Mr. Aho clearly states: ***However, local governments should supply only those services that the private sector or other governmental agencies cannot and do not provide effectively. ***

Ladies and Gentlemen,
My mother has lived, and paid taxes, in Eden Prairie for 47 years. Last fall, she went to a meeting at the Senior Center yesterday, led by Scott Neal and the new Parks And Rec Director.

At this meeting, the seniors in attendance were told the city wants to sell the Senior Center and transfer Senior Programs to the soon to be completed Community Center. There are a LOT of reasons my mother does NOT want to travel to the Community Center - I won't go into them, now. That does NOT change the republican-led city wants to sell the Senior Center.

Not because the city has to - there's no budget crisis to solve; but - philosophically - because the republican-led city WANTS TO.

Why? Because in this republican-led city; people don't matter - police, parks (for now), and pot-holes do. Well, and water, too. But, not much else. Gosh, by sure, it's all about the "Core Mission", doncha know?

Philosophy is driving the direction this city is going. Over the next few years, faster if they can, you are going to see this republican-led city bailing on support for PROP, Cornerstone, Meals On Wheels, etc etc etc. "Philosophically", this is not the city's business.

The philosophy of this republican-led city will drive the city out of the liquor business, as the republican philosophy says that the city has no business being in a business private industry can, and will, provide.

So, where will this "no new taxes" republican-led city replace ONE MILLION DOLLARS of liquor profits/revenue to city coffers?

For starters, say goodbye to Dunn Bros. and say goodbye to Cummins-Grill. That will add immediate cash. Then start looking at selling "excess" parks. That will add immediate cash, add to the tax base, and allow the republican-led city to shed maintenance costs. Plus, as an added "philosophical" benefit, these sales will allow the city to shed now unnecessary city employees.

Although city support of PROP, Cornerstone, Meals On Wheels, etc etc etc may survive for now, how long do you think - given the philosophy - this support is really going to last?

Ladies and Gentlemen, the leadership of the city - as a result of last November's elections - has changed. The philosophy of the new, republican-led city, will result in major changes.

And once this republican-led philosophy takes hold, go watch the seniors park at the Community Center, trudge accross the icy parking lot, and through the lengthy hallways.
At least, watch those seniors who's physical abilities let them do that trudging.

For those that can't?

Who cares? After all, the new, republican-led philosopy of cold-hearted conservatism is: "I got mine, Jack – who cares about them?"

FOR THE RECORD: I care. And, hopefully, you do, too.

Tommy Johnson

The fact that the City of Eden Prairie has and has had a AAA bond rating from Moody's has extremely little to do with Brad Aho considering the current Council's "cut-taxes" mentality and everything to do with the past decade of City Councils which built this city on a foundation of responsible re-investments in our quality of life.

Furthermore, when Mr. Aho says, "keeping the quality of life high and maintaining resources does not require more spending" he couldn't be more wrong or more duplicitous. Of course maintaining quality of life requires additional spending when our population continues to grow and inflation continues to decrease the value of the dollar. Government spending on what its citizens want, when its citizens want it, and to the extent that its citizens demand it is not wasteful spending. It's called representative (and responsible) government.

Phil, the issue is what Brad said, and I'll repost it again:

***
Mr. Aho clearly states: ***However, local governments should supply only those services that the private sector or other governmental agencies cannot and do not provide effectively. ***
***

Now, you can obfuscate all you want, but if you believe what Brad just wrote, which you should because you've said it before yourself, than how do you square the City owning and operating a liquor operation?

You can't have it both ways, Phil - no matter how much you'd like to.

Point of clarification: SD42 webmaster is obviously the GOP webmaster. It was pretty obvious from the miserly comment.

The issue remains that Tommy posed: government is to provide for people those services and fulfill those needs that people cannot reasonably do for themselves. Historically many communities had assistance when they arrived in the US as immigrants. My great grandparents did when they immigrated from Ireland. They had community English classes as well as assistance from the precinct captains on how to vote, use services, etc. We don't have small, insulated communities any more. It is unrealistic to expect someone who does not speak English well, nor drive, to find and navigate the cities to find downtown services to fulfill their needs. Needs must be met in the communities. The community should provide those services when a large community of like citizens congregate. It is in our best interest to assist new immigrants to our community who have chosen to live in our community with the integration into that community so that they can become tax paying citizens.

