amend the city DFL rules on its own. This raises the specter of a DFL endorsement obtained through IRV being declared invalid, and having to do the convention over entirely. In short, I think IRV is great. I would like to see it adopted by the DFL. However, adopting IRV as a short-term response to the rules dispute in Ward 2 is both unwise and (likely) against the existing rules. What I would be willing to do is this: I can chair a study group to examine IRV and propose amendments to the city rules which would permit use of IRV in future conventions. Ideally, we could come up with a set of standard IRV rules, parallel to the existing standard rules, and then future conventions could adopt IRV or the old rules as they see fit. We could also discuss and recommend tabulation procedures. As a delegate to the city convention, I can move to amend the rules to conform to what the study group recommends. I'm too far removed from Ward 2 to have a candidate preference. The political scientist part of me would like Ward 2 to rush into an IRV situation, just to see what happens. But the former DFL official in me smells a train wreck in the making. It would bad for the DFL to experiment with IRV under these circumstances: at the last minute and under partisan pressure from assorted camps to manipulate the rules to their advantage. Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Mar 9, 2005, at 3:36 PM, Elizabeth McCann wrote: Dan Miller and his campaign fully support the use of an Instant Runoff Voting process (IRV) to ensure a fair, accurate and efficient system to select a candidate for endorsement at our Ward 2 convention on April 9th. REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Rules for Endorsement at Ward 2 DFL Convention
I'm an outsider with respect to Ward 2, but as former chair of the city DFL, and a long-time believer in the endorsement process, I have to concur with Mr. Cross. The actual substance of the proposed rules will result in no endorsement, especially in a convention with more than two viable candidates. I cannot speak to the intent of the proposers, but the outcome is pretty obvious. In a multi-candidate field it frequently takes several ballots just to get to the last two candidates. Once the field is winnowed to two candidates, an endorsement can be reached very quickly. Two proposed rule changes I view as particularly problematic: the two-thirds quorum and the lack of a drop-off rule. I have never heard of a two-thirds quorum rule, ever. The reason for this is obvious - it would be nearly impossible to maintain a quorum with such a high threshold. This would permit a candidate (or a combination of candidates) with as little as 33 percent of the vote to block an endorsement by having his or her supporters leave the convention -- effectively raising the number of votes needed to obtain an endorsement from 60 to 67 percent. Talk about thwarting the will of the majority!! And the drop-off rule is integral to the endorsing process. Without a drop-off rule, the DFL convention becomes a very small primary. It doesn't help DFL primary voters to know that 40 percent of convention delegates preferred Candidate X, 25 percent Candidate Y, and so on. In contrast, it does help DFL voters to know that 60 percent of convention delegates think the party should unify behind Candidate Z. The point of the drop-off rule is to test the convictions of the delegates - if they truly think only their candidate is worthy of endorsement they can vote "no endorsement." (A vote for no endorsement is always available). Without a drop-off rule, delegates are never forced to choose between no endorsement and endorsement of a competing candidate. If the problem you're trying to solve is overly long conventions, the solution is a stricter drop-off rule, not a weaker one. Speed up the arrival of the point where the delegates have to make a final choice - postponing it only extends the convention needlessly (and thereby makes an endorsement less likely). The party is stronger if it unifies behind one candidate. It happens occasionally that the convention gets it wrong, and primary voters go in a different direction. But the convention should be given an opportunity to take that chance, and not have the choice effectively taken away by the rules committee. With rules like these, what's the point of having the convention? Greg Abbott Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] City Republican Party Threatens Legal Action Against MayorRybak f...
Has there been any discussion of having the city attorney issuing a legal opinion which affects his boss, the mayor? This situation creates, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest. If the city attorney goes "light" on the mayor, or disagrees with the State Auditor, it simply adds more fuel to the fire as far as the controversy goes. IMHO. In similar situations, Amy Klobuchar recuses her office from any investigation involving campaign ethics or finance laws if it involves anyone who she might have, or had, a political relationship with -- referring the investigation to a neighboring county with no political ties to the people involved. In this case it may have been better to have referred the request for a legal opinion to the St. Paul City Attorney's office. Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Feb 16, 2005, at 6:51 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe the mayor has deferred this matter to the city attorney so his ruling will probably determine whether the mayor pays of fights. Bill Dooley Kenny - Ward 13 REMINDERS: Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Rybak Mailing
On Jan 21, 2005, at 7:21 PM, Dean Lindberg wrote: Considering the source of this statement (Ms Anderson, not Mr. Cutting), along with the admonishment about how the city should be spending it's money, I smell a lot more politics in her press release than objective legal opinion. What could be more objective than state law itself? The statute is plain as day: No mailing from a local government can include a picture of an elected official. RT should reimburse the city for the cost of the piece from his campaign account -- for printing, mailing, as well as staff time involved in producing the piece. And he should do it immediately, not just make the promise now while waiting weeks or months to write the check (the city shouldn't be in the position of giving RT's campaign an interest free loan). Greg Abbott Linden Hills Here's the actual text of the statute for those who are interested - Minn. Stat. 471.68, Subd. 3: Subd. 3. Pictures prohibited. When a statutory or home rule charter city, county, town, school district, metropolitan or regional agency, or other political subdivision of this state, issues a report or other publication for public distribution to inform the general public of the activities of the political subdivision, the report or publication must not include pictures of elected officials nor any other pictorial or graphic device that would tend to attribute the publication to an individual or groups of individuals instead of the political subdivision. Directories of public services provided by the political subdivision are exempt from this subdivision. REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Friends
On Jan 3, 2005, at 2:05 PM, gemgram wrote: Remember this same Basim Sabri is the person who bragged that he "Owned" public officials, that he was Minneapolis City Council Member's "retirement fund". He thought that he didn't have to worry about the law, he could buy law. According to some of the Somali business people who he exploited the Sabris threatened them with these political "friends". Remember that as little as a few months ago Sabri still claimed as "friends" and supporters several of the highest of City of Minneapolis' elected officials. Sabri's boast that he "owned" public officials is not logically sufficient to prove that he did, in fact, "own" them. Sabri most likely exaggerated his influence at City Hall in order to intimidate his Somali tenants. Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is mostly likely the correct one. Sabri the braggart is a simpler explanation than Sabri, the mastermind who "owns" public officials. gemgram: Even though Sabri was under indictment, and the United States Supreme Court had ruled that there was sufficient evidence to try him for his criminal behavior, he continues receiving votes and "support" from his "friends". The city is in a tough position in situations like this -- among other things, civil rights law and the equal protection clause make it hard for the city to discriminate among (and against) developer proposals, except on the merits of the proposal itself. Once a conviction is in hand, though, things are different. The Republican-appointed US Attorney has no motive to pull his punches to protect the city. If there's more out there, it'll surface (as well it should). Greg Abbott Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] City seeks new sources of revenue
On Dec 22, 2004, at 2:45 PM, Michael Hohmann wrote: Why not look to expand collection of local property taxes by taxing many of the local properties that are currently exempt? Without doing the research, I would hazard a guess that classification of real estate is subject to legal limitations contained in state statutes. I doubt the city has much leeway in this matter (if there is any discretionary power to re-classify, it's probably located at the county level). We're three years into this budget crisis, and counting. All the easy ways to deal with it have been used. IMHO Greg Abbott Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] RE: Kahn's Crime
On 9/29/04 2:46 PM, "Dennis Plante" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If it were simply a matter of an elected official defecating on someone's > front stoop, I would view the activity as particularly odd and let it go at > that. An elected official who did such a thing would be hounded until he or she resigned from office. Rightly so, in my judgment. One trademark of stalkers and/or obsessive harassers is leaving feces for, or sending feces to, the victim. I have represented in my law practice an individual who was the victim of this type of crime. It's far worse than just "particularly odd." Bad analogy. Try a different one. Greg Abbott ---- Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
Re: [Mpls] 50th Street Traffic
50th and France has some real issues that the new striping did not address. The intersection is a bottleneck in all directions, which is causing cars to divert into residential areas to get around it. For example, although France south of 50th is clearly designed to handle more traffic, when I go to Southdale from Linden Hills, I take Xerxes. I'd rather go through 3 or 4 stop signs than wait at 50th and France. And if I'm coming home, north on France, I'll skip the intersection by turning east on 51st or 52nd (traffic is often backed up from 50th & France this far south), and then north on Chowen. I'm a good driver, and I stop for stop signs, but there's a tremendous amount of through traffic on 51st, 52nd, Ewing, Drew, and Chowen I suspect is not so well-behaved. Plus, the problems on 54th Chris notes. I'm a bit surprised the Fulton neighborhood isn't in more of an uproar about this. At some point, hopefully sooner rather than later, the city, Hennepin County, Edina, and the affected neighborhoods are going to have sit down and figure out what to do about 50th and France. The rest of the striping on 50th seems to be going well, including a long-overdue left hand turn lane at Penn Avenue, for west-bound traffic on 50th. I notice that the concerns of the business districts seem to have been addressed, in a fashion similar to a proposal I made to this list when the test striping was done (was that last year, or the year before? -- man, how time flies!). Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward On Jul 10, 2004, at 9:07 PM, Chris Johnson wrote: Well, not quite. Try going westbound on 50th through the France Avenue intersection. Due to the fact that there is now a shared left turn and through traffic lane, and a dedicated right turn lane, traffic backs up there. The left turn arrow is never long enough to clear out all the west bound traffic which is composed of mixed left turners and through traffic. Worse, sometimes the left turn arrow doesn't even cycle first, so everybody continuing west on 50th gets stuck behind the one left turn person for two cycles of the lights. It also means traffic gets stuck behind the numbskulls who think the speed limit is 23mph at any point along the road. 50th street is also Hennepin County Road 21, an "A" arterial. Of all east-west streets west of 35W between the lakes and the city limits, it is precisely where the traffic belongs. I'd like to see the city and county get the numerous cars and trucks(!) who use Diamond Lake and 54th Street as a short-cut off those neighborhood, city-only streets. There's 8 stop lights and only one lane now between Lyndale and Xerxes on 50th, but room enough to fake 2 lanes to pass turning cars and only 2 stop lights on 54th. Guess where the folks in a hurry drive? And because they're in a hurry, they run the stop signs. Lord help the kids crossing the street trying to go to the neighborhood park. 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
Re: [Mpls] West High School
On Jun 26, 2004, at 7:46 PM, Barbara Lickness wrote: I know Roosevelt is the Teddies and Washburn is the Millers. What was West? My wife, an '86 Washburn grad, believes that West HS was the Lakers, with colors of green and white. The current Lakers, SW High, were (according to her memory) the Indians before West closed. Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Free Markets 101 - Mayor Rybak is correct
On Jun 14, 2004, at 6:23 AM, Victoria Heller wrote: Lesson One: People will do what they want to do - whether you like it or not. Have you ever seen a billboard for crack? Have you ever seen a magazine ad for marijuana? Have you ever seen a direct mail piece for meth? You're mixing apples and oranges -- the question is not whether smoking is permitted, but **where** smoking should be permitted. Eating lunch, for example, is perfectly legal, but if I try to eat lunch in R.T.'s office I'm sure a police officer will escort me out of the building. Turn the question around -- since these laws are so ineffective, perhaps we should legalize crack or meth use in bars and restaurants, in order to help small businesses and the city's convention business. No? I didn't think so. Greg Abbott 13th Ward Linden Hills 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
Re: [Mpls] Death by arithmetic
