I don't reflexively oppose Tim Connolly's idea of scrapping NRP. As Russ
noted, it's a great debate to have. But as Tim noted, he is vague and we
need to examine the real trade-offs.
Parenthetically, I'm sorry about my designation of "serious" candidates. I
was sloppy (unintentionally). My personal philosophy is to only encourage
involvement - through my neighborhood work, list work, and respect for most
non-DFL candidates. I was needlessly dismissive at this early campaign date.
(Does everyone know Tim is running for mayor?)
As to NRP, Tim's arguments are brave, but also made me sad. More on that
later.
You wrote:
>I think it is time we scrapped NRP. I think it is
>wasteful and inefficient. It is unrepresentative
>democracy. I believe we can achieve the same goals
>without all the squabbling and partisan bickering.
Any time there are scarce resources, there will be "squabbling" - on this
list, in city hall, in the neighborhoods. That's not necessarily bad. I'd
rather have the squabbling occur at the level closest to the people, where
there is faster redress and more accountability. I see more people at my
King Field neighborhood meetings than most City Hall hearings. (I'm
abandoning PPERRIA, but I still don't understand how dissidents are
fundamentally blocked from running for the board, or their current
supporters prevented from taking it over.) I also think that citywide
"squabbling" about NRP is overrated: Prospect Park makes the papers because
it is the distinct exception.
NRP's unrepresentativeness can't be considered in isolation. Duly elected
officials approved the program, and still approve (and sometimes alter)
spending plans on the back end. In the middle, LOTS more people get
involved - not for craven political reasons, but because they actually have
a chance to see their ideas become reality.
>As I listen to the discussion of infrastructure fund
>and internal service fund gaps and lack of litter
>containers and collection, and inadequate snowplowing,
>etc., I have to say "what has changed?" The buzz is
>the same as it was prior to NRP.
NRP: it slices, dices, and reforms politicians! The last 10 years shows that
political behavior persists - thus a good argument that open-door grass
roots forces should guide some money. NRP is not some love drug that has
made us all politically sleepy. A lot of neighborhood folks denied a sitting
DFL mayor DFL endorsement because of a TIF fiasco (Target Store) - when was
the last time that happened?
>I want to live in a city governed responsibly by a
>mayor and thirteen councilpeople who make the hard
>decisions we pay them to make and spend our money
>wisely and well keeping in my mind they cannot please
>all the people all the time.
I think Tim makes a fundamental mistake positioning this as an either/or -
if you want responsible politicians, scrap NRP. Why not demand political
accountability AND closer-to-the-ground decision-making? I do.
I'm open to the argument that scrapping NRP will result in smarter spending.
But shouldn't City Hall show they could spend non-NRP funds better before we
"give it all back?" Maybe the infrastructure gap could be largely met this
way. I'm always amused that NRP is the first thing on the chopping block -
here, Tim and Jackie Cherryhomes probably agree. We need specific (but
comprehensible) budget proposals that show the tradeoff between increased
City Hall spending and lost NRP projects. That way, we can intelligently
compare the tradeoff.
>NRP it seems to me was an avoidance of that reality
>and was a bribe paid by politicians to citizens so
>that they could keep their jobs and create the
>illusion that we could have our cake and eat it too.
Incumbency is no more powerful today than it used to be. (A MUCH bigger
job-protector was the move to 4-year council terms.) If NRP was a bribe, it
didn't work. You want to strip away illusion, try splitting up a $2 million
neighborhood NRP budget every 10 years. That'll teach you how much cake you
can't eat.
>I also believe it is party-building and patronage. I
>do not think it necessarily serves the best interests
>of the city as a whole as much as it rewards some of
>its parts more shrewdly administered.
The patronage stuff floors me. Party talk never comes up at my neighborhood
level - I don't know how the King Field board members or NRP Steering
Committee members vote, and our neighborhood staff has zero political
connections. I really like neighborhood work because party politics NEVER
rears its head -- heck, non-DFLers have more influence through NRP than at
city hall!
Here, people care about who does the work, not who they vote for once every
two or four years. If there are "factions," they tend to be over real
neighborhood issues, not party labels...and that's more legitimate.
>With all due respect to Mr. Brauer and all the other
>neighborhood presidents and officers, I did not vote
>for you and I do not entrust you to spend taxpayer
>money. <snip> I suspect though
>that those who are involved in their NRP groups are
>the people who in the past would have written to or
>phoned their councilperson or who were active
>political supporters and who had the ear(s) of their
>candidates or elected officials.
This is the part that makes me sad. I don't have any beef with Tim not
entrusting neighborhood officers. We are elected by fewer people. It's a
weakness of NRP. I do find it sad that Tim, a "man of the people," believes
that when some neighborhood volunteers - "real folks" like himself - get a
little real power at the expense of elected officials, that can only be done
away with, not reformed. In effect, he says, "go back to writing and phoning
your council members and hope they pay attention and if not, see you in four
years."
>Other cities achieve similar
>neighborhood goals with less expense.
What other cities achieve similar neighborhood goals with less expense? The
$20 million per year isn't thrown down a rathole, it goes for schools,
roads, parks, housing, streets, etc.
>And other cities
>have a much less naive attitude that allows for more
>questioning and less passivity.
Minnesota Nice was here well before NRP, and will be here after. You want to
keep people passive? Reduce their decision-making power. Again, we can
insist on great leaders without giving up real local control.
>I would propose that eliminating NRP should be a part
>of a reorganization of our entire planning/economic
>development/community development area. <snip>
I think we need such a reorganization. I'd like to hear more about this.
You'll forgive me if I don't want to give up NRP before I see a workable
plan, though.
>We can correct that at the ballot box by favoring real
>people you can converse with as opposed to politicians
>who talk at you and are glib or who promise the moon
>and all the wonderful things they're going to do when
>elected.
Like end squabbling? (Sorry Tim, I couldn't resist.) I want real people I
can converse with -- who also support shared decision-making, intelligent
oversight, and value helping involved neighbors direct a slice of the city's
resources. I want it all!!!
>We need to exert some fiscal responsibility and with
>the mayor and city councilmembers all touting their
>megaprojects combined with miniprojects coming out of
>each NRP group we are trying to do too much.
Absolutely! Candidates should reveal a "unified" informal budget...what they
would spend, and what they would leave, if anything, for NRP. That's
responsible. But let's not forget the lost & foregone stuff NRP could have
built.
Even if NRP dies and the council does it all, members come in with 13
agendas. Things get dumped. This is not a tragedy or a sell-out. It is
compromise, the crucible of politics.
>Also, I do not mean to suggest the elimination of
>neighborhood associations, just their scope.
King Field gets $4,375 in its MCDA (non-NRP) Citizen Participation grant.
That's a BIG scope limitation. But you know what? We're usual suspects -
we'll keep showing up and trying to do good things.
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
