Russ Peterson notes:
>I wonder if part of the reason for all of this is that we
>were not direct stakeholders. In my current association, I
>pay dues directly to the association. I am an even greater
>stakeholder because I know exactly how much I pay to that
>association every month. It is ever present in my mind
>about what they are doing and what I am paying for. I
>wonder if because NRP associations are funded through
>general taxes and even further removed TIF taxes that many
>in neighborhoods don't feel as great a stakeholder.
No great conclusions here, but as an officer of a neighborhood organization
that doesn't charge dues, I cringe thinking people should pay a "fee" to be
members of a neighborhood-wide group. I've wondered whether NRP should have
rules against dues-charging neighborhood organizations being the main guides
for NRP strategies (a concern I have about PPERRIA, by the way.)
At the same time, I've wondered what we can do to keep neighborhood energy
going if state or local politicians kill NRP. We can always panhandle to the
foundations, but that's iffy. We could charge dues, but there's elitism
there. We could get authority to levy a miniscule but still very real
"neighborhood association tax" - which NRP sort of is - with all the
responsibilities, politics, and headaches that would entail.
I don't know the best, fairest way. The (largely) suburban "association
dues" model seems wrong, though, despite the stake-holding it foments.
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