Contrary to a single track mind, this isn't only about cutting cutting and more cutting of taxes. It is about providing necessary services - not just those services that the most wealthy among us need but those services the least wealthy amongst us need.

Tommy also rightly points out that a person who lives by the mantra that government should only do what private industry can't do well, shouldn't support owning liquor stores. That's called hypocritical.

Let me begin on a note of agreement - sell the liquor stores.

OK - on to the disagreements:

You've provided no evidence that Brad wants to "cut and cut more". That sounds like a mischaracterization to me. Let's deal with facts.

Eden Prairie's budget is going up. Police and fire and everything else is going to be fully funded (see Scott Neal's commentary on the same subject).

So we're not cutting.

You refer to people who seek limited government as "miserly". But, again, you provide no evidence. On the state level, Minnesota's families have the 6th highest tax burden. That isn't miserly.

And on the local level, Eden Prairie ranks among the top providers in social services -- and that is going to continue. In fact I know of only one peer city (Bloomington) who gives more. Most give zero.

So that's not miserly either.

Speaking of immigrants, please talk sometime to people that have escaped communist or totalitarian countries and see that they think about the unrelenting burden of big government.

Under communism, everyone has free apartments. They have free health care. They have free school. Everyone is guaranteed a job. And everyone is equally miserable and poor.

Factories produce items that no one wants but continue to operate because the government guarantees you a job. There used to be a saying that you went to your job to rest and you came home to work.

The point is that socialism promises to take care of people but often becomes totalitarian. A system that promises “liberation” of working people instead follows the path to slavery and deep despair.

Capitalism may not guarantee that everyone gets the best house or goes to the best school, but, without it, everyone is poor. Capitalism guarantees choices.

ABC’s John Stossel once explored what makes some countries more prosperous than others. He concluded that countries that give people economic freedom and limited government intervention (e.g. the ease of starting a business) tend to have more prosperous economies. The result is that countries that have low taxation and regulation tend to be better off -- including the poor.

If you want to see capitalism in action, just go to your local grocery store. See all the choices you have. Because businesses are forced to compete for your dollars, they provide you the greatest choices for the cheapest prices. Imagine for a moment you lived in a country where there was only Pepsi and no Coke. You would soon discover that Pepsi was hard to find, very expensive, and didn’t taste very good.

Competition can work in other areas as well. Competition gives us better health care. Competition can even give us better schools.

Liberals are fond of characterizing conservatives as hard hearted. They say conservatives don’t care about the needy. What I’m trying to explain is that big government is a bad deal for everyone -- including the poor. The reason we live in such a wealthy nation is a direct result of our freedom. And we should never give that up.

Peggy Noonan once explained the difference between how liberals and conservatives view government. Liberals, she says, love government. They live for it, obsess about it, can’t wait to get up in the morning so they can make new laws. Conservatives don’t live for government and don’t love it either. They love other things. They know government is necessary, but they know that human nature is corrupt.

That is why they seek to keep government as small as possible. And to the extent that Brad (and the rest of the EP council) is able to do that, I say we should all be thankful.

I would love to have a Costco liquor store!!!!

On another note-- it is interesting to me that republicans have increased the size of our government by over 25% during the Bush administration and raised our deficit to such a high level I am afraid to type the zeros! And it certainly is not because of 9/11 or supporting the troops!

At our city level of government, our city taxes make up only 17% of our total property tax statement, and we have some of the lowest city taxes in the state. Why don't you republicans ever acknowledge that fact?

It is also disingenuous for our current republican city council members to claim the "top ten city" designation, when they campaigned that it did not matter during the last elections.

I personally believe in "responsible government". Bonding every necessary expenditure to our grandchildren because you don't want to pay for it today is not responsible.

Tommy, publicly owned liquor stores are like anything else. Why don't we have publicly owned grocery stores, publicly owned department stores, publicly owned everything -- and force all the other competing businesses in each sector to leave giving the city the exclusive monopoly?

It would be great! Think of all the extra tax money we could raise! Woo-hoo!