On Jun 11, 2004, at 7:16 AM, Victoria Heller wrote: Am I the only person who wonders why Omaha (population of 395,000) operates with $80 million of property taxes, while Minneapolis can't make ends meet with $220 million? I'm not going to debate the larger point, but I think using Omaha as a "comparable" doesn't make a lot of sense for Minneapolis. I thought I'd compare taxes and property values for the house I grew up in (north 75th St. in Omaha) and the house I now live in (in Linden Hills), and see if Ms. Heller's comparison makes sense. What I discovered is that Omaha has to tax its property at a rate which is 1.7 times higher than Minneapolis in order to generate its $80 million in property taxes (versus Minneapolis, with $220 million at a lower rate). In 1974, my mom bought a house on north 75th street in Omaha for $26,000. In 1988, she sold that house for $43,000. Today, the county assessor values the house at $82,400 (from the Douglas County, NE, website). That's less than double the value in 16 years -- far less than the appreciation we've experienced in the Twin Cities. Annual taxes on the Omaha house, a 1060 square foot, 3 bedroom, one bath, built in 1960, are $1768 (based on a valuation of $82,400). By comparison, the house I currently live in, in Linden Hills, was assessed on Jan 1, 2003, at $250,000 (this has since gone up substantially), and we paid $3,104 in property taxes last year. If I paid taxes on the Linden Hills house at the same rate as the house in Omaha, the 2003 tax bill would have been $5364, or 1.7 times the rate I'm paying in Minneapolis. This comparison includes all taxes, city, county, and school district. Why the difference? I suspect Omaha has only a fraction of the "tax capacity" that Minneapolis does. There's a great deal of unused or even distressed commercial real property in and surrounding downtown Omaha. I was in Omaha two weeks ago, and driving along Harney or Farnam streets, between 20th and 27th, was shocking. There are also miles and miles of small, post-war houses that do not look as if they are enjoying the run-up in property values we've experienced here in Minneapolis. Take Brooklyn Center or Richfield, multiply it by 2-3 times, and put it inside the city limits (while cutting the value in half), and you get the idea. The reason for this is, while Minneapolis is land-locked by its suburbs, Omaha is not. There has been rapid growth towards the southwest, along the I-80 corridor between Omaha and Lincoln -- the "McMansions" everyone complains about have all been built inside the city limits because Omaha has been able to extend its boundaries to the previously empty land surrounding it. Because of the ease at which new growth can occur outside Omaha, there is no shortage of land to drive up prices for the 50's and 60's tract homes now located in the middle of the city. Also, unlike Minneapolis, where proximity to downtown and the promise of a short commute to work has pushed up property values in the city, downtown Omaha is not an economic center driving up residential property values based on proximity or short commute times (jobs in Omaha are more widely spread out than in the Twin Cities). And, the fact that Minneapolis is at the center of a vibrant region where nearly 3 million people live, gives it both more tax capacity as well as expenses and obligations that Omaha does not face. Minneapolis has far more amenities, be it parks, culture, or otherwise than Omaha (amenities that a metro area of 3 million demands, but which a small city of 400,000 can ignore). Statistics can be twisted one way or another -- but to find a valid comparison to Minneapolis you'd have to find a relatively small, land-locked central city in the heart of a large metro area. Seattle, perhaps. Or San Francisco. After all these years, it's time to put the "cold Omaha" comparisons to bed. Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
Re: [Mpls] smoking ban
On Jun 4, 2004, at 2:54 PM, Michael Hohmann wrote: Absent a statewide ban, people simply have too many dinning and entertainment options to worry about a local smoking ban in Mpls. Options? Is there a smoke-free bar or music club downtown that I can attend? I don't think so (if there are, please enlighten me). Even in bars where the smoking isn't that bad, relatively speaking, when I get home my clothes reek of second-hand smoke. Consequently Lynn and I do not go downtown, even though she is really into live music. Greg Abbott 13th Ward Linden Hills 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
Re: [Mpls] 72 percent support bar/restaurant smoking ban
On May 27, 2004, at 11:12 AM, Michael Hohmann wrote: I believe that registered city voters actually represent a minority portion of the city population that should have been surveyed, If a majority of city residents are not registered to vote, and if a public opinion survey relying exclusively on registered voters is invalid, city elections themselves are not representative and are thus invalid measures of popular will. Absurd conclusions can be drawn from this principle. About 30,000 people live in the 13th Ward, but in the last city election only about 10,500 residents voted. Hence the results of the 13th Ward election in 2001 are invalid because the outcome represents only a minority of the residents of the ward. :) For what it's worth, I believe about 60-65 percent of city residents are registered to vote -- the city elections office will have the actual numbers, but I'd guess about 220,000 of 380,000 residents are registered (which is a pretty healthy percentage, when you exclude children under 18 who aren't eligible). IMHO the survey is accurate -- a large majority of Minneapolitans are non-smokers, and they don't want to run the gauntlet of second-hand smoke in order to enjoy the amenities of their own city. Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Smoking Ban & Public/Private
On May 17, 2004, at 10:49 AM, phaedrus wrote: If it is relatively straightforward to make a business a private establishment and that establisment would have the right to determine its own smoking policy, then I may have to withdraw my objections to a smoking ban - it all depends on the details. One common feature of "dry" states and counties, where consumption of alcohol in public places was prohibited, was to form "private" clubs where people had to become members in order to permit the establishment to serve alcohol on the premises. IIRC, in Utah, bars would sell you "memberships" at the door. Certainly this is a possible exception to the smoking ban that might make sense -- as long as it's not such a wide exception that all bars would feel compelled to become "private" smoking clubs. Perhaps a hard quota on the number of such private clubs in a given area, for example. If these entities were truly private then some of the "smokers' rights" arguments might apply. But a "private" club open to anyone who walks in the door is the same as a public establishment and should be treated accordingly. As always, the devil is in the details. Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Mpls DFL constitutional amendment
I agree entirely with Joe's excellent post. Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward On May 13, 2004, at 9:26 AM, Joseph Barisonzi wrote: Warning: Long winded Rant List (especially DFL delegates), I would like to speak against the proposed amendment to the Minneapolis DFL Constitution which would abolish the reform of City Year Caucuses before there is even a chance to allow it to work. . . . We need to keep City Year Caucuses so that the DFL endorsement is relevant. . . . Let's Give it A Try We haven't even had a chance to see if this reform helps yet. The first time this reform will have a chance to happen is next year. This year's delegates were elected for school board, county, House, and federal electitons. They were elected by their caucus to one year terms. To retroactivly change their term to two years and deny people the opportunity to come together next year and elected delegates to represent them in the endorsement of Mayor and City Council members would be a big mistake. To reverse this reform will ensure that our next Council and Mayors office will have even fewer candidates that were intially endorsed by the DFL party and make the party process and values even less relevent. And part of me still thinks that would be too bad. Joseph Barisonzi Willard-Hay 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
Re: [Mpls] Smoking Ban - YES
Thanks to the miracle of the internet, I'm reading this thread from my mom's house, 1400 miles away in Washington state, about 40 miles north of Seattle. I've been out here for three of the past four weeks. Perhaps my emotions are a touch raw to comment on this topic, but two weeks ago my mother was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer of "unknown primary origin" in her abdomen. Although the "unknown primary origin" complicates things, my mother's prognosis is poor. My mother's primary risk factor was her status as a 45-year smoker. So for intense personal reasons I've been giving tobacco some thought. It is addictive, expensive, and has no social or medical benefits. If tobacco was a new drug, it would be strictly prohibited, and John Ashcroft would be circling ominously around those states contemplating a relaxation of their tobacco laws. The burden of proof is, IMHO, on those who think that tobacco use ought to be permitted. Tobacco use causes deadly illness, and it is expensive, addictive, and has no social or personal benefits. Tobacco is more analogous to addictive hard drugs than it is to alcohol: e.g., used in moderation alcohol can be beneficial for health. The arguments for permitting use of an addictive and deadly substance in any public place are fairly weak. Permitting such behavior in public signals that tobacco use is socially acceptable. Obviously there are many people who would use tobacco anyway, regardless of a ban in public places, but there are also many for whom such a ban would deter smoking -- my mom, for example, as law-abiding and church-going a person as can be found, very likely would have responded to the "official" message than smoking was bad. The virtue of a complete ban on tobacco use in bars and restaurants is that all of these businesses would face the same economic impacts. There may be some who would go to St. Paul instead of Minneapolis because of the smoking ban, but I have hard time imagining a truly large economic impact. And any decline in business would be offset by those who would start going downtown because of the smoking ban -- me, for example: Lynn and I are non-smokers and the smell of smoke on our clothes is by far the biggest reason we don't spend much time in the entertainment district. My mom is 64 years old and otherwise in good health. What is 15-20 years of life worth? What is being able to watch your grandchildren grow up worth? A lot more than the economic costs of a transition to a smoke-free entertainment district, IMHO. Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Minneapolis cops back on the job; union leader wants inquiry into chief's comments
I want to follow up on Chris Johnson's comments - the main part of my law practice involves defamation. Obviously it's impossible to properly evaluate the prospects of a defamation claim based solely on newspaper reports and issues list postings. But, based on what I've read, I have some doubt that any of the three officers will be able to successfully sue the city for libel or slander. Even assuming that the referral of the matter for an outside investigation is defamatory -- a big, big assumption -- there are a whole host of legal defenses to defamation which will likely protect the city. The one that gets the most press is the First Amendment, but in this instance the city and its officials will also be able to claim a "qualified privilege" defense -- that is, these statements were made in connection with official acts and duties and are thus not actionable. You can overcome a qualified privilege with a showing of actual malice -- but actual malice is nearly impossible to prove, particularly in this context, given the obvious public interest in determining whether or not police officials engaged in criminal misconduct. I've written a summary of Minnesota defamation law on my professional website: http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html My interpretation of Gerold's strategy was that she was not trying to set up a future lawsuit, but attempting to escalate the apparent legal stakes in an effort to, shall we say, persuade the city into backing down **before** a final decision was made. In doing so Gerold has undermined the prospects of a future defamation case, in part for reasons that Chris Johnson highlighted. Also Gerold herself called a press conference to complain that her reputation had been damaged, which had the effect of disseminating the "defamatory" information that much wider -- as I recall there was an article in the Strib, on page one of the Metro section, an article which would not have been printed but for Gerold's own statements. Gerold has a very good lawyer, and if accurate Chief McManus' comments are not helpful. Even still I think the city would have the upper hand in the litigation if Gerold does actually pull the trigger and sue for defamation. Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Mar 23, 2004, at 10:21 AM, Chris Johnson wrote: Then there are those people who believe as the letters to the STrib editor today: that somehow the 3 officers were both slandered and libeled by Chief McManus, and that they should sue the city, and that the city's taxpayers would then have to pay for McManus' mistakes. This begs the question of how one can both slander and libel at the same time, as one is oral and the other in writing. Here are two big problems with that line of thought: 1. That the officers were publically accused of wrong-doing. As far as I know, they were put on administrative leave with pay while the possibility of such accusations was investigated, but without any such accusations being made. The fact is, someone DID bury a memo about the Officer Ngo shooting, a memo which should have been turned over to the city legal staff for use in Ngo's legal case against it. Responsibility for that memo did reside in the chain of command these 3 officers represent. What else should have been done? If an officer shoots someone in the line of duty, regardless of all evidence that says it was justified, they are put on administrative leave. There's no implication of guilt by that action. Why should it be any different for these 3? 2. Slander or libel implies damage to reputation. One's reputation resides in the eyes of the beholder. Different people are going to take certain news in different ways. In this case, I'm sure there are people who took it as I did: My opinion of these officers did not change one single bit when they were put on administrative leave, as I knew it was proper procedure during an investigation. However, all the complaining and protestation by these officers, especially Gerold, about these administrative leaves have given me a truly negative view. Prior to Gerold's repeated public remarks about how her reputation was ruined and she wanted it back, I was ambivalent about her. Now, I have a negative opinion of her -- not because of McManus' remarks about her, or because she got put on leave, but rather because of her "I'm a wronged victim" complaining in reaction. If the responsbilities of the job are too tough, maybe she should find another line of work. When one is in command of bad investigation, one gets to take the heat. That's how it is. That's because one is supposed to see that the investigation be done properly. Of course, some of the sniping at the Mayor and the city over McManus is really just thinly-disguised Republican attack on Minneapolis for not being
Re: [Mpls] Speed limit on Lyndale Ave S ??
