I still say, without reaearching due to laziness, that a council does not have the power to eliminate a public service that all citizens are entitled to.
I think this will be more peacock posturing in the heat of the moment so we will see. But imagine if someone can come in and decide with the council that the fireman and garbage men should be eliminated and we spend all that money elsewhere? Even though the public rhetoric makes it seem like the public wants it, the average citizen does not want it and would have that counil hauled off for trying.
I'm in the la-z-boy, next to you, with the small, round coffee table between us, being equally, if not more so, lazy, with regard to doing research.
But I must ask, without wondering, except a little, why you say that they are "entitled" to a public service; isn't "entitlement" much different than a "right?"
(For example, we are entitled to drive a vehicle, but have no right to drive.)
And if you actually mean that they have a "right" to police servants, aren't there rural areas with no local police? And if so, why couldn't this be lawfully the case in Minneapolis as well?
I'm just curious as to how you'd square this circle.