PRSR INFORMATION 06-14-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

iv ' "1"f I N StarTribune 18A, Saturday/June 3/1995 iA r°�s° OUR PERSPECTIVE ity arkland ow, AIuxury' that repays its costs n listing city spending priorities, at least not expanded any further. Oth- ; p.t;i could easily be relegated to the erwise, they fear, the city will have to lour part of the list. How important, cut back so far on park maintenance of&all, is a patch of grass, a stand of that the whole system will suffer. tre +s,;or a softball diamond compared to.:. ,police and fire protection?Pub- The city, indeed,cannot afford to let its li4alth and safety should come first parks fall into disrepair. And some of t luxuries like parks take what's the money-saving changes being made leairer. in grass-mowing schedules and other wow maintenance programs are worrisome. Eqpt that in crowded urban centers, pa $ and green spaces may be no less But neither can park officials confi- vi to people's well-being than an effi- dently say Minneapolis has all the park- qf iy run police department or sew- land it will ever need.One might argue, ag disposal system. Far from being for example,that with its chain-of-lakes • l ` �ies, parks—especially well-sited, parks, the city was able to get along for we_ designed and well-maintained a century without developing its Mis- pa — provide much-needed relief sissippi riverfront as recreational green- an` , s'escape from the crowded, often space— and should not spend money 11*"'` c and confrontational urban scene. on such an effort now. Yet surely it ' would be as tragic to pass up today's . erieapolis has lived by that precept opportunity to develop riverfront parks farA ore than a century—developing — especially through relatively park- a j 'ik system that not only brings ex- poor north Minneapolis—as it would ti~a "dinary beauty and recreational op- have been a century ago to fail to set patinity to the lives of its citizens,but aside the south Minneapolis lakes for intLrnational recognition to the city it- public ownership and recreation before self. Such is the high importance given they were swept by private devel- 1 to parks.in Minneapolis that the city opment. ieven puts them under the protection of an independently elected governing All the more reason for the Minneapo- I board. Other city priorities may rise lis Park and Recreation Board to be ancd*fall with the political winds, but turning to entrepreneurial and, other the position of parks is expected to creative financial schemes for supple- remain constant and inviolable. mental revenues,even as it seeks to cut costs without putting either the existing Yet today, Minneapolis' park system system at risk or failing to provide seems as vulnerable to fiscal pressure as needed expansion. Parks don't pay any other city department. With recent property taxes, but by making the city i deelines in both city population and tax more livable and attractive they do 1 ba§e, some are wondering whether much to enhance the value of the pri- - Minneapolis' park system has grown vete properties that do pay them. Gov- too.large and should be pared back, or ernment offers no better bargain. • '`