Thanks to everyone for the Lyndale Avenue feedback. 30 mph it is. I was doing about 35 when passed. One person raised the issue of only driving in the left lane while passing. I thought that was a highway rule not applicable to city streets. On Lyndale in particular I prefer to be in the left lane away from the parked cars, especially in the winter when the snow banks push them out an extra foot or so. Greg Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
[Mpls] Speed limit on Lyndale Ave S ??
What's the speed limit on Lyndale Avenue South? This morning I was driving northbound on Lyndale and didn't spot a speed limit sign from 40th street all the way to Franklin. ( I was driving in the left lane when I got passed on the right -- which made me wonder if I was driving too slow. I don't think so, but I'd like to get some verification ) Greg Abbott Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
Re: [Mpls] emails to/from govt officials
On Mar 1, 2004, at 4:39 PM, Sen.Linda Higgins wrote: Does this mean I should have kept the 25 "don't you want a larger penis?" and Viagra/Ciallis ads I deleted this morning? Don't you have a spam filter on your state e-mail server? They're getting pretty good. I have one I use through VISI.com - a Minneapolis-based ISP, and it works quite well. These days everyone knows putting your "real" e-mail address out on the internet is a virtual invitation to receive spam - but that wasn't so clear before, say, 1999. When I registered my domain for my law practice in 1996, I didn't know any better. As a result my main work e-mail address gets hammered by spam, maybe 150-250 a day.VISI's spam filter "postini" cuts that down to a trickle, maybe 3-5 a day, with a false positive rate of less than 1 in 10,000. Government officials shouldn't be archiving spam -- but they ought to be archiving everything else. Hence my point -- spam filters. Greg --- Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Park Board to hire Dairy Queen at Lake Harriet?
On Mar 1, 2004, at 3:10 PM, Annie Young wrote: My biggest problem and fear is about Corporate logos, signage and eventually growing beyond our control and then naming buildings and parks in our system. The "slippery slope" is a valid concern -- but I have a hard time understanding how the Park Board would lose control of the situation, assuming the contracts are drafted properly. Or how the Park Board could lose control of naming buildings and parks. My bottom line is no external signage at all (and minimal, tasteful internal signage). The Lake Harriet Bandshell is jewel, a true visual icon for Minneapolis. If DQ can live with that restriction, then I think a "win-win" solution might be possible. Greg Abbott --- Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th ward 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
Re: [Mpls] McManus says "They proved they were men."
On Feb 27, 2004, at 6:12 PM, Joseph Barisonzi wrote: There is clearly something going on here that hasn't come out in the paper yet. At least we know the way to earn the chief's respect is to prove you are a man. I think that's a touch unfair. A poor turn of phrase, I'll admit, but it may be a simple as the chief expressing appreciation for an officer willing to stand up and be accountable for his/her actions, etc etc (fill in the blank with some other pithy phrase from "NYPD Blue."). I suspect we'll know what all of this is about, sooner or later. But I do know one thing - McManus was hired as an outsider to shake up the department, and he's delivered on that promise right off the bat. Greg Abbott ---- Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Open Meetings
On Feb 26, 2004, at 1:39 PM, Jason C Stone wrote: It's my understanding that public officials can currently skirt the intent of Open Meeting laws by using e-mail. Does anyone have further information on this? It's been quite awhile since I looked at this issue, but I believe there's a prohibition against "serial meetings" -- where elected officials meet in small groups, sequentially, to prevent reaching a quorum, and thereby triggering a public notice requirement. (If memory serves I don't think this is a statutory requirement per se -- it comes from a court opinion interpreting the statute). E-mail certainly could qualify as a serial meeting under this interpretation of the statute. However, the primary purpose of the Open Meeting law is not make all "meetings" open, but to make sure that no official act can be conducted in the absence of public notice. In other words, no ordinance, vote or agreement is valid unless and until it occurs at a public meeting. The actual text of the Open Meeting law is this: "All meetings, including executive sessions, must be open to the public . . . when required or permitted by law to transact public business in a meeting" Minn. Stat. 13D.01, subd. 1. For example, if you recall the contentious reorganization of the City Council after the 2001 election, Paul Ostrow circulated a document for his colleagues to sign which indicated their written commitment to vote for his plan for organizing the council. The reason that this document did not violate the Open Meeting law was precisely because the council members who signed it still had to vote at the public meeting in order for the plan to become an official act. Which, of course, raised the possibility that one or more of the signatories could change his or her mind after signing it but before voting at the public meeting. Now, instead of having an open vote on council organization, suppose that Ostrow simply had submitted the document to the City Clerk, with seven signatures, as the "official" organization of the council. That would have been a violation of the Open Meeting law. My point is that private conversations, even private written agreements, between elected officials about public business do not trigger the open meeting law because those conversations and agreements **in and of themselves** do not constitute an official action. Back to e-mail: an e-mail that reads "The proposed ordinance is amended if a majority of committee members signal approval via e-mail" -- that's an open meeting violation. But an e-mail that says "A majority of the committee have agreed to amend the proposed ordinance at the next meeting" is not a violation, because the proposed ordinance is not actually amended unless and until the committee votes to do so at the next meeting. Pushing the Open Meeting law to cover all communications (including e-mail) would be unwise -- it would stifle discussion among elected officials about public business. For example, I know of some City Council members who have in the past put lunch appointments with their colleagues on the public calendar, if for example, three of them were having lunch and those three happened to make a quorum for a particular subcommittee on which they were all members. IMHO this is an overreaction, but I can understand why an elected official would act that way - to avoid even the appearance of an open meeting violation. It might be worthwhile for the City to clean up the ambiguity, perhaps with an ordinance stating no act or decision can constitute official public business unless it is conducted and recorded in a procedure specified by the City Clerk. (There may already be such an ordinance, I don't know). Generally speaking, though, the bark of the Open Meeting statute is worse than its bite. Greg Abbott Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Get me to the church
I've been out of town for a bit, so if some has mentioned this I apologize. Isn't it Hennepin County, not City Hall that issues marriage licenses for Minneapolis? Meaning: the decision whether or not to emulate San Francisco is not up to RT, but instead it's up to our Republican-controlled Hennepin County Board. IMHO none of the following four commissioners would vote to permit same-sex license applications (in apparent violation of state law): Steele, Johnson, Koblick, Stenglein. And I have my doubts about whether Mike Opat would be willing to do so. So that's 4-2 against (with Dorfman and McLaughlin in favor), and Opat abstaining (in my hypothetical world). In any event, it's a county issue not a city issue. BTW, I think San Francisco has merged both levels of government, as in "The City and County of San Francisco." Greg Abbott ---- Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Massive school reshuffling proposed
Steve Cross wrote: And, if the School Board shuts down Pratt, that clearly doesn't qualify as "expanding to K-5." The School Board will then have violated it contract with NRP and that is actionable in court. We in Linden Hills went through the same analysis, briefly, when the Library Board considered closing Linden Hills Library in response to budget pressure. This was less than a year after completing a thorough remodeling of the building, to which Linden Hills had contributed about $240,000 of NRP money. The answer we got from our NRP staff person was "no dice." The problem is the doctrine of sovereign immunity -- government is immune from suit unless and until it permits itself to be sued. Unless your NRP contract contains an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity under which the School District allows itself to be sued for breach of contract, the School District is immune. I suspect your NRP contract does not have that language -- ours didn't. There are potential ways around this -- I was just beginning to look at the state statutes and some court decisions on the issue when the Library Board chose to cut hours system-wide instead of closing some libraries -- but my impression was that challenging such a decision in court would have been a serious uphill battle. However, the political situation is different. Were I in your shoes, I'd initiate a letter-writing campaign to the School Board, all organized around the theme of "how dare you go back on your promise, and waste $400,000 of our NRP money." I would also organize testimony from neighborhood residents at the hearings on this topic scheduled by the School Board. Politically speaking, I would think that you have a reasonable chance of either reversing the decision to close, or getting the School Board to give the $400,000 back (a one-time payment to save ongoing operating expenses may make sense to them). Good luck. Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th ward 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
Re: [Mpls] good old boys
On Jan 21, 2004, at 3:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that Lisa M's post is quite fair and to the point. The good old boys club... The inner circle who have known each other since the ice age. How dare we criticize this way of doing business. The rich, powerful, connected. Of course they are often buddies, friends, travel in the same circle. And they are well deserving of criticism Margaret Hastings-Mpsl In argumentation, the specific trumps the general. Generic references to the old boys network do not justify specific accusations against individuals. I know the people involved, and the criticism is unwarranted and unfair. One other point -- attacking individuals with a generic charge like this creates a dangerous precedent. For example, from time to time the government of the City of Minneapolis makes bad decisions. It is irresponsible to automatically leap from the fact of a bad decision to the conclusion that City Hall is run by bad people. It is irresponsible for this reason: Keep making these type of arguments, and **no one**, not even angels in heaven, will be able to govern the city without having their legitimacy destroyed by constant attacks on their motives. Greg Abbott Linden Hills Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Would Mayor Rybak "Call Out the Guard" if people protestexcess project/stadium
Ex-CM McDonald's post is unfair and misleading. Lee Sheehy, Louis Smith, and Andy Parker all have known each other for years, at least dating back to when they all worked at the now defunct Popham Haik law firm. I would assume that city employees can attend sporting events with longtime friends without violating ethical standards. FYI Louis Smith was my mentor for a time when I worked at Popham Haik, and he is one of the finest lawyers (and human beings) I have ever met. I also have a very high opinion of Lee Sheehy. (Andy Parker I never got to know very well, which is hardly surprising, since at its peak Popham Haik had well over 200+ lawyers.) If this is the sort of innuendo upon which the opponents of the Access Project are forced to rely, it is no wonder their opposition to date has been so ineffective. Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Jan 21, 2004, at 1:15 PM, Lisa McDonald wrote: On Monday night my husband and I were at the Timberwolves game, and lo and behold several of the Smith-Parker folks were entertaining Mr. Lee Sheehy from the MCDA at the game. They brought Mr. Sheehy down to courtside so he could hob-nob with several other lobbyists, one from Target. I didn't see any folks from Wells Fargo, but I don't know any of the Allina folks so for all I know they could have been there too. After half time Mr. Sheehy and the Smith Parkers returned to their seats and seemed to be engaged in non-stop conversation (maybe lining up Tuesday's votes) scarcely noticing the game which was head to head all night until the TWolves pulled ahead by seven points in the last minute to win. I wonder who paid for the seats? - Gregory A. Abbott, Esq. Attorney-at-law Minneapolis, MN (952) 224-5089 fax - (952) 400-5910 http://www.abbottlaw.us e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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
Re: [Mpls] Restaurant recommendation
I don't know so much about the locally-grown part, but the Modern Cafe, on 13th Ave NE, right near the intersection of University and 13th, has excellent food and is pretty quiet. It has kind of a subdued retro-modern 50's feel to it, which I like. I'd also recommend Alma, on 6th Ave SE and University (I think), but on a busy night it can get a little noisy. Greg Abbott On Jan 9, 2004, at 1:14 PM, Chris Johnson wrote: I'm looking for a recommendation for a restaurant in Minneapolis for a celebratory Sunday evening dinner. One criteria is quiet: when two older guys get together to celebrate with conversation and food, the common high-noise restaurant scene pretty much makes conversation an unpleasant task. A second criteria would be good, high-quality food -- ideally a place that serves organic, locally-grown food as much as possible. I've got a list of such places -- many have been crossed off because I personally know they are way too noisy. A few I've not been to, so don't know what their atmosphere is like, for example, Bobino, Sapor Cafe and Bar, and n.e. thyme. Suggestions? Places to avoid? --- Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th ward 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
[Mpls] Nomination Process
