[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Though the idea of the NRP has a nice concept at its base, unfortunately in
> the city of Mineapolis we have too many neighborhood groups. A few of these
> groups are efficient and many of them are unproductive. The money toward the
> NRP program is collected through taxpayer money and it is geared to assist
> projects within specific neighborhoods. By doing so, the city has placed the
> power in the hands of these neighborhood groups who are to decide how the
> money will be spent. Unfortunately, most of these neighborhood groups are
> not capable of running a program with the large sum of money the NRP offers.
> >From my observation, the NRP money has created conflicts within these
> organizations. Currently, most of the neighborhood groups have an executive
> director, staff, an office headquarters and many other expenses that come
> along with having an organization. I'm wondering how much of this NRP money
> goes toward offsetting the expenses of the organization itself. In addition,
> I'm wondering how many neighborhood organizations are capable of running a
> business in of itself. This is not to mention all the NRP staff at the MCDA
> that we pay to review NRP plans and implement the dispersement of the money.
Previously I have commented on the NRP from an individual rights perspective,
here I will address issues of political dynamics. The creation of the NRP has
altered the power structure of city politics. We now have a patronage system
that looks similar to that of Chicago's in the fifties and sixties. It appears that
many of the neighborhood organizations are run by the same individuals active
in the DFL. The NRP has provided these individuals with control of large
amounts city revenues for projects of their own choosing (neighborhood
participation in Plan development is a sham, because as we all know, decisions
are determined by "those who show up.") Since this money is controlled by
Bob Miller, he has become a "third force" in city politics and the NRP is
a monolithic program that will be very difficult to control or dismantle. The
only oversight of the NRP is supposedly done by the city council, which
must be careful not to alienate the neighborhood organizations
because they represent their own base of political support. Thus, what we
have is essentially a closed system.
The major problem with the NRP is that it is not subject to any of the
normal checks-and-blanaces that have evolved to keep city government
within ethical and legal bounds. Their is no effective avenue to appeal the
actions of neighborhood organizations or the NRP. This problem will
eventually lead to corruption and cronyism. I will cite an example of one
early step down this slippery slope. We recently had a meeting to reallocate
NRP funds. Even though a large part of the neighborhood was notified,
it appeared that more than 60% of the residents attending the meeting
were neighborhood organization board members. (There are 40 board
member positions, not counting spouses who can simultaneously serve
on the board. This provides a potential voting block of 80 people for
NRP meetings.) One of the motions included an item to spend $5000
for block club leader requirement. We were told at the time that
there would be an open application process for hiring the person for
this position. This item was approved. At a more recent meeting we
were informed that it was now likely that there would no longer be an
open application process and that one of the existing NRP contractors
would be hired. It is my understanding that most of the existing NRP
contractors are part of the close knit group who run our neighborhood
association. The fact that this type of action is perfectly legal provides
future opportunities for abuse and highlights the lack of accountability
of the NRP program.
Michael Atherton
Prospect Park
Ward 2
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
