I realize all this NRP referendum stuff has to move fast because of the late
special session and the looming petition deadline. So - with the disclaimer
that my mind can still be swayed by superior facts - I'm inclined not to
sign the referendum petitions at this point.
I support the concept of a referendum. After talking to several people
smarter than me, the other mechanisms won't work.
The council could increase the mill levy, but that wouldn't bind future
councils - it'd be like the budget, no guarantee of a 10-year program.
The MCDA could invoke its HRA (Housing and Redevelopment) mill levy. This
would be approved by the Council, acting as the MCDA board. However, I'm
told that is only limited to housing - too narrow. We should live up to -
and toughen - NRP's original housing promise (more on that later), but we
need flexibility for broader neighborhood goals. Also, I'm told HRA is only
good for two years.
A referendum looks like the only way to guarantee 10 years. But, to credit a
couple of list members:
Ann Berget is right: July 11 is too soon to work through the details of a
detail laden program.
Tim Connolly is right: there are major citywide equity and justice issues
that arguably are bigger priorities than NRP as it does business. (Craig
Miller and Russ Peterson offer a variation of this problem: can we afford to
spend scarce dollars increasing gentrification, and have NRP appear to trump
basic infrastructure needs?)
I have been a fairly staunch defender of NRP, but now I want to agree with
some of the critics. When the program was passed in the late '80s, the goal
was explicitly housing - NOT affordable housing. At the time, people weren't
as worried about affordable housing (though it was a definitely problem),
they were worried about the exact opposite problem: that people would leave
the city and their houses would be worth less.
Thank goodness that didn't happen. NRP included no affordable housing
guarantee and a cut to the wealthier neighborhoods for pure political
reasons: a big-time, untested program needed that kind of political support.
But today's NRP advocates need to recognize political realities, too - and
that the landscape has changed in 12 years. I don't want to go into a
referendum campaign fighting the affordable housing advocates. We need a
Better NRP - one that continues a great tradition of citizen involvement,
but with a tighter focus on social goals. As I have said, I would love the
chance to get my neighborhood directly implementing & siting affordable
housing - with the MCDA's help, I think true community involvement is