In response to all of Steve Cross' comments about the NRP lighting project,
I stand behind every statement that I made. I have documentation that
supports most of them, and the rest are just differences in semantics.
However, I must respond directly to a comment about the proposed bill. My
original comments are included below, with Steve's so-called "Myth"
following.
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.
MYTH -- Does anybody, including the dormitory residents themselves,
think they have an identity of interest with the rest of the
neighborhood?
NSA response: It shouldn't be up to a neighborhood association to decide
this...if the students don't care about the issues in the neighborhood,
then they are not likely to show up at any meetings. But no one, including
students, should be PREVENTED from attending. All opinions of residents
should be welcomed and discussed; to do anything else is incredibly
paternalistic and exclusionary.
At last night's PPERRIA meeting, a presentation was made by a developer
about yet another new student housing development. During the discussion on
this subject, Steve said that the UofM dorms were becoming the residence of
choice for underclassmen, and that this type of development was generally
directed at upperclassmen. Does that mean that residents of these
apartments would also be restricted from membership in PPERRIA? Or does the
landlord for these students make a difference, so that only those who rent
from the UofM are not eligible?
This arrogant attitude is also evident in a position paper written by Steve
about the proposed bill and distributed (using PPERRIA funds??) at last
night's monthly meeting. In discussing the subject of exclusionary by-laws,
Steve stated: "It IS discrimination, but NOT 'invidious
discrimination.'...Discrimination can be good."
I believe that this is a slippery slope that we are riding, and fully
support open membership and meetings.
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