Only it wouldn't be great. If Target and Walmart and Rainbow and all the other businesses left Eden Prairie, we would all be worse off, not better.

So -- I don't know where "the party" wants to take the city. No one takes orders from me, I assure you.

But I can tell you why I think freedom and liberty works. I can tell you why socialism is a failed concept.

Munchkin -- I'll try to deal with your points one by one:

(1) Yes, a Costco liquor store -- why not?

(2) Let us agree that there are big spenders on both sides. We absolutely should criticize President Bush (and Republicans) when they let government spending get out of control.

(3) I don't think I heard Republicans say the top 10 designation doesn't matter, just that it wasn't right for one particular candidate for office to claim full credit for it.

For example, before 2006, Eden Prairie wasn't even in the top 100. It was only after Brad and Phil joined the council that EP got the award. Don't Brad and Phil deserve just as much credit for the award as certain other individuals, hmmmm?

Anyway, the topic (I think) is not liquor stores or magazine awards -- I think it is whether or not our city is adequately funding the things that we need to fund. I think that question was answered -- by Brad Aho in the above commentary and by the before mentioned commentary by our city manager.

I repeat: Everything that needs to be funded is being fully funded. The budget is going up, not down. Taxes are going up, not down. What is your gripe?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The City Council votes on the budget tonight; I just sent them this letter:

***
Mr. Mayor, Council Members:

Tonight, a little over a week before Christmas, you will vote on a budget that reflects core values.

The core values I hear, loud and clear, is this city no longer strives to be best. This city now compares itself to other cities with the goal of being "average", "typical", whatever.

This republican-led council has managed to alienate - in one year - almost every constituency in the city, save one - the taxpayer's league.

Mr. Mayor, Mr Aho and Mr. Duckstad, you have proven very responsive to their dictates.

My family moved to this city in 1960. Never have I seen moral of city employees this bad.

And I never thought I'd hear the day city hall employees talked about the need to organize and unionize.

Congratulations may be in order, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Aho, and Mr. Duckstad - republicans driving employees to organize.

This council will vote tonight, and tonight may be remembered as the night this council voted for The March To Mediocrity.

Tommy Johnson
***

I don't think we need to worry about our city being a "top 10" ever again! Not when grandma has to shovel her own sidewalks and the "community" cannot afford to belong to the "community center". In all the years I have lived here I never knew political affiliations for our city leaders until some very vocal republicans started to whine and complain. You would think that our city was in ruins and it took the likes of Aho, Duckstad and Young to clean it up!

The reality is these 3 have inherited a well run, well built city with well thought out ammenities (well, all those cul-de-sacs aren't my favorite-- but perhaps that is the fault of developers?!) taxes pay for all of that, and I think our past city governmental bodies have been very prudent in their stewardship.

Should we all start paying for our own roadways, our own hospitals, our own police protection-- the list goes on! You say these things are all being paid for-- I would ask you how much of that is PROPERLY funded to the levels that those entities need?

As for those businesses, well let's be honest about it. They don't want to pay ANY taxes but they use our roads, our infrastructure, and our utilities far more than my family will ever hope to, and when they realize that we expect them to pay their fair share to maintain that infrastructure they scream and move to some state where there are no taxes but also no ammenities (ever been to Mississippi?!). Taxpayers pay for all of our government financial institutions — our national banks, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Treasury and Commerce departments, as well as our courts, of which 90% is used for corporate law. When someone wants to start a business, they do not have to build highways, the internet, educate scientists, found banks, or start a court system from scratch. They are all there waiting for you, courtesy of taxpayers. These are taxpayer dividends.

Our taxes are investments that pay extraordinary dividends. No investment, no dividends. Some of the most important dividends are economic growth and jobs.

I do not want to pay needless taxes, but I do feel that I should pay my fair share to live here. Conservatives regularly claim that, “you know how to spend your money better than the government does.” This is by no means always true. In a great many cases, the government has invested our tax money wisely, and we have reaped enormous dividends. For instance, take our highway system paid for by taxpayer investments. Imagine trying to take your tax cut and use it to build a highway system? Or take the Internet - it was paid for with taxpayer investments, as was the development of computer chips. Imagine trying to use your tax cut to invent and build the internet, and design and make chips for all of our computer uses? Through our education system, as well as through the NSF (National Science Foundation), and NIH (National Institutes of Health), our wise taxpayer investments have trained generations of scientists and medical researchers. Imagine trying to take your tax cut to train doctors and scientists.