On Jan 9, 2004, at 8:55 AM, Mark Snyder quoted Doug Grow's column, quoting Chief Finney: . . I never thought that Minneapolis would be able to find anyone with his credentials. He's got everything. He just happens to be white. For him not to have been selected simply because he's white would have been a gross injustice." I too was struck by Chief Finney's support of McManus. It's an unusually strong statement. I think RT deserves a great deal of credit for finding and picking a candidate who has this level of respect amongst his peers. Here's hoping political sour grapes don't get in the way of his confirmation. As I've said before, rejecting McManus hurts the city more than it would gain by hiring a "better" alternative. Greg Abbott --- Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Park Board Five continue their mockery of taxpayers and process
On Jan 6, 2004, at 1:27 AM, Jim Bernstein wrote: In fact, at-large commissioners have much less vulnerability since they do not represent well defined constituencies. A commissioner representing a specific district is much more likely to be held accountable on how well he/she represents the interests and needs of that district. At-large commissioners generally do not face that same scrutiny. The at-large commissioners face a great deal of scrutiny at the DFL endorsing convention, for example. And I'm sure Annie Young gets a great deal of scrutiny at the Green convention. The candidates themselves seem to prefer running in districts than city-wide, largely IMHO because the district seats are perceived as safe seats, whereas the results for the city-wide seats are more variable. For example, in 2001 two incumbent commissioners -- Bob Fine and Rochelle Berry Graves -- attempted to move from an at-large position to a district position. Neither won DFL endorsement for the district position: Berry Graves then chose to run for re-election at-large, Bob Fine chose to run against the DFL-endorsed candidate in the district. And IIRC Bob Fine lost running at-large in 1993, and then won running at-large (by the slimmest of margins) in 1997, which caused him to conclude that running in district 6 in 2001 would be easier and safer. greg --- Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Park Board Five continue their mockery of taxpayers and process
On Jan 4, 2004, at 4:51 PM, Jim Bernstein wrote: The current issues with the Park Board do not seem to be a matter of at-large commissioners taking one approach against the interests of commissioners elected by districts or. Nor is it that the interests of the district members are remarkably different than the interest of the at-large members. I have not detected any measurable differences based on size or geography of constituency; it seems more a matter of style and personality. Jim Bernstein Fulton I disagree, partly because district-based park board members are far more insulated from the political consequences of their decisions than the at-large members. The political constituency of a district member can be quite small and still be unassailable in political terms. Walt Dziedzic's political base is barely wider than the boundaries of Ward 1, for example, but I suspect it's enough to keep him on the park board for as long as he wants. Dziedzic can't be beat in his own district, but after the superintendent fiasco he'd lose if he tried to run city-wide. The same is true for Jon Olson, and (perhaps) Marie Hauser. This has a real tactical impact on the politics of the board. The district-based members can really play hard ball without fear of retribution, but the at-large members cannot respond in kind without making themselves politically vulnerable. There is also, in fact, an ideological split between the at-larges and the district commissioners. Roughly speaking, there are two camps on the park board, those who put environmental issues first and those who put recreation issues first. The "environment" camp contains all the city-wide commissioners, while the "recreation" camp contains almost all of the district commissioners. The one district commissioner in the environment camp -- Vivian Mason -- comes from a district where residents by and large care more about environmental concerns than particular recreational facilities. No doubt personality conflicts have greatly contributed to the divisions on the park board. But the underlying splits are IMHO structural and ideological. (The fact that these splits have persisted for many years, despite the addition of several new commissioners, supports my argument). But, at any rate, it strikes me as a real problem when the commissioners who have the broadest democratic mandate -- those elected city-wide -- are ALL in the minority. Instead of my previous proposal, perhaps it would be simpler to require the affirmative vote of at least one city-wide commissioner for the Park Board to enact any ordinance, resolution or official action. Greg Abbott Linden Hills ---- Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Park Board Five continue their mockery of taxpayers and process
Just an observation - all three of the city-wide park commissioners (Young, Berry Graves, and Erwin) are in the minority, and the majority of five is composed of five of the six district commissioners (1, 2, 3, 5, and 6). IMHO this division between city-wide and district commissioners illustrates the need for some structural changes in the park board. Perhaps the city-wide commissioners should constitute a majority of the board, to prevent parochial interests from log-rolling their way to control of the board. We could simply reduce the park board from 9 members to 5, with 3 at-large members, one north side district member, and one south side district member. Without some reform, continuation of these antics puts the independence of the park board at risk. Greg Abbott --- Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th ward 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
[Mpls] Food Fight over McManus
If I read my tea leaves correctly, there is a battle brewing over R.T.’s pick of William McManus to be the next police chief. Challenging R.T.’s choice for police chief is, I think, the wrong fight at the wrong time. First, the difference between McManus and anyone else just isn’t that great, certainly not enough to justify a big fight. R.T.’s decision does not present us with the difference between “qualified” and “not qualified” – McManus is clearly well-qualified. It’s not as if R.T. were trying to re-appoint Olson, for example (a decision which would have justified a big fight). I say this as someone who would have preferred an internal candidate, and Lubinski was my first choice. Second, when he runs for re-election R.T. will be judged in large part on how he has handled crime and public safety. If we’re going to hold R.T. accountable, R.T. should have a police chief that reflects his values and who will act in accord with his policy goals. (For the same reason all department heads ought to serve at the pleasure of the mayor, after their appointments are confirmed by the council, but that’s for another post). The idea that McManus will be R.T.’s “lapdog” is, IMHO, insulting to McManus, whose career demonstrates professionalism and independent action. McManus’ resume is such that he would be an excellent candidate for any chief position – if R.T. tried to use him as a mere puppet I’m sure McManus could easily find another city where his professional skills were respected. Also, the alternative is far less appealing. Suppose, for example, that the Council rejects McManus in an effort to force R.T. to pick a different chief. Without a doubt, the new chief would realize she was not accountable to the Mayor, but instead to the Council. How can any employee be accountable to 13 different bosses? She couldn’t – which leads us right back to the problems with Chief Olson, who was able to avoid accountability by playing both ends against the middle. Third, the Park Board superintendent search should provide a lesson here. A divisive political fight at this stage of the process will likely deter other qualified candidates from applying for or accepting the position. No qualified candidate is going to apply for or accept a job when it’s unclear what the criteria are for successful job performance. In short, rejecting McManus hurts the city far more than it might gain by finding a “better” candidate. Doing so scares away other qualified applicants and highlights the lack of accountability inherent in management by committee. It’s the also the wrong fight to have when police-community relations are so strained. Yes, it may have been a political mistake for R.T. to pick a well-qualified white man over a well-qualified GLBT woman. No doubt it is tempting for supporters of Lubinski to exploit this mistake in an effort to block McManus. But given the stakes, I hope supporters of Lubinski do not give into temptation. In my judgment, in this matter especially, discretion truly is the better part of valor. Greg Abbott Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
Re: [Mpls] re: police chief
As our list manager is on vacation and may not be accessible -- let me say this comment is totally out of bounds. On Dec 21, 2003, at 10:19 AM, Tamir Nolley wrote: At least Barb Johnson has actually made this statement point blank. You can almost see the smile on her face every time someone not convicted of a crime is beaten up or killed by the police. --- Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th ward 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
Re: [Mpls] MPLS Park Board Superintendent
On Dec 20, 2003, at 9:10 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The others were not given the information until they sat down for the meeting. I have strong objections to not treating every commissioner the same. Since leadership already knew they had the majority, I don't see what's wrong with advance notice for everyone. I agree - and this is the part which is so mysterious to me. If you have five votes, you're going to win anyway -- it costs you nothing to be courteous and follow proper procedures. The criticisms (both implied and direct) from Bob Fine and others about the obstructionist nature of the 4-member minority don't wash with me. Even if these criticisms are correct, an open process is for the benefit of the public, not for the benefit of other park commissioners. I also want to second Brian Melendez's fine post on this topic. Truly a historic low point in the history of the Park Board. Greg Abbott --- Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th ward 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
[Mpls] Police chief candidates
Given the heated commentary about police issues on the list, I'm surprised I haven't seen any commentary on the police chief selection process. All of the candidates struck me as fairly well qualified. If I had to choose, my preference would be for Sharon Lubinski, partly for a preference for an internal candidate, and partly because I've seen her walking around downtown -- whether she was patrolling, supervising, or just monitoring, I don't know, but I like the fact that she's not a "behind the desk" type of supervisor. A track record of visibility in the community also strikes me as a very positive mark in her favor. But, on paper at least, I don't have a negative reaction to any of the candidates. At any rate, I'm curious about the opinions of my fellow list-members on the candidates, particularly those who (unlike me) have a strong opinion one way or the other. Greg Abbott ---- Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward
[Mpls] Colorado decision supports Mpls election lawsuit
List members: This is a long post, but the content-to-fluff ratio is fairly good, so I hope you'll read the whole thing. Yesterday, by a 5-to-2 vote, the Colorado Supreme Court struck down a redistricting statute passed by the Republican-controlled Colorado General Assembly. (The case is titled "Salazar v. Davidson"). The statute at issue in the case attempted to re-district Colorado's congressional boundaries in mid-decade, for partisan advantage. In my judgment there are a couple of points in Salazar that strongly support Rep. Kahn's effort to force earlier implementation of Minneapolis' new ward boundaries. First, Salazar takes note of the constitutional problem created when elected officials are responsible for one set of constituents, but electorally accountable to a different set of future constituents. The Court observed: " . . . members of Congress could frequently find their current constituents voting in a different district in subsequent elections. In that situation, a congressperson would be torn between effectively representing the current constituents and currying the favor of future constituents." Salazar, (online slip opinion at 62). This situation -- where elected officials are responsible for current constituents in old districts, but are politically accountable to a different set of future constituents -- is a huge part of the problem in Minneapolis, with its three-and-a-half year gap between "adoption" of new ward lines and "implementation" of those lines. Second, Salazar also held that changes in district boundaries which occur MORE OFTEN than every 10 years are suspect because they confuse voters and thereby undermine political accountability: "A 'fundamental axiom of republican governments,' [Justice Story] said, is that there must be “a dependence on, and a responsibility to, the people, on the part of the representative, which shall constantly exert an influence upon his acts and opinions, and produce a sympathy between him and his constituents.” The framers knew that to achieve accountability, there must be stability in representation. During the debates over the frequency of congressional elections, James Madison said: 'Instability is one of the great vices of our republics, to be remedied.'" Salazar, (at 60) (citations omitted). Further: "This fundamental tension between stability and equal representation led the framers to require ten years between apportionments. . . . This ten-year interval was short enough to achieve fair representation yet long enough to provide some stability." Salazar, at 60-61 (citations omitted). In fact, Salazar concluded redistricting MORE OFTEN than every ten years undermines accountability in representative government: "Moreover, the time and effort that the constituents and the representative expend getting to know one another would be wasted if the districts continually change. . . . '[A] boundary that is continually moving is one that is unlikely to serve as any kind of imaginative focal point for communal identity . . .' and '[r]edistricting thus flattens identity within a jurisdiction by preventing subcommunities from enjoying the kind of stability and sense of permanence that are necessary ingredients for communal self-identification and, ultimately, differentiation')." Salazar at 61-62 (citations omitted). This part of Salazar applies to Minneapolis with particular force. If the City is permitted to wait until 2005 to "implement" the new boundaries, the new boundaries will be in effect for only seven years, until the next set of boundaries are adopted in 2012. For example, I'd hate to be a resident of the old 3rd ward. In a 10 year period, voters in old 3rd will have had four council elections (2003 special, 2005, 2009, and 2013) conducted under three different sets of boundaries, potentially involving three entirely different districts (e.g., moving from the old 3rd to a new ward (1, 2, 4 or 5) and then into an entirely different ward in 2012). This hodge-podge of political instability is equally applicable to any of the other wards where the boundaries have changed substantially, such as 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9. If voter confusion created by being placed in THREE different wards in one 10-year period is not a constitutional problem based on instability in representation, I don't know what else is. You can reach the text of the Salazar opinion through a hyperlink at the Election Law Blog, at http://electionlawblog.org/archives/000315.html Advance warning: the opinion is a 92-page MS Word document. Salazar is not binding precedent in the Minneapolis case: it is a Colorado state court opinion and its holding is explicitly based in part on some specific language in the Colorado state constitution. However,
