Thanks for the suggestions, John. While I appreciate
parts of your ideas, I can see three ways that the NRP
baby could be thrown out with the bathwater:
- While further staffing checks and balances may be
needed, I'd prefer that neighborhoods retain the right
to make reasonable staffing decisions for themselves.
NRP staffers in my neighborhood (HPDL) do a fantastic
and efficient job of administrating day-to-day aspects
of our association, and their local presence is
greatly appreciated. (Full disclosure note: I serve
on the HPDL board.)
- Central monitoring of major funding outlays makes
sense, but it's important to avoid turning NRP into a
cafeteria-style program where neighborhoods pick
services from an agency's chosen list. Neighborhood
groups might wind up sending wish-list letters to a
city-level Santa Claus.
- Allowing local groups to implement plans gives
residents the chance to develop not only policies, but
also the skills to bring those policies to life.
Without the opportunity to become involved locally on
several levels--as planners, designers, and
implementors--we'd add another layer to the process
while eliminating a great opportunity for people to
get involved in their communities and learn that
government does have a positive place in their lives.
All that being said, I understand the benefits of
stronger financial and administrative monitoring of
NRP. I just hope city and state leaders don't lose
track of NRP's virtues in the process.
Dana Bacon
Page neighborhood
--- John Rocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, why not keep the planning and prioritizing on
> the neighborhood level and
> let the city's professional staff manage the money
> and implement the plans
> once they are approved? Does each neighborhood
> really need its own staff for
> implementation?
>
> John Rocker
> CARAG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