Taxes are an issue of patriotism. Are you paying your dues, or are you trying to get something for free at the expense of your country? But perhaps you do! As it is, the republicans in our fair city don't want to give anything to Meals on Wheels, don't want want to clear snow off of the trails anymore, kicked PROP out of City Hall because it didn't "look good" to have poor people coming there for food and clothing, don't want to mow grass in our parks, don't want any heritage properties, want to increase our noise pollution with an expanded runway, and they probably wanted 312 to be a toll road, and certainly don't want to have an Immigrant Liason. So what kind of city do you really want to live in anyway? As my most conservative neighbor has said, you don't want good government, you want CHEAP government, and we will all suffer down the road for the few miserly pennies you are screaming about saving today.

Patriotic Americans pay their taxes. Taxes maintain the investments we made to build roads, schools and hospitals — we pay our dues to make sure they remain in good repair and available for our use. Taxes support the infrastructure and services that protect us—the military, our police officers, and our firefighters. As a community, we contribute our taxes so that all of us are safe. We pay our taxes because we love our country and want to support it and our fellow Americans — it is an issue of patriotism.

And by the way-- we are at war! How are you contributing to the war effort?! Bought any bonds lately? Encouraged your children to sign up and serve their country? Done without any butter, flour or sugar this holiday season?

Boy, you couldn't be more correct in some of these boondoogles! I couldn't agree more that we shouldn't be paying one penny out for professional sports stadiums nor programs to teach people to drown worms let alone Shakespeare Festivals in Winona or anywhere else. I do disagree with you on light rail, though and bike trails....not to the detriment of funding roads and bridges. Not all dems want to give it all away. I am fiscally responsible but want to pay for programs that really do help people - like having a Somali liaison in the community to help those who live here. I do not believe that we need to provide assistance to billionaires who whine about their sports stadiums not being nice enough. Money should go to those who truly need it....and that includes the community....nice roads (no crumbling roads), safe bridges, plowed surfaces, etc.

I couldn't agree more with cutting out the pork. I do like the first step of actually expecting congresscritters to name their pork. If they are willing to fight for it, they should claim it. We should all know where our money goes. We can disagree with how much goes to whom but we should know where it is going and how it is being used - wisely or wasted.

Dems aren't wasteful either, no matter what you think. Most of us are fiscally responsible but believe that we should help the least among us - with integration services, with job training, with educational needs - not with programs to teach people to fish or to enjoy Shakespeare.

Most dems are sick and tired of being blamed as the spendthrifts in this world when the repubs have been the ones spending like drunken sailors. GWBush has done more to destroy the financial well being of most families than the last many administrations combined. At least Newt Gingrich agrees with me on that one.

Oh, trust me....they hear from me. I have been complaining at the top of my lungs about stadiums and wasteful spending for years. We all need to recognize that certain services are in our best interest (i.e., the best interest of building community) while others are, quite frankly, wasteful pork. We don't need gorgeously designed bridges. We need safe bridges. We don't need to bail out billionaires. If they want new, fancy stadiums then they can write the check. I have disagreed with Pogemiller for years. Also, please note - proposed is not passed. They can propose everything in the world. It doesn't mean a miniscule portion of it will be approved.

Let's all agree to support reasonable taxation for reasonable costs associated with society. We can discuss, amicably, which items are reasonable and at what price. We need to build bridges between the parties. This constant battle is too much and accomplishes nothing. We also need to stop using "bonding" as a method for not raising taxes to pay for our needs. Our needs should be paid for with today's dollars and not foisted off on our grandchildren to their detriment.

Not all Dems want to give it all away to everyone with their hand out and not all GOP want to spend our children's inheritance. Let's learn to live within our means but also take care of building our community to create more responsible taxpayers for the future. One caveat - I frankly don't care what other cities do. I care what our city does. We have a large community of Somali citizens. We need to help them integrate into society. Other communities face their own needs and wants. We need to help those who call Eden Prairie home.

