All:
Some recent postings argued about NRP and neighborhood
nonprofit corporations that are NRP's fiscal agents. The arguments
for change in the nonprofits push them away from what they are
(private affinity groups using corporate nonprofit form) and toward
what they aren't right now (governments). Rather than tinkering
to make nonprofits closer to being "itty-bitty governments," maybe
we should, as the saying goes, "take the bull by the tail and face
the situation."
Should there be a formal level of "neighborhood government?"
So, just as there are city and county governments within state
government (or states under the federal), should there be
neighborhood government? If so, what are its powers, duties,
and limitations? What is the relationship to city, county, and
state government?
I'm not so sure that there is a place. It is "another layer" to
start off with. In areas like the Twin Cities we already have a
"Metro" government, counties, and cities. And there are not obvious
bright lines between them. Adding another just makes it worse.
Should there be neighborhood government but at the expense
of eliminating one or more of the other layers?
On the other hand, if there should NOT be neighborhood
government, what's the point of trying to push neighborhood
nonprofits to being "government-like" and perhaps combining
the most problematical features of government with the
most problematical features of nonprofit corporate existence.
It's probably all a thought experiment but if any others
want to think about it with me, I'd be interested in your views.
Steve Cross
Prospect Park
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
