More comments on Fine's counterpoint

MORE COMMENTS ON FINE’S COUNTERPOINT

The following four e-mails are on-line responses to Fine’s February 15 Star Tribune counterpoint:

FIRST COMMENT. Park Board meetings were not televised at the time Fine refers to. The murky appointment process was a key factor in getting MPRB to televise later meetings. However, those who were present at the meetings in questions left with little doubt that Gurban’s 11th hour appointment was at least a surprise to some of the MRPB board. Many believed then – and still do – that the appointment was the result of something considerably less than a diligent public process. Posted by saa1964 on Feb. 14, 10 at 9:29 PM

ANOTHER EXAMPLE of the Strib reporting inaccurate, misleading and damaging news in a very important situation. When will the strib learn to report all of the news, not just the news that supports thier own agenda. Not even dropping readership and downward finances get through their thick skulls. Posted by scottr on Feb. 14, 10 at 11:24 PM

WHAT THIS REALLY SHOWS is how out of touch Bob Fine (and other MPRB) is with the reality of the Park system. Fine won re-election simply because of his name recognition as an incumbent. There’s a reason he didn’t have party endorsement. Things are not great within the park system, just ask any recreation center director. Parks are in dis-repair, and recreation centers operate on shoestring budgets. While they don’t have money to keep skating rinks and pools open, they spend thousands on fancy signs to adorn the parkways. The Park Police has gone from one of the premier park safety departments to a rag-tag group that spends way too much time responding to Minneapolis city police calls. Parks used to be for people, now they’re for corporations that want to operate businesses on park property. In over 30 years with the Park system I’ve never seen them as poorly managed as under Gurban (and Fine). Posted by lawmoose on Feb. 15, 10 at 1:29 AM

CHICKITY CHECK IT. Tomorrow I will post some emails I received from Jon Gurban in response to some safety concerns I raised with the Grand Rounds completion… stay tuned. He’s not in-tune with the public. In the meantime, the Star Tribune editorial was just that. It was an editorial. It was not a front page story. Editorials are subjective. Why is this so hard to understand (Bob Fine)? Even thought it was an editorial, how can you dispute this: “Fine’s concerns about money are interesting, too. If Gurban’s contract had been extended, it would have cost the new board about $100,000 for a buyout — if it didn’t want to be saddled for over a third of its four-year tenure with a superintendent not of its choosing.” check out http://www.mplsparkwatch.org Posted by chocotastic on Feb 15, 10 at 10:27 pm