Vamma, here is the social service spending for several Twin Cities suburbs. Let's see if this list backs up your claim that Eden Prairie is "eliminating human service support":

1. Eden Prairie $190,000
2. Edina $125,000
3. Maple Grove $120,000
4. Minnetonka $65,000
5. Apple Valley $0
6. Eagan $0
7. Lakeville $0
8. Maplewood $0
9. Mound $0
10.Woodbury $0

Hmmm... no, I think the evidence shows that Eden Prairie is exceedingly generous when it comes to human services.

Once again, the budget is going up, not down. Taxes are going up, not down. Up is not a cut. And just because Eden Prairie families -- who are already faced with rising costs in their own lives -- are reluctant to fork over even more of their money in the form of massive tax increases -- does not make them greedy or Scrooge.

What about the massive greed at the state level at the beginning of the last session? The first thing your DFL legislature did, before they passed any other bills, was raise their pay 50%. Isn't that greedy? How many social services did that pay for?

Greedy - give me a break!

Vamma - The budget is going up. Taxes are going up.

The city budget is going up. The county budget is going up. The state budget is going up. The federal budget is going up.

Those are the facts. I'm sorry to confuse this discussion with facts.

Since you mentioned the Pawlenty administration, let's look at the facts:

Just before he took office in 2003, the state budget was $24 billion. Today it is $36 billion. That's a 50 percent increase.

Does that sound miserly? No, I didn't think so either.

And if you're telling me that, if the DFL was running things, the budget would have grown even more rapidly, I would say that you are the ones who are being selfish.

Peter, you posted:

***
Reason: Government spending at all levels.
***

This thread is about taxes in THIS city. Not this county; not this state; not this country.

Please try to stay on topic, instead of going off on a typical republiCon rant.

The topic I first brought up was Brad being inconsistent with his republiCon "Core Mission" dogma - because if you follow republiCon dogma, you must insist the city shed the liquor operations. Which, to remind everyone, you have done.

Not Phil, not Jon, nor Brad. They still want to have it both ways.

For local taxes, in Scott Neal's opinion piece that you've linked to both here and on the GOP website, the increase - for the year - is $11 dollars.

And you and your ilk would fire two people, and cut off citizens to our government, over a couple of bucks.

Peter, that IS miserly.

No matter how you try to spin it.

"Let me repeat what I said earlier - if Phil and Brad had been honest about what they wanted to do to this city BEFORE they were elected last year, I highly doubt they would have been elected."

I coulden't agree more Tommy!

Duckstad’s Non-Sequitur

Budget going up; services going down.

Taxpayers have a lot to hoop about? They’ll actually each get their $11 tax-cut, but not without cuts to services. Duckstad, an endorsed Republican, couldn’t even use the words tax-increase, so he deferred to a referendum as a means to get CIP levels back.

One has to assume that the new budget process itself was not without cost to the taxpayer. Someone should ask the city for the outlay in staff time, paper work, workshop costs, etc. that resulted in an $11 cut to our taxes with the proviso that we ultimately will have to pay it back.

The council majority had very little budge last night. Young continues to show no leadership skills and what’s worse his usual imperiousness to everything and everyone outside of a very narrow political vision. He made little effort to win over two minority votes last night; he and the other Republicans ignored the public-outcry to keep the social service position.

I don’t think I heard mention of the HRDC at last night’s meeting? This group should have held as much importance in the discussion of the human service position as the Budget Advisory Commission did to the overall budget. Was the HRDC consulted about the liaison position? It appeared their opinion was not highly valued by this council.

Republicans are now leveraging quality-of-life right here in our home town.

by the way, no one I know thinks that city jobs should be a"forever" proposition, either. Having said that, there are so many ways this could have been handled. How about leaving the Immigrant Liason position open as a full time job for half of the year, and then cutting to 1/2 time? How about Full time for 1 quarter, 3/4 for 1 quarter and 1/2 for rest of the year?

If you could work so hard to keep one employee fully employed, then you could have at least made the effort for ALL city employees?!

Did Young, Duckstad or Aho make the same offer of full time employment to Khadra Duale that they made to John Gertz? Did they offer HER alternative duties?

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and flies like a duck.......