BLAME
"Who lost NRP?" (or more precisely, "Who Lost NRP's state subsidy?").
Obviously, a bunch of suburban Republicans looking for an extra $20 off
their annual property tax statements (plus some rural DFLers looking for
their $2.50). Hey, that's the problem with state subsidy - the rest of the
state has the right to cut it off.
But it's shocking - and unexplainable - that city leaders, from the mayor to
the council president to the Intergovernmental Relations committee chair,
didn't show up to at least charm the flinty-hearted Rep. Abrams.
The mayor says she was working through Sen. Pogemiller. Based on this
session, maoyr, get over there next time. When Dougie Johnson was the chair
of the Senate Tax Committee, he was legendary for getting his local
priorities taken care of. If NRP was a big deal for city leadership, why
couldn't Pogey get it done? City residents deserve a lucid explanation for
why a Minneapolis committee chair couldn't protect a significant Minneapolis
program supported by Minneapolis leadership.
I'm not blaming Pogey for reduced TIF revenues - property tax reform was
unstoppable. But to not even be able to protect the $58 million for Phase
I - a commitment the legislature had supported, which, unlike Phase II,
hundreds of citizens were already implementing ...that's lame.
Obviously, the NRP version of the Grassy Knoll theory is that leaders didn't
really love NRP all along. And IF the Council acts fast to hike taxes for
Our NRP (which is of course what it will take), they can destroy that
conspiracy theory. Even the most cynical would have a hard time believing
city leadership would want to replace an state-subsidized NRP with a
non-state subsidized one.
A positive thought within the blame game: the only - repeat only - warnings
I received about NRP's looming fate came from the Minneapolis Center for
Neighborhoods. Nothing from the mayor or council! This is proof, sadly, that
NRP did not reform politicians - most of them still don't have a clue about
involving the public. This week's NRP press conference was embarrassing
(Tim, I apologize for thinking it might be meaningful). This was empty
symbolism and basic tail-covering from city leaders who clearly got the word
out too late. The time for action and lobbying was weeks earlier.
Of course, it (almost) goes without saying that the council's and mayor's
TIF abuses helped set the stage for all this. But a possible irony: I'm not
sure if the legislature's new "reform" would stop the next Target store,
other than reduced business property taxes trims the increment.
SILVER LININGS
As I've told people, if this had to happen, thank god it happened in a city
election year. At least we can hold politicians accountable for blame &
solutions.
Also, I will give Republicans credit: this does force more local
accountability. The people who want NRP must now decide how much to tax
ourselves - pretty straightforward (assuming we don't run into the state's
levy limits). And while Tim Connolly and I disagree about many facets of
NRP, I think he is right on the money challenging NRP backers to justify our
program in the face of huge social needs. With a tax hike needed, everyone
will be paying more attention. I trust the public!
Even with less money, I'd like a crack at more tightly marrying neighborhood
involvement to citywide social goals. In King Field, we were actively
planning to use Phase I money for affordable housing. I think we were off to
a great start - the neighborhood was talking, a group of us were educating
people to reduce fear of affordable housing, I was optimistic. Even if we
can fund only affordable housing and not a broader NRP, we should use NRP's
citizen participation model to site and build affordable housing. It would
be crazy not to use the volunteer labor & passion that exists in the
neighborhoods.
FIXES
I'm no fiscal expert, but it seems like there are two ways to keep NRP
going: the council can raise taxes, or there can be a referendum. I'm
rooting for the former - not that I don't trust the people (see above: I
like election years). The reason is practical: thanks to recent state law
changes, I believe business pays a smaller slice if we use referendum funds.
Since they're getting the biggest state property tax breaks, and I believe
NRP benefits the whole city, I don't want to let them partially off the hook
via a referendum.
Also, pressing for a council vote has advantages. Incumbents must go "on the
record" in a meaningful and accountable way. If they don't support NRP, at
least we know in time to do something about it. If they don't support NRP
enough, we can have another chance to do things better in a new council. And
of course, we need to press challengers for their position.
POLITICS
Semi-informed speculation as always, but I see R.T. Rybak as the big winner
on this. He can be "for" NRP yet distanced from blame. The other winner is
Mark Stenglein, the most taxophobic, who is best positioned to capitalize on
any backlash if Our NRP raises local property taxes. (It was interesting to
see the mayor's and council president's letter mention Stenglein by name. He
is head of the NRP Policy board, and they are asking him to receive the
what-do-we-do-now report that may call for a tax hike. At least everyone can
put their cards on the table early.)
The mayor, of course, will support NRP but has to deal with the blame. Lisa
McDonald, I think, is in a tricky spot - courting both taxophobes and
neighborhood activists, she'll have a tricky task not alienating one side.
By the way, I don't take it for granted that there is broad support for NRP,
even among likely voters. That will be the acid test, of course. We
neighborhood supporters will get a pretty decisive report card on how well
we've connected with citizens' wants and needs so far.
All for now. Teething daughter has woken up again!
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