Re: [Mpls] Wrath of Kahn: gunning for politicians' salaries to force early elect
Yep, who cares whether or not TWENTY THOUSAND PEOPLE (about 5 percent of the city) have been disenfranchised. It's only about forty times the number of voters who provided the winning margin for George Bush in Florida three years ago. News flash: we had three council elections last time 'round decided by about 150 votes or less. I have a modest proposal. Elections are expensive. Let's cut them back to save money. Once every 10 years or so. Or, even better, skip them entirely. Perhaps we can convene a panel of well-intentioned experts, like Mike Hohmann, to govern the city. I'm sure the cost of hiring Mike and his friends to run the city would be a mere fraction of what elections cost. Plus you can add the savings from firing all the people who currently work in the city elections office. I'm sure all of these savings will reduce Mike Hohmann's property taxes by, oh, $5-10 a year. This is a democracy. All citizens should have an equal voice in choosing those who will govern them. Even the 20,000 or so left out in the current system. Even if they don't pay attention to local government. Even if they don't actually vote. Democracy is not a "use it or lose it" proposition. OK, Mike, you don't want to pay for an extra election. What alternative solution do you propose? Greg Abbott On Nov 25, 2003, at 6:11 PM, Michael Hohmann wrote: MH] Yes, and let's make it even MORE REAL-- what percentage of city voters are represented by those numbers? It's registered voters and more importantly, THOSE THAT ACTUALLY SHOW UP TO VOTE that count. How many (raw numbers) and what percentage of registered voters, citywide, are we talking about here? Of those, how many see this issue as being worth pursuing? And what is the actual cost to taxpayers for a special election? --- Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Wrath of Kahn: gunning for politicians' salaries to force early elect
On Nov 25, 2003, at 9:24 AM, Dennis Plante wrote: Since the biggest argument I've seen for City elections being held earlier than is currently scheduled is the "one person one vote" item, I'd be curious to know if anyone has a head-count on just how many "under-represented and over-represented" citizens there are currently??? What percentage of the total City population are we talking about? You'd have to ask the actual participants in the lawsuit for the actual numbers. (For the record, I am not involved in the lawsuit either as a litigant or as an attorney). My fallible memory recalls a population disparity between the old 2nd ward and the old 11th ward of something like 20 percent. The "ideal" population for a ward based on the 2000 census is something like 29,500. The old 2nd has approx. 33,000, and the old 11th has something like 26,000. There are a few other wards out of whack, but the worst disparity is 2 and 11. I'm sure my numbers are off, but that should give you an idea of the scope of the issue. Greg Abbott ---- Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Wrath of Kahn: gunning for politicians' salaries to force early elect
On Nov 24, 2003, at 7:18 PM, Dennis Plante wrote: SO WHAT if we don't hold public elections until 2005??? Think for a moment about the amount of manpower (both elected and private) that's currently being dedicated to this issue. Aren't there more pressing issues to dedicate the energy to??? Where does common sense enter into it??? There's a constitutional principle involved, an especially important one, i.e. one person-one vote. Reasonable people may disagree about how much that principle is impacted by the redistricting mess, and whether other factors outweigh it, but it is undeniably at issue. This whole "what's the problem, let's just ignore it" response lays the groundwork for an apathetic reaction the next time constitutional issues are at stake. And the next time, and the time after that. It won't take too long before some hyped-up partisans in a state legislature somewhere use the Minneapolis precedent as a justification for some seriously bad behavior. It's not hard to imagine such a scenario: the Alpha party controls the state legislature. The leaders of the Alpha party realize that, after redistricting, the Beta party will take power. So the Alpha-controlled legislature "adopts" a redistricting plan but in the same statute directs that it will not be "implemented" for another 3 years. The analogy isn't exact, you say, because state elections always occur in the same year as redistricting. But why? Aren't there more important questions to worry about than when and how many elections we have? For example, included in the Alpha party's legislative agenda is a proposal designed to "save taxpayer dollars" by reducing the frequency of state elections from 2 years to 4 years (this may get bundled with other "reform" issues such as a unicameral, just to confuse people). Suddenly, there is no election until '04, or fully two-and-a-half years after redistricting occurs. If successful, the Alpha party has bought itself an extra 2 years in power which it didn't deserve. And when you complain the Alpha party accuses you of wanting to waste taxpayer dollars on unnecessary elections, especially when "there are more pressing issues to worry about." If you don't think this scenario is realistic, you haven't been following what the Texas Republicans did this year, redistricting congressional seats in mid-term after taking control of the Texas legislature, redrawing boundaries which had been drawn by judges (and by Republican-appointed judges at that). It is reasonable to debate the merits of how to address this constitutional problem -- a special election is particularly controversial, I understand that objection. But to argue that discussion of a probable violation of the constitution is a waste of time, because "there are more pressing issues" -- well, to me that sounds a lot like John Ashcroft defending the Patriot Act. Greg Abbott Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Wrath of Kahn: gunning for politicians' salaries to force early elections
On Nov 24, 2003, at 3:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've had the conversation about whether intentions matter or not, but if you're not going to question Kahn & Co.'s reasons for doing this, one needs to question the logic in doing it at all. Well the weird thing about this situation is that the City has adopted new ward boundaries, but delayed implementation of those boundaries until the 2005 election. If you look at the new map, it says "adopted April 26, 2002." But administratively, the old council boundaries are still in effect. The special election in the 3rd ward was held in the old ward boundaries, even though the new map had already been "adopted." A three-and-a-half year gap between "adoption" of new ward boundaries, and "implementation" of those boundaries is an absolute absurdity. In my mind, the controversial part of Rep. Kahn's lawsuit is not the question of whether the city is violating the law. It is. The controversial part is the remedy for the violation, that is, ordering a new election. Ironically, the statute that Jonathan cites actually supports Rep. Kahn's lawsuit -- by indicating that officeholders retain their seats until the next election, even if they no longer live in the NEW boundaries. Meaning that the legislature intended for the new boundaries to be implemented as soon as possible (but also meaning that that legislature specifically did not intend that a new, unscheduled election be conducted to conform to the new boundaries). Had the city implemented the new boundaries right away, and, for example, held the 3rd ward special election in the new boundaries, it might have had a very valid legal defense to Rep. Kahn's lawsuit --- which is, that state law provides for continuation in office of the elected officials until the next election, albeit representing a ward with different boundaries and in which they no longer live. Under the state statute cited by Mr. Palmer, for example, CM Lilligren would represent the new 8th ward, even though he doesn't live there. Any vacancy in office, any special election, etc., would have to be conducted with reference to the NEW boundaries. The city's defense would have been that state law provides for new boundaries, not new elections, and we have complied with the law. However, the City has chosen to delay implementation of the new boundaries until 2005, which IMHO is a clear violation of the law. Greg Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Top 5 reasons to not hold early elections for city council seats
On 11/16/03 12:36 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could you provide a link to the site where one may read the statute in > question? It's in the City Charter somewhere -- the rules under which the Charter Commission has to pick the membership of the Redistricting Commission. I don't recall them offhand, but the rules are very arcane, and were adopted in a deliberate effort to make sure that minority parties were represented. How the Independence Party got 2 members on the Redistricting Commission, and the Republican Party got 2, while the Green Party only had one, I don't know. But IIRC these numbers came out of a very literal application of the Charter provisions. It is fairly obvious that the formula did not work well in practice. David Brauer has pointed out that small "I" independents were not represented at all, and IMHO the Greens were substantially underrepresented given their presence in the city. I have to agree with an earlier post on this subject: we ought to just do it by computer. Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th ward 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
Re: [Mpls] re: Mpls elections
On Nov 14, 2003, at 4:35 PM, Tamir Nolley wrote: The only difference..no Green Party, no Independence Party , no independents on the city council. What I've read so far only proves this as an effort to insure that those running the important elements of our city goverment remains an exclusive two-party club. What two parties? DFL and Green. Zippo, nada, nothing for the GOP. The fact that prominent city Republicans have signed on to this is a fairly good indication of one of two things: (1) this is a genuine effort at electoral reform which patriotic Minneapolitans of all parties can support in good faith; and/or (2) city Republicans think earlier elections will help break up the existing political club which runs the city. Remember, the "secret" Republican plan to take over the world includes promoting the Green party as a way of siphoning votes away from the DFL (remember it was the Republicans who paid for Ralph Nader TV ads in Minnesota in 2000). Why would Republicans be in favor of something that would more firmly entrench the DFL and, in the process, hurt the Green party? Realistically no political party is competent enough to engage in this level of Machiavellian drama. The truth is no one knows and no one can predict what the political consequences will be if Rep. Kahn's lawsuit is successful. It is easier for Rep. Kahn's critics to spin these extravagant conspiracy theories than to accept the fact that she might be right. Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th ward 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
Re: [Mpls] Driven out of Minneapolis by city sanctioned monopolies
For the record, I had nothing but timely and responsive contacts with
city inspectors during a major kitchen remodel at my house this summer
("major" meaning "take it down to the studs and start over").
On Nov 3, 2003, at 5:43 PM, Anne McCandless wrote:
I have also had constractors tell me how frustrating it is to get work
inspected in Mpls so they can close out a job. This doesn't matter to
the
disreputable tradesmen, but it drives the consiensious ones. And I
have had
to go through my council member to get an electrical inspector out to
sign
off on $5000 plus electrical work.
Greg Abbott
---
Greg Abbott
Linden Hills
13th Ward
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
Re: [Mpls] Forum Notice
On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 10:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the list manager does not wish to warn such a person and initiate list punishment, I constitute that the list manager and this forum are in support of their statements and partially liable for their actions. I handle libel and slander as a substantial part of my law practice. I have posted on my website a basic summary of the elements of defamation law in Minnesota, at http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html As amusing as it might be to see our list manager in the dock for failing to police the forum, it's not going to happen. You can't sue the phone company for slander disseminated over the phone lines, even if they have actual knowledge of the phone calls in question. Nor can you sue the post office for libel disseminated in letters sent by mail, even if they have actual knowledge of the contents. For better or worse, the law has decided that people who host and moderate internet bulletin boards also fall into this "common carrier" category. Individuals can be held liable for defamatory statements posted to an internet bulletin board or mailing list. But bringing an action for defamation is more complicated than it seems -- there are a lot of legal defenses, not the least of which is the First Amendment. Still, as Sgt. Esterhaus used to say in Hill Street Blues, "be careful out there." Greg Abbott --- Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward
[Mpls] Vote Splitting, Again !
