One of the first things I learned in Introductory Sociology
was the difference between mores and ideals. Ideals are
the way we would like to believe that things should be and
mores are the way things really are. There are many examples
of the difference: what George Bush says about the environment
and what he does; what George Bush says about the military
and what he does; the ideal that the Supreme Court is
nonpartisan, and the fact the fact that it is not. I believe that
the difference between ideals and mores describes well what
David says about the way the NRP works and the way it
really works. I get the same type of mythical goodness from
my neighborhood organization president. Sometimes I feel as
though I'm watching a government official from a third world country
on 60 Minutes, "Of course all of our peasants are happy."
Personally, I'd rather deal with reality than illusion.
David Brauer wrote:
> ...is incorrect. Neighborhood organizations do not approve zoning variances
> or MCDA land approval. That power is exclusively held by the democratically
> elected City Council and MCDA board of commissioners (the city council).
> Neighborhood organizations do make recommendations to the council about such
> matters, but those recommendations have little if any legal weight.
Hmmm...So how is the power held exclusively by the Council, if neighborhood
organizations make recommendations? The fact that they have no legal weight
is irrelevant if the recommendations do indeed influence the Council's decisions.
The chair of our zoning committee has told me that the Council almost always
acts in accordance with the recommendations of the committee on homeowner
issues, but deviates when there is money or politics involved. For example,
if I wanted a variance to put a five foot high fence in front of my house and
the zoning committee opposes it, then the council is not likely to approve it, but
if the Ronald McDonnell House want to tear down houses to put up a parking
lot, then down come the houses.
> I believe neighborhood organizations must be fully accountable when spending
> public money, and state law governing non-profits is the place that sets the
> standards. (I hope Scott Benson, et. al. return to their efforts to give
> neighborhood organizations discreet non-profit status reflecting their
> differences from the United Ways of the world.)
As I've stated before, just because your books balance, doesn't mean
that you haven't trampled all over the rights of your neighbors. Companies
that illegally pollute have books that balance.
> The there is a parallel
> chain of responsibility going back to democratically elected city officials.
> Every penny of NRP money spent out here is audited by the city, and every
> action plan approved by the NRP governing board, which is democratically
> chosen. The contractors have the checks traditionally accompanying
> government action.
And all of this auditing, didn't prevent the NRP from failing to meet the
requirement that 50% of funds be spent on housing. And, will not
assure that a majority of funds will be allocated to housing in Phase II.
> The point is, if you don't like what the neighborhood group is doing (i.e.,
> records aren't open, voting procedures are screwed up), lobby the city not
> to do business with it.
And the reality is---that many neighborhood organizations are run by
individuals active in DFL politics, just as David is. My neighborhood
organization actually had the arrogance to hand out buttons at one
annual meeting that read, "PPERRIA a small politically well connected
clique."
When I tried to tell my councilmember that there were
irregularities in a petitioning process to install ornamental street lights,
she told me that she's already promised the "people" and it was
"done deal." So politically naive little me, I believe the ideal that
David is proposing, and I start a campaign to show the Council
that my neighborhood doesn't really want new street lights.
The Council actually got more mail about the Prospect Park
street lights than they did about the Target Center.
We had stories in the Star Tribune and WCCO.
We were actually able to show that verifiable support had dropped
below 40% and all were asking the Council to do was to
verify this for themselves. So what did we accomplish?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The council voted unanimously
to go ahead with the project without checking that the
neighborhood actually wanted it. That's the reality, not
the Myth of the NRP.
Michael Atherton
Prospect Park
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
