I realize that comments were requested by Feb 26, but I just found out
about this proposed bill, as well as about this list. I support any bill to
eliminate the ability of neighborhood to restrict some residents from
participating. Arguments have been given about packing meetings with
"hostile" people who will change the direction of the neighborhood, but the
reality is that this is just another way to restrict alternative opinions
from being expressed.
In the case of my neighborhood, Prospect Park, the requirement for
membership is "permanent residency". Under this definition, residents of
dorms at the U of M are considered temporary, and therefore are restricted
from membership at all, whether or not the 30 day requirement for
membership is in place. It seems to me that if a person is eligible to vote
in this neighborhood, they certainly should not be restricted from
participation in the neighborhood organization.
Because the neighborhood organizations have been charged with the
management of milliions of NRP dollars, they need to be accountable to all
residents. The arrogance that is possible was manifested in our
neighborhood with the recent lighting controversy. After the lighting
trial, I wrote the following summary for my co-litigants, which I think is
appropriate to share here due to its relevance to the proposed law.
SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE NRP
Something is wrong with the Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) in
the City of Minneapolis, despite its laudable goal to give residents local
control. As one of the residents who recently lost the lawsuit appealing
the ornamental lighting in Prospect Park, I believe that the NRP process is
broken.
Something is wrong with the NRP when they place control of millions of
dollars in the hands of neighborhood organizations that previously managed
budgets measured in hundreds of dollars and supplemented by bake sales.
Something is wrong when the NRP contractor insists that ornamental lighting
is necessary to assure our safety, despite Prospect Park having one of the
lowest crime rates in the City, and a Department of Justice study showing
that lighting has no measurable effect on crime rates.
Something is wrong when the City has no engineering data that compares
various lighting options, yet continually states that the ornamental
lighting will be an improvement.
Something is wrong when the City claims that most poles and overhead wires
will be removed, yet the vast majority of them must remain in place to
carry electric and/or phone service.
Something is wrong when the NRP contractor gerrymanders out the blocks with
mostly rental and subsidized housing. (Since the justification for these
lights is supposed to be safety, I guess renters don't have a right to the
same level of security as homeowners do.)
Something is wrong when the NRP contractor's petition to assess
neighborhood support has errors in counting, weighing, verification,
authorization and methodology, so that there was never more than 35-45%
support for these lights.
Something is wrong when the NRP contractor disregards its official approved
NRP plan, and presents only the ornamental lights on the petition, without
disclosing that the option that has no assessable cost had been discarded.
Something is wrong when the NRP contractor unlawfully promises two churches
an extra subsidy only if they signed the petition supporting the lights.
Something is wrong when the City Councilmember deviates from the official
position of the City Council when she requires only 51% approval for the
petition, instead of the normal 65-75%.
Something is wrong when the City Councilmember summarily dismisses as
"disgruntled" the residents who, for almost two years, object, question,
raise valid concerns and ask for an independent survey of the neighborhood.
Something is wrong when the NRP process sets up the NRP contractor, in an
obvious conflict of interest, to hear grievances about their own actions.
Something is wrong when the Public Works Subcommittee receives hundreds of
comments before and during the public hearing, with about 2/3 opposed, yet,
with minimal discussion, votes UNANIMOUSLY to approve the lights.
Something is wrong when the Public Works Subcommittee tells a resident who
asks a question that the City Council "does not answer questions in public
hearings".
Something is wrong when the City specifies flawed lighting that focuses the
light into zig-zag patterns on the streets and houses. Yet they proceed
with the installation, despite already knowing from Lowry Hill's experience
that they face thousands of dollars to fix the problems, with no guarantee
that the lighting level will not be compromised by the fix.
Something is wrong when the NRP contractor subsequently changes the
neighborhood association bylaws to give the executive board veto authority
over the membership.
Something is wrong when the NRP contractor changes the meeting rules which
limit residents, who are already reduced to an advisory role, to a maximum
of 30 seconds to express an opinion as well as disallow any tape recording
of meetings. (Fortunately, in one of the only sane acts in this entire
thing, a police officer refused the NRP contractor's request to remove a
resident solely because he was taping a meeting.)
Something is wrong when the judge accepts as "more credible" the
unsubstantiated claim made by the City's commercial appraiser (who had not
done residential appraisals since the 1970s) that the lights will have an
"aesthetic benefit". Yet the judge rejects the testimony of the appellants'
two appraisers on the basis that they did not provide market data to
support their statements that there would be ZERO benefit.
Something is wrong when the judge rules that the City has the right to
force these lights on residents whether or not there is any neighborhood
support and no matter how slight the value is.
As a scientist, it is always disturbing to be reminded that facts, data and
logic have almost nothing to do with the law, justice and politics. I
realize that my problem is that I yearn for common sense in government, but
apparently I have to learn to accept the fact that the two are mutually
exclusive.
Nancy Alcorn
Prospect Park
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