On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 03:54 PM, gemgram wrote: Peter McLaughlin and Lisa McDonald will hopefully get to debate the issue in front of the public during the upcoming Mayoral campaign. They are the two who seem to be most talked about for the next election. Should be a fun election when you throw in the present Mayor and Stenglein. We just have to figure out which one will keep the majority of their campaign promises. If both Lisa McDonald and Mark Stenglein run for mayor in 2005, both will again fail to survive past the primary. Both candidates compete for almost exactly the same vote. McDonald is the more credible of the two. She can get over 50 percent in the general election by holding the conservative/independent base and then peeling off maybe a third (or more) of DFL voters. This was her winning strategy in the 10th Ward, which has a smaller conservative/independent base than the city as a whole. I don't think Stenglein can pull in nearly enough DFL votes to to win (Stenglein might have been able to do that against Sharon Sayles Belton in 2001, but he won't come close to doing that against either Rybak or McLaughlin). Having said that, RT won with a lot of conservative/independent votes in 2001. If he manages to keep even a modest percentage of those voters in 2005, he will be nearly impossible to beat (assuming he stays strong with the progressive DFL voters who abandoned Sayles Belton in 2001, which seems likely). The new reality is Minneapolis is that, if conservative/independent voters cast their ballots as a single bloc, they can choose which DFL'r wins. Which is why you'll see more of these really weird, conservative-progressive coalitions in the future (recent example? Don Samuels, of course). And, in 2005 the conservative-progressive coalition will take a page right out the Republican playbook and continue to run against the "establishment" even though they are the establishment now. Greg Abbott Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] HF 67 - Her finest hour
If Phyllis Kahn had her way, 16-year old first cousins would be driving round-trip from Warroad to Willmar to get marriage licenses and register to vote (recalling her proposals to lower the voting age, allow first cousins to marry, and reduce the number of counties in Minnesota to 10). As you can see, when Phyllis Kahn is wrong, she is very wrong. But when she's right, she's very right - and on principled grounds to boot. As I have posted before, in my opinion the one-person, one-vote problem facing Minneapolis is a real constitutional issue. Whether you agree with it or not, HF 67 is a serious, principled proposal to address an actual problem. In this respect, Phyllis Kahn reminds me of Winston Churchill - when Churchill made mistakes, he made big ones. But when Churchill was right, no one was righter. Like Churchill, Phyllis Kahn also has a reputation for being inconveniently stubborn on matters of principle, to the annoyance of her own party. Kahn is advancing HF 67 against the wishes of virtually the entire Minneapolis political establishment - old and new guard DFL, Green, RT and others. So, when I read vitriolic and baseless accusations like those advanced by Peter Schmitz, that "anyone with a shred of common sense and decency knows she's bullying and rationalizing just to settle a score," I really wonder what city I'm living in. Has Minneapolis - or the Issues List - really sunk that low? You may not agree with her, you may find her issue choices somewhat idiosyncratic, but there is no member of the Legislature LESS likely to be part of a self-interested political conspiracy than Phyllis Kahn. In my judgment, several people on this list owe Phyllis Kahn an apology. Greg Abbott Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] New Ethics Code for Minneapolis
I appreciate Ellen Trout's response to the issue I raised about the treatment of elected officials acting as advocates for their constituents under the new proposed ordinance. We are in complete agreement about the intended operation of the new ordinance: that if an elected official needs an exception to city policy on behalf of a constituent, that the city official needs to go to the Council as a whole. My problem is that the language of the ordinance, as proposed, would make it potentially illegal for an elected official to even discuss the matter with city staff, BEFORE staff has an initial chance to respond to a request for an exception to city policy. The ordinance cites as an example of inappropriate influence "ASKING a non-elected official or employee to . . . make an exception for a constituent or other individual or organization contrary to existing law or adopted City or departmental policy . .. " Proposed Ordinance § 15.402(b) (emphasis added). Legally, the difference between "asking" for an exception and "discussing" an exception is fairly ambiguous. An explicit request such as "I would like an exception for constituent X" would be clearly illegal. But what about an elected official who goes to city staff and asks "Would you consider an exception for X?" - (asking for only for "consideration" of an exception). Or how about an elected official who goes to city staff and says: "This rule as applied to constituent X results in a perverse outcome that undermines the intent of the department's policy - in your professional judgment, is an exception warranted?" Because of the ambiguity of what constitutes "asking" for an exception, an elected official would have to avoid ANY communication with staff about possible exceptions to comply with the ordinance. As a result, the elected official would be forced to make a motion to the entire Council asking for an exception BEFORE talking to staff to see if they would even oppose such an exception. The better policy would be for an elected official to consult with staff ahead of time, so he or she could make a motion for an exception with a staff recommendation. An easier and far less ambiguous way of dealing with this problem is to pass an ordinance prohibiting city staff from making any exception to established city or department policy without the express approval of the entire council. Here is the text of the current proposed ordinance, § 15.402(b): An elected local official or the employee of an elected local official shall not inappropriately influence the exercise of professional judgment by the City’s staff. Examples of inappropriate influence by an elected official . . . include asking a non-elected local official or employee to: . . . (2) do a special favor or make an exception for a constituent or other individual or organization contrary to existing law or adopted City or departmental policy; or . . . I would amend this provision as follows: proposed language is [ inside of brackets ] Examples of inappropriate influence by an elected official . . . include [ ordering, directing, instructing, threatening or attempting to coerce ] a non-elected local official or employee to: . . . (2) do a special favor or make an exception for a constituent or other individual or organization contrary to existing law or adopted City or departmental policy; or . . . Greg Abbott Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] New Ethics guidelines for Minneapolis
I have to say that I'm with Paul Lohman and Dave Piehl on the proposed new ethics guidelines for the city of Minneapolis. There's a lot of ambiguity in the current mish-mash of ethics laws, an odd combination of city charter provisions, ordinances, and state law (some of which may or may not apply to city elected officials). A new overall policy is a good thing. I think the proposed guidelines are a little tough by seeking to outright ban elected officials from advocating an exception to city policy on behalf of a constituent. Obviously, the provision aims at banning the use of strong arm, raw politics as an end run around city policies on behalf of favored constituents. This is an admirable goal, but the provision is too broad. This will be impossible to enforce in practice, and in the end it won't prevent the bad behavior from occurring, it will only force it underground or under the table where it cannot be seen or regulated. The very concept of banning an elected official from advocating on behalf of a constituent is foolish. Part of the reason that council members get elected is to protect their constituents from unfair, unusual, or unanticipated applications of general city policy. And, with respect to local politics, constituents expect their council members to be advocates for their interests inside City Hall. On the whole, this provision is a self-defeating attempt to ban political behavior by politicians. Instead, the ethics ordinance ought to establish an open, transparent process for elected officials to make a good faith argument for any exceptions to established city policy as applied to a constituent. Perhaps a requirement that any exception to city policy be approved by the Council as a whole, for example. This will allow the elected official to act in his or her natural role as an advocate for constituents, while preventing them from intimidating city staff behind closed doors in order to get their way (which is what this provision is really trying to prevent). Otherwise, I think the proposed ethics ordinance is excellent, and I heartily support it. Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Five Year Budget Outline Does Not Hurt NRP
that the debt service on the TIF districts expires in 2009-10, which would free up tax revenue to resume more normal funding of NRP. Given that Phase II has already been extended to 15 years instead of 10, there is the possibility we could catch up on NRP funding shortfalls in the second half of Phase II. 3. Earmarking $11 million a year for NRP is Bad Policy The question if earmarking is premature because we do not yet know if, and if so how many, federal dollars can be reallocated to help NRP. It may still be possible to fund NRP or neighborhood planning functions under CPED at $11 million a year. But we have to account for worst-case scenarios under which we cant fund NRP at $11 million a year without taking scarce resources from other city programs. Goodman, Lane, and Benson were essentially correct in their post a few days ago about the dangers of earmarking. For example, if you earmark $11 million for NRP, and discover that none of the federal CD dollars can be reallocated, the immediate consequence would be to zero out the entire budget of the MCDA. Now, you could argue that NRP funding is more important than MCDA funding, but in my judgment killing the MCDA by zeroing its budget would be extraordinarily foolish. Under this scenario, resources will have to be diverted from other city programs in order to fund NRP if you dont chose to cut the MCDA. Because the dedicated sources of funding for NRP have become very limited (i.e., surplus TIF revenue), additional funding for NRP is now on the same level as any other discretionary funding. Thats where we get to the point of debating a tradeoff between NRP funding and police, fire, or public works. This is a worst-case scenario, and not necessarily the most likely one. But the consequences are severe if we earmark for NRP and this scenario occurs mandatory cuts in core city services, **after** those programs have already been cut significantly in response to the budget crisis. The problem with earmarking NRP funds or earmarking any discretionary spending, for that matter is that it elevates NRP **above** other programs which are not earmarked. It is the non-earmarked programs which will disproportionately bear the brunt of budget cuts if city revenues drop unexpectedly for external reasons, such as recession, war, or reductions in local government aid. No one could reasonably argue that funding NRP is **more** important than funding the police. Yet earmarking discretionary NRP funds produces exactly that result holding NRP harmless while other core city services shoulder the brunt of future budget cuts. Another problem with earmarking is the variable nature of the separate funding for community development. The figure of $33 million annually in CD resources is an estimate, and actual CD resources could vary significantly. Again, earmarking would unfairly fix one component of the budget at a static level, reducing the citys flexibility to deal with variations in revenue. 4. The Hypothetical Threat to NRP Does Not Justify Tax Increases The only way to take the NRP funding out of the current budget crisis is to raise taxes. However, I cannot imagine a justification for tax increases above and beyond the 8 percent annual increases already planned, particularly since the NRP program should survive under the current budget outline, albeit at somewhat less funding. In fact, 8 percent annual tax increases may not be sustainable over a five-year period. Taxpayers will start pushing hard for reductions in city taxes once these increases begin to have a tangible impact on household budgets. For that reason, if city revenues increase more than expected (as a result of a spurt in economic growth, for example), we should use most of the excess revenue to buy down future tax increases before increasing spending. These are dark times for the city. We got ourselves into this mess by choosing to fund individual programs and projects without regard for the overall economic picture. Focusing on the prospect of harm to NRP in isolation, without reference to overall tax and spending policies, is not a constructive contribution to the debate. Indeed, a narrow focus on NRP might tie the citys hands when it desperately needs flexibility to address the worst budget crisis in living memory. --- Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Sharing the Budget Pain
Ms. Heller likely advances her "modest proposal" merely as a rhetorical device. However, at the risk of taking the proposal at face value, it should be noted that reducing the number of Council Members to 7 or 3 would certainly result in an all-DFL Council. Certainly this would be an unintended consequence, at least from Ms. Heller's point of view. :) Also, as you reduce the number of decision-makers, you increase the chance of wide variations in policy outcomes. I've read surveys of studies done on jury decision-making, comparing decisions made by a 12-person jury to a 6-person jury. Decisions made by a 12-person jury are more consistent and predictable than those made by a 6-person jury - which, when influenced by one or two strong personalities, can produce extreme results. And, for what it's worth, I lived in Austin, Texas, for over 3 years. City politics there were as goofy and dysfunctional as they are here - even with only 7 council members. Greg Abbott Linden Hills On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 08:03 AM, Victoria Heller wrote: Here's an idea! Our sister city, Austin, Texas, has a population of 685,000 and only 7 City Council Members. Since we insist that everything in Minneapolis be "proportionate" - we only need 3, plus the Mayor. TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] HF 67 and redistricting
