David Brauer wrote:
> At the risk of making this thicket even denser (Prospect Park East is
> beginning to sound like Central-on-the-Mississippi), Michael Atherton's
> complaints seem to shrink as the saga continues. First, the neighborhood
> group was changing its by laws to prevent people from voting - but it turned
> out they had made a decision to exclude a student dorm new to the
> neighborhood.
Once again I would like to remind you of State law, as detailed in the NRP
Statute:
"The neighborhoods must include the participation of, whenever possible,
all populations and interests in each neighborhood including renters,
homeowners, people of color, business owners, representative of
neighborhood institutions, youth, and the elderly."
Participation in the process of NRP plan development and implementation
is mandated by law; this is in addition to the fact that citizen participation
is the philosophical foundation of the NRP. It seems to me that what David is
suggesting is that it's somehow acceptable to ignore the law when
a neighborhood association feels that it is in their best interest to do
so.
Whether PPERRIA likes it or not, our neighborhood is closely associated
with the University, and that means living next to an institution where
more than 40,000 people work and study. What David calls a student
dorm is more accurately described as student apartments, and there
are at least two, if not three, more of these developments in the works.
This is in addition to the fact that about 20% of our residents are students.
The assumption that we can disfranchise individuals because they are not
"permanent," would exclude other types of groups besides students, such as
migrant workers and the homeless. In our neighborhood it might also be
used to exclude residents of the Glendale housing project because their
turnover rate tends to be high, as people move into better accommodations.
This is probably why the legislature wrote the statute as they did.
> Hardly an indictment of neighborhood groups meriting burying
> NRP.
If NRP and its contractors fail to abide by the laws of the State
of Minnesota, then I feel they should be buried. Government
that does not abide by their own laws act as a tyranny.
> Then, the implication was that PPERRIA was denying people records...now
> THIS turns out not to be right - Michael thinks the neighborhood group
> should be subject to that law, and people had "trouble" getting records
> under a previous regime. But no tossed-off voters and no locked-up documents
> in the end.
I had actually believed that David refrained from using these types of rhetorical
tactics. You see, I never made any statements that PPERRIA was denying
people records; it is simply the name of the thread. At most I might be
accused of failing to change the name of the tread.
> In the latest installment reveals a big problem is a grievance policy. Let
> me tell you, if you get rid of NRP and make the city council the only
> decision-maker, the grievance policy isn't much better.
This is another rhetorical device; I call it, "The grass is not greener," argument.
"Black people have nothing to complain about, just look how bad it
is in Africa." The fact that City Council is not responsive to citizen
complaints, is not a valid basis for defending the NRP's lack of
responsiveness. The whole idea of forming the NRP, was ostensibly,
to provide government services that were more responsive to the
needs of residents.
> You can sue (and if
> you're little, try doing that to city hall - and it's worth noting the
> anti-lighting Prospect Park residents did sue over their assessments and
> lost). Or, if you're in the wrong end of the election cycle, you can wait
> three years to try to bounce your council person.
I'm not sure what David's point is here. "You can't sue City Hall?" It's
true that more than 120 residents were so angry that appealed their
assessments as a group in court (this is a subset of the people who
didn't want new street lights). I think that they got a really raw deal
from the judge who stated that in order to prove their case that they
had to show that there was absolutely no increase in value anywhere
in the area; something that would have been impossible to do.
It's true that voting in a new council person is a possible, but unlikely
option. How easy is it to unseat a DFL endorsed incumbent, regardless
of how bad they are? I had hoped that a viable independent candidate
would come forward, but no one did.
> One of the things so frustrating about Michael's account is that seven years
> ago, I felt a little like him. My grievance was 180 from his: We had a
> neighborhood board in King Field that was not willing to have the
> neighborhood join NRP - in other words, they were willing to leave $2
> million-plus on the table. (Legend has it King Field was the last
> neighborhood to join NRP, though I'm not sure if this was true.) That board
> didn't seem all that interested in outreach and it seemed (to us newcomers)
> to be run by a small clique of Same Old boys & girls.
Ok David, how many boardmembers were there? Forty? And, how
many loyal supporters could the board call on to pack meetings with?
> We didn't even have the assessment outrage fueling us - just the sense the
> board was out of synch. But several people (not me, I was only a fellow
> traveler) led the charge and organized the heck of the neighborhood, and our
> "bloc" won a majority of seats. Several old members were elected too; at
> least one resigned but many others stayed, and after a few years, the blocs
> were even working together a bit.
There are a number of problems with trying to change a 100 year old
institution. The most difficult is as PPERRIA's president says, " it's
the usual gang that show up to do the work," and "most people are
too busy with work, family, and just surviving from day to day, to
have time or interest to participate in neighborhood doings." There are
also institutional obstacles, such as the fact that the only people that
go on the ballot are selected by a nominating committee, which is
appointed the current president.
> I can't defend every neighborhood organization as functional, and wouldn't
> say that board members always make great or even proper decisions. I would
> guess - only that - that the batting average in the neighborhoods is as good
> as city hall. And the ultimate grievance procedure is more frequent &
> powerful - annual neighborhood board elections. Get a slate, run a group,
> and change the bad stuff of the old closed regime. If you can organize
> opposition to a lighting petition, you can do this.
Ok David, how do you suggest that we get a slate on the ballot?
> I believe there have been several elections in Prospect Park since the
> lighting fiasco occurred (the controversy surfaces in Strib archives in
> 1999, and I believe it erupted a year or two before that). Since the
> assessed residents were clearly not excluded (at least, Michael has not
> alleged such), why wasn't their enough outrage to overturn the board making
> such an egregious, anti-democratic mistake? I can tell you if I had screwed
> up 130 people's assessments - the number who signed an anti-lighting appeal,
> according to the Strib -- I'd be out on my ear as neighborhood prez here in
> King Field. Perhaps because - democratically - Michael's position ultimately
> doesn't carry the day in Prospect Park?
The Truth? First, 130 people might not be enough. There are a number
of reasons for this, some which I've cited. The main problem is that
people have been so screwed over by the current system that they
won't even try any more. Which is why I am trying to make it better.
Remember that the only thing that we asked PPERRIA and the City to
do was to verify the amount of support for new street lights. And,
that all I asking for now is for the protection of the rights of residents.
A system that allows projects to be pushed through against the
will of a majority of residents is flawed.
Michael Atherton
Prospect Park
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
