Even though the specifics of this continuing dialogue are about the
experience in PPERRIA, they are relevant to this list's discussion on the
function and value of the NRP.

David Brauer wrote:

>> 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.

NSA: These two subjects have been linked incorrectly. The by-law changes
effectively prevent ALL residents from having any voice that does not agree
with that of the board. The exclusion of dorms is another issue.

I have previously posted on this list my belief (supported by the NRP
statute) that it is absolutely not acceptable to exclude dormitory
residents, just because including them may not be in the interests of the
neighborhood organization. The fact that the PPERRIA president believes
that students have no "identity of interest with the rest of the
neighborhood" does not give the association the right to exclude them.

As I wrote in Feb: "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 membership. All opinions
of residents should be welcomed and discussed; to do anything else is
incredibly paternalistic and exclusionary."

David Brauer wrote about Michael Atherton's summary:

>> Again, the rest of his indictment seems pretty picayune.

NSA: Michael's arguments to this level of detail may seem picayune, but
taken together, they represent an imbalance of power toward organizational
bureaucracy and against the residents, for whom NRP was supposed to give
more voice. I am glad to have this vehicle to debate issues, as dissent is
not welcomed within PPERRIA. (BTW, we in PPERRIA have gotten used to having
any dissenting arguments dissected to this degree, that this has become
part of our DNA.)

David wrote:

>> Michael asserted his neighborhood org was disenfranchising residents,
then
>> quotes state NRP law that requires broad participation. I would argue
this
>> makes MY point - PPERRIA is bound by law, not excused from it. If they
are
>> violating state rules on participation, then appropriate legal redress
is
>> available. Even if the city council bails politically, the courts are
>> available.

NSA: Because of the high assessments caused by the lighting project, a
large number of residents felt it was worthwhile to "sue City Hall",
despite a cost of almost $30,000. However, I can't imagine anyone having
either the time or the money to take either the city or the NRP to court
for less concrete problems, such as the by-law changes or the exclusion of
students.

When you ask why the PPERRIA board was not tossed out, (besides the large
number of members), many residents felt that the by-law changes totally
excluded their ability to change the minds of the board...especially when
the board was so egregious in their handling of grievances filed about the
NRP lighting process.

You need to understand that over 200 residents attended a special meeting
called on a Saturday night to discuss the lights (in 1999). After HOURS of
discussion, it was voted to send a survey out to each resident of the
neighborhood to assess the interest in VARIOUS lighting options. However,
at the regularly scheduled neighborhood meeting just 2 days later, a much
smaller group reversed that decision, stating that there was no need to do
a survey.

This is why many residents are now so disillusioned that they stopped
attending meetings. The board has finally gotten what they wanted: reduced
participation by the residents. So now this board is again in charge of
deciding how to spend taxpayer funds thru Phase 2 of NRP (assuming that it
is funded).

I will conclude this by repeating a statement that Michael made, with which
I agree completely: "A system that allows projects to be pushed through
against the will of a majority of residents is flawed."


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

Reply via email to