On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 07:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finally, Greg Abbott suggests that the Charter Commission adopt a 2-2-4-4-4-4 system of elections. It would seem to make more sense to me to adopt the Minnesota Senate model of 2-4-4-2-4-4 etc. elections. I think that the Charter Commission began discussions about this issue at their last meeting. You could do 2-4-4, starting in 2003 and it would work - **IF** you changed the mayor's term to a 2-4-4 schedule as well. Adopting 2-4-4 by itself would put Council elections out of step with mayoral elections. Here is what 2-4-4, 2-4-4 would produce if applied today: 2003, 2005, 2009, 2013, 2015, 2019, 2023, 2025, 2029, etc. There wouldn't be a council election in 2017 or 2021, when mayoral elections will occur. And there is no mayoral election scheduled in 2015 or 2019, when the council elections would occur under a 2-4-4. This pattern would repeat itself - every other decade the council and the mayor would be elected in different elections. Under this scenario, we might as well just go back to staggered council terms to avoid all the confusion. The simplest change needed to accommodate redistricting is the 2-2-4-4-4-4 - you don't need to change the mayor's term of office. Mathematically, the simplest solution would be five year terms instead of four year terms: for example, 2003, 2008, 2013, 2018, etc. That might not be the simplest solution from a political standpoint, though :) I don't buy the idea that having an "unscheduled" election in 2003 violates the voter's expectations of electing someone to a four year term. And even if it did, those expectations are totally subordinate to the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote. However, we should absolutely fix this for the future whether or not we change it for 2003. Greg Abbott ---- Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linden Hills 13th Ward(612) 925-0630
Re: [Mpls] Rep Kahn introduce HF 67 leds to City Council members to run again
On Tuesday, January 14, 2003, at 09:54 AM, Michelle Mensing wrote: I suggest that the legislators address this issue in 2005 to remedy the situation for the 2010 census and redistricting. Michelle Mensing Armatage A couple of points: 1. This is a problem that will crop up every 20 years - every other decade. There is a general city election scheduled for 2013, immediate after redistricting occurs in 2012. Hence, there is no problem to fix after the 2010 census. However, there is no city election scheduled between 2021 and 2025, and the problem will reoccur after the 2020 census. 2. We can fix this ourselves with a charter amendment without going to the legislature. Every other decade we simply need to divide in half the four-year term starting in a year ending in a "1." Simply amend the charter to say that council elections in a year ending in "1" are for a two-year term, and that council elections occurring in a year ending in "3" which are produced because of a previous council election in a year ending in "1" are also for two-years. Meaning that council elections held in years ending in "5" would revert to the full four years. Thus, the sequence of elections would be (or would have been) as follows: 2001, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2013, 2017, 2021, 2023, 2025, 2029, etc. The sequence of terms would be 2-2-4-4-4-4, 2-2-4-4-4-4, etc., every 20 years. Greg Abbott ---- Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linden Hills 13th Ward(612) 925-0630 ___ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Don Samuels and 2005
To be fair to Don Samuels, this special election is a unique fiasco brought to us by the city's decision to have the contest in the old boundaries AFTER the new boundaries have been created. I am astonished that a resident or prospective candidate in the new 3rd ward has not sued the city to force the special election to occur in the new boundaries. We know for a indisputable fact (by virtue of the 2000 census) that the old 3rd ward boundaries violate the constitutional requirement of one person-one vote. Holding an election using the 1990 boundaries after the 2000 redistricting has been completed is an appalling breach of good public policy and constitutional principles. The prospect of divided interests between neighborhoods, as pointed out by Loki Anderson, is another reason why having an election in the old boundaries AFTER the new boundaries have been drawn is an incredibly bad idea. Of course, if the special 3rd ward election has to occur within the new boundaries, it follows that special elections are needed in the other 12 wards as well to conform to their new boundaries. In my judgment, the city's decision to have the special 3rd ward election in the old boundaries is motivated by the desire to avoid special elections in all 13 wards - a politically expedient action taken at the expense of the principle of one person-one vote. Nonetheless, I think voters are entitled to know how the candidates intend to approach the conflict in interest created by the use of the new boundaries in the 2005 election. This question should be posed to all candidates, not just Don Samuels. An agnostic approach to 2005 is not fair to the voters. Redistricting is not an unknown hypothetical - it is an actual fact, with known boundaries. Elected officials are held accountable, in part, by the prospect of facing the voters again if they seek re-election. Before they grant someone the power of incumbency in the 2005 election, the voters need to know where the candidates intend to land. Greg Abbott --- Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward http://www.gregabbott.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ___ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Re: Multi-Party endorsement (was Samuels vs. Price: discuss)
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 02:01 AM, Tim Bonham wrote: I could imagine a candidate who would be supported by local Green, DFL, and GOP voters. Why should they not get all three endorsements? . . . - Jason goray, Sheridan, NE. Because Minnesota law prohibits this. I must disagree with my good friend Mr. Bonham. Minnesota law prohibits fusion of party **nominations** (not endorsements) in partisan races. In other words, the same candidate cannot appear twice on the ballot as the nominee of more than one political party. Minneapolis does not have partisan primaries. Multiple candidates from the same party compete all together in one open primary, with the top two vote getters going to the general election. The "fusion" problem doesn't exist because of the open primary -- there is no official party "nominee" because there is no partisan primary to select a single candidate to represent a party. The only real restriction on multiple endorsements is the city ordinance which allows a candidate for City Council or Mayor to list three words on the ballot to describe their political party or principle. The ordinance, as interpreted by the city, prohibits a candidate from listing more than one party or principle on the ballot, even if it could be compressed into 3 words. Last year, for example, several city council candidates filed as "DFL Endorsed," and got into trouble because the city elections office did not think that "DFL Endorsed" was a political party OR a principle. As a result, the city elections office told those candidates that they would be listed as "Democratic-Farmer-Labor" on the ballot. I believe some candidates actually filed suit to stop this, but I don't know how the lawsuit turned out. As interpreted by the city, a candidate cannot use the 3 words to identify more than one political party. "DFL/Republican" is out of bounds - a candidate can list only one party, DFL or Republican. The bottom line is that a candidate for City Council or Mayor in Minneapolis may receive more than one party's endorsement, but may only list one party affiliation on the ballot. It is up to the candidate to educate the voters about any other party endorsements they receive. Greg Abbott ---- Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linden Hills 13th Ward(612) 925-0630
[Mpls] Other judicial races
managed my City Council campaign last year and died earlier this year. Rich Rose managed Judge Aldrich's first judicial campaign, which was a tough race against an excellent opponent. IIRC, Judge Aldrich spoke at Rich's memorial service. Judge Tanya Bransford v. Joseph "Pat" McCormick --- Judge Bransford I don't have a lot of information on this race. I have friends who've appeared before Judge Bransford who describe her as an able judge. Judge Herbert Lefler v. Liz Pierce --- Judge Lefler This is a tough one. I've never appeared before Judge Lefler, and I don't know Liz Pierce. From what I hear, Judge Lefler is well-liked by both attorneys and court staff -- (which is a significant criteria for me - IMHO one of the truest tests of character for an elected official is how they treat the people who work under them). I have some friends who know Liz Pierce and speak very highly of her. Absent any reason to reject the incumbent, I'll vote for Lefler -- but would encourage Liz Pierce to either run again or seek appointment by the governor. Judge James Swenson v. Robert D. Schwartz --- Judge Swenson Judge Swenson has a decent reputation among attorneys I know. Other than that, I have very little info on the race. At any rate, that's what I'm doing in the judicial elections on Nov. 5th. Greg Abbott Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linden Hills 13th Ward(612) 925-0630 ___ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Keep Judge Zimmerman
I have to agree completely with Jordan Kushner's post. I was an opposing counsel in one of Lloyd Zimmerman's last cases at the EEOC. Lloyd was thoroughly prepared, thoughtful, and courteous. I thought Ventura's decision to appoint Zimmerman was simply outstanding. While I don't know Delgado O'Neill, from what I do know of her, she would make an excellent judge. But there isn't a case for replacing an incumbent in this situation. I would encourage Delgado O'Neill to apply for open judgeships if anyone other than Tim Pawlenty wins the governor's race. She wouldn't be the first person to get appointed after creating a positive name for her/himself in a judicial election. One of the issues here is the different nature of litigation practice in state and federal courts (also an underlying issue in the Jill Clark/Wexler race, with the challenger in the federal role). Federal litigation is slow, time-consuming, and thoughtful. The judges fully expect all the t's to crossed and the i's to be dotted. When lawyers make motions to dismiss cases, or exclude evidence, they are expected to have researched the questions presented and to submit written briefs. State court is much more of a meat market, in my opinion. Lawyers come in and frequently wing it, and the judges make a lot of quick, seat-of-the-pants decisions. This is particularly true in criminal cases. Most of my litigation background is in federal court, and I am often amused when a state court lawyer comes into federal court without realizing how much difference there is. A few years back, I tried a disability discrimination case as plaintiff's counsel in federal court, and after the close of the evidence, the defense lawyer made an oral Rule 50 motion to dismiss my case without submitting a brief or providing any record or evidence citations. To this day, I wish I had a picture of the federal judge's face when he realized that the lawyer had not prepared a written brief to support the motion. On the other hand, I made an appearance in a state court trial recently to help a friend out at the last minute. There was no time to do any real briefing or research - I mostly sat and helped with technical advice and strategy. But when the evidence was closed, I spontaneously made a Rule 50 motion to dismiss, without any brief. I spent less than five minutes arguing the facts and evidence related to the motion, and I was clearly trying the patience of the state court judge by going on that long. As you might guess, I prefer federal court to state court. I like the formality, which keeps everyone on their toes. State court is far more political than federal court, and the informality lets state court judges get away with a bunch of stuff that federal judges couldn't. On the other hand, It is harder to practice in federal court as a solo practitioner or a small firm, because the larger firms can simply pile on the motions and the discovery requests and you have to spend more time dealing with them. I've also had the unpleasant experience of filing a case in federal court and realizing that I've bitten off more than I could chew - which is a problem because in federal court the judges usually won't let the attorney withdraw from the case absent some ethical conflict. In state court, the attorney can withdraw from a case almost at will. In federal court, you're stuck. Client won't pay the bill? Client won't agree to hire any expert witnesses? You're pretty much stuck. I'm glad state courts are different. The judicial system would grind to a halt if federal standards of practice were applied to every case. But if Judge Zimmerman is, indeed, bring a more "federal court" attitude with him to state court, well, more power to him. It's time to raise the standards in state court practice, I think, just a bit anyway. Greg Abbott Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linden Hills 13th Ward(612) 925-0630 ___ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Computers in Mpls Schools
At a party last weekend, I was told by a parent that the Minneapolis School District had eliminated all tech support for its Apple Macintosh computers as part of its recent budget cuts. Can a knowledgeable list member confirm or deny this? If true, it would IMHO be the very definition of false economy. This raises the larger question, addressed to the school board candidates, of the district's information technology policies. Nationwide, there has been a trend to "standardize" computers on the Microsoft Windows platform in education. I am curious if the District has a policy to standardize on Windows, and where the various candidates stand on the issue. I don't want to attach more importance to this issue than it deserves - teachers teach students, not computers, and the platform question is even one more step removed. And I'm sure I'm giving our esteemed List Manager a Maalox moment by potentially introducing the mother of all flame wars -- Mac v. PC -- to the Mpls Issues list. Nonetheless, inquiring minds want to know: what is the District's current policy on desktop operating systems (if it has one), and where do the school board candidates stand on the issue? Thanks Greg Abbott --- Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward --- ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] Rybak issues first veto...
on 8/13/02 4:40 PM, List Manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > A question: who can attempt to override the veto? Is it the Park Board? The > Council? What's the override percentage? The Park Board may override the veto. I think it requires a 2/3rds vote. If memory serves, the Park Board has a tradition of proving its independence by always voting to override a Mayor's veto, even if the initial measure did not pass by the required 2/3rds. Is there an example of a mayoral veto which was sustained by the Park Board? I can't think of one. Greg Abbott Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linden Hills 13th Ward(612) 925-0630 ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] CM Biernat and Council ethics
on 7/29/02 8:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It seems to me that the council does have a responsibility and reasonable > cause to ask him directly about his conduct in matters related to the current > legal charges. > Is the council being prudent by not mucking up the legal case? Are they > concerned about the cost? Are they concerned that they would be sued? > I guess my question to other list members: > Should the council be using the designated city charter provisions for > removal of elected officers? Why? or Why not? No, the Council should not be trying to remove Joe Biernat while a current criminal case is pending. In the first place, the Council can't "ask him directly" because of his 5th Amendment rights, which prohibit the Council from compelling him to provide evidence against himself. Joe Biernat would certainly decline to answer any questions posed to him on 5th Amendment grounds, an outcome which may be good political theater, but not useful as an investigative tool (the recent Enron hearings come to mind). Second, if Biernat is convicted there will be no need for an investigation. If convicted he will be removed from office automatically under the express language of the Charter. This is unlike the US House of Representatives, for example, where a separate vote to expel James Traficant was required even after conviction. Article 2, Section 19 of the Charter reads as follows: "Any elective or appointive officer of the City of Minneapolis, or any person employed in the services of the City of Minneapolis, . . . who shall willfully violate or evade any of the provisions of law . . . on conviction, shall forfeit the office and be excluded forever after from receiving or holding any office under the Charter of the City of Minneapolis . . . " A plea agreement would also require Biernat to forfeit his office, because (presumably) he would admit guilt as part of the plea to some violation of law, which triggers the language in the Charter. UNLESS, perhaps Biernat could plead guilty to a negligent violation of the law, which would not be "willful" under the terms of the Charter. I can't imagine, though, under these facts how he could claim that he "negligently" received free plumbing services, or "negligently" voted to appoint his plumber to the licensing board. So if Biernat is convicted he is removed from office. This is true even if he is convicted of a misdemeanor, not a felony. The Charter does not distinguish between the two, requiring forfeiture of office upon conviction of "ANY" provision of law. (I think the Charter is too broad in this respect - theoretically, "any" violation of law could include speeding tickets, parking tickets, or any "willful" low-level offense. Until amended, however, this is the language which applies.) The only other scenario is an acquittal. If Joe Biernat is acquitted I doubt as a political matter the Council would want to investigate and remove him from office. Some sort of censure or reprimand might be in order. But trying to remove him from office after vindication by an acquittal is the very archetype of a vendetta. And, in any event, the Council has better things to do than to relitigate a federal criminal case. Lastly, imagine what would happen if the Council tried to expel Joe Biernat on grounds that he had violated the law, only to have a jury acquit him later. That would be very embarrassing, to say the least. Any action the Council might take before the criminal trial would be premature. After the criminal trial the whole question will be moot one way or the other. We'll all just have to wait and see what happens. Greg Abbott Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linden Hills 13th Ward(612) 925-0630 ___ 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
[Mpls] In Memoriam: Richard H. Rose
Today I received terrible news that I pass along to the list. My friend and campaign manager, Rich Rose, died of a heart attack this afternoon. As many of you know, Rich was very active in Minneapolis affairs - amidst a long list of civic activity, he was campaign manager for the successful Library Board referendum in 2000. This tragic event is a great loss to Rich's family and friends, but also for the city as a whole. On top of his hard work and civic spirit, Rich was one of the most thoroughly decent people I have ever met. I do not have any information about memorial services - I will pass it along when it becomes available. Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward Sent from the computer of: Greg, Lynn, and Grace Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4305 Chowen Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55410(612) 925-0630 ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] Twins
on 11/10/01 7:50 AM, David Brauer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sec Taylor Stadium (the only one in America named after a > sportswriter) I believe that Jack Murphy stadium in San Diego is also named after a sportswriter. > My larger point is if you are for Triple-A ball, know you will have to > be for subsidy. You'll probably be subsidizing millionaire owners, not > billionaires, and the players will be making salaries you can relate > to...until they get good enough to play in the bigs. I lived in Austin, Texas, in 1994-95, during the time that the owner of the AAA Phoenix Firebirds was trying to move and build a $20 million or so stadium in Austin. How they got my name is beyond me (licensed attorney and semi-attendee of U.Texas college baseball, I suppose), but I was personally solicited at a breakfast meeting by a salesman for the opportunity to purchase, for a sizable sum, a Personal Seat License to fund construction of the stadium. I declined, of course. So did everyone else, which is why the project fizzled, and why Austin, Texas, remains the largest metropolitan area in the country without any form of professional baseball, IIRC. Life goes on . . . Greg Sent from the computer of: Greg Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linden Hills (612) 925-0630 ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] RE: Mr. Lane, Mr. Abbott and The Boulevard
I'm not going to rehash my interpretation of the facts, which I stand by. But let me tell you how I **feel** about the issue. I felt that, if the developers could meet some of the neighborhood and business concerns, that a compromise could have been reached. I walked out of the meeting on Sept. 13th pleased because I thought that had happened. For me, the fact that the developers said they had "secured" (past tense) the parking was the critical factor in my decision to support what I thought was an emerging compromise. Had I known that there wasn't a firm agreement for parking in place on Sept. 13th, I would not have publicly praised the developers for meeting neighborhood concerns - I would have said IF they locked down the parking (and the condemnation issue), then we have the beginnings of a compromise. There were people after the Sept. 13th meeting who told me that the developers were probably lying - they don't have an agreement, they said. I dismissed their objections -- I felt it was **inconceivable** that anyone could possibly say, at a public meeting with hundreds of residents in attendance, that they had "secured" parking unless they really had done so. So I came out in support of the compromise. So when I discovered that the parking agreement was not what it had been represented to be, I was absolutely dumb-founded. I still am. Given all the emotion, and the real need to rebuild trust with the community, the developers' failure to be completely candid about the clinic parking was, for me, simply breathtaking. I felt strongly that the developers' misstatement was a real breach of faith. I still do. I apologize if my feelings have inappropriately colored my rhetoric. My position on the project itself, though, remains the same. For me, the difference between having "secured" a 5-year lease and having an unenforceable agreement in principle (which proposes a six month termination clause, by the way) is THE difference between a deal I can live with, and a deal which does not adequately protect the interests of the neighbors and local businesses. I'm a lawyer. I've made a good living representing clients who have foolishly attempted to negotiate their own contracts. I know all too well that a poorly drafted contract offers very little protection in case of a breach. And, as a practical matter, once the building is built there is very little that anyone can do to enforce these promises. The importance of affordable housing should not blind us to the need to work out these details first, before the project is given the green light. Because if the details aren't worked out in advance, they will never be worked out at all. And if these details aren't important enough to work out, you're telling the community that their legitimate concerns aren't important. That, in my judgment, is the worst outcome of all. As for political opportunism -- the "opportunistic" strategy would have been to mindlessly continue criticizing the project, regardless of anything that happened during or after the Sept. 13th meeting. And, frankly, it defies logic to claim that my handling of this issue over the last 2 weeks has improved my chances of winning the election. I hope, but am skeptical, that this post will be received in the spirit in which it is intended. Greg -- Greg Abbott for City Council 13th Ward http://www.gregabbott.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612.925.0630 -- ___ 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
[Mpls] Paul Lohman & the Lynnhurst Board, "The Moderators"
Remember: our rules allow pointed disagreement, but require respectful discussion. -- on 9/20/01 11:06 AM, Paul Lohman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >This has been a community effort with all parties coming together to find a >solution (if one has actually been found). In all of this no one person stands >taller than any other and to claim such to my mind is an unfortunate >discounting of the efforts and participation of the community at large. Paul Lohman is right - a lot of people were part of a constructive efforts to potentially end this controversy. Paul may not want to have any person stand taller than others, but he is too modest. Paul and the other members of the Lynnhurst Neighborhood Board did an outstanding job in preparing for, and moderating, the meeting on September 13th. It was civil, well-run, respectful, and I think most people who left the meeting felt better about the process regardless of their ultimate position on the project. The potential for a positive resolution would not have existed without the efforts of the Lynnhurst Board. I, and many others, are very grateful for their efforts. Greg -- Greg Abbott for City Council 13th Ward http://www.gregabbott.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612.925.0630 -- ___ Minneapolis Issues Forum - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Abbott and Boulevard Project
Repeat reminder: be sure to clip the previous post, or excerpt what you're referring to in the body of your email. Constant reminder: our rules allow pointed disagreement but require respectful discussion. -- on 9/19/01 2:24 PM, deanc at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'd like to know what role Mr. Abbott played in brokering this solution. After I announced on this list that I opposed the project, on August 16th, the developers called me to discuss the issue (this was out of the blue - I had never met any of them prior to this). We had lunch the following Monday, August 20. I gave the developers a candid assessment of what I thought of the project - in particular that they had lost a lot of credibility with the public by preserving the "option" of using city condemnation at some future point to develop the whole block. I suggested that one way to begin to turn the situation around was to permanently give up the "whole block" proposal, and work to remedy the gap on parking and traffic issues for the smaller project. The developers took that advice. A couple of days later, at the Kenny Neighborhood Association, for the first time they announced that they were only seeking to develop the empty bank lot. I was still opposed to the smaller project because of parking concerns -- which I had raised from the beginning (my August 16th statement, for example, has a paragraph which begins "Even the Phase I proposal has some problems . . . " ). The developers hadn't done anything to improve the smaller proposal, even though dropping the "big block" proposal was very constructive. In fact, I said as much at the time, in a post to this list dated August 22nd (which some may have missed because it was in a thread entitled "MCDA Held Property"). The developers sent me an e-mail a few days later, on August 27th, asking essentially what changes in their proposal would be necessary for me to drop my opposition to the project. I responded with two items: (1) more parking, and (2) some kind of written promise that future condemnation was truly off-the-table. We had a brief exchange of e-mails on some ideas about getting more parking for the site. That was the last I heard from the developers until I went to the Lynnhurst meeting on September 13th. At that meeting, the developers announced that they had been able to add 17 more parking spaces (5 on-site, and 12 leased from a nearby business), and for the first time, the developers agreed to sign a legally binding document agreeing to forego possible future condemnation of the block. At the same time, in my discussions with other opponents I made it clear that stopping all development at 53rd and Lyndale was not realistic. I pointed out that some redevelopment of the empty bank site would occur, and that affordable housing was a very desirable component of that redevelopment. My sense of the opposition was that most people didn't mind the smaller Phase I proposal nearly as much as the "big block" proposal, but that there was an immense amount of ill-will left over from the perception that the developers had tried to strong-arm the local businesses into selling with the threat of condemnation. Of course, there were a minority of opponents who were opposed to anything -- but that was never my position, and it was not the position of most of the opponents with whom I spoke. I didn't intend to do this, but I ended up serving as conduit for an exchange of views between the developers and opponents of the project. In my judgment, the role I played was constructive. Had I intended to milk this for political gain to the exclusion of the public interest, I would have never talked to the developers or given them any constructive ideas about how to respond to public opposition. > This is truly an amazing turn of events, especially considering the fact > that Mr. Abbott was so strongly against the project and stated so numerous > times on this list. My position has never changed - I was strongly against previous versions of the project. In every post, I indicated that I was supportive of putting affordable housing at that site, assuming that the parking and condemnation issues could be addressed. I'm not the one who has changed positions -- it is the developers who have changed positions (for the better). If the objections were truly focused on practical issues, reasonable people should agree that these practical concerns have been substantially addressed. In virtually every piece of writing I've done on this project I have carefully explained the specific elements of my opposition. Hopefully, people will have the patience, yet again, to read a lengthy post on a complicated issue without resorting to labels or to make snippy assumptions about what my position is. Greg Abbott -- Greg Abbott for City Council 13th Ward http://www.gregabbott.org
Re: [Mpls] 13th Ward Question
on 9/17/01 8:01 AM, Dooley, Bill at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Are any debates scheduled between Lane and Abbott? A 13th Ward candidate forum on affordable housing issues will take place Monday, Oct. 29, 7:00 p.m. at Christ the King, 51st and York. Like my opponent, I am confident that the Southwest Journal will also sponsor a general candidate forum, at a time and place to be determined. IMHO there should be more debates than this. If anyone out there wants to sponsor additional candidate debates/fora, please contact me -- I'm more than willing. Greg Abbott -- Greg Abbott for City Council 13th Ward http://www.gregabbott.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612.925.0630 -- ___ Minneapolis Issues Forum - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Candidate Reluctance (was: Question for R.T.)
The questions asked of R.T. Rybak by Terrell Brown perfectly illustrates why
candidates and/or city officials are reluctant to post on Mpls-issues.
No candidate in their right-mind would engage in a public, open-ended
argument with a highly agitated antagonist who asks an endless series of
leading and unfair questions. ("Really, R.T., you can tell us - when did
you stop beating your wife?").
Food for thought as we sit at our keyboards composing our questions.
Greg Abbott
Linden Hills
13th Ward Council Candidate
on 7/2/01 7:31 AM, Terrell Brown at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is R.T willing to publicly disclose his contract with Target? What exactly
> was R.T. responsible for? Why did R.T. end his employment with Target?
>
> At what level of subsidy did R.T. become an opponent of the project? What
> level of subsidy did R.T. think was okay?
>
> Did R.T. become an opponent of the Target project while still an employee of
> the Target? In the
> story it states that one of the reasons R.T. became an opponent of the
> project was that the deal didn't conform to his concept of a larger revival
> of retail on Nicollet Mall. Was R.T. so principled in his beliefs regarding
> retail that he stopped taking money from Target?
--
Greg Abbott for City Council
13th Ward
http://www.gregabbott.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
612.925.0630
--
___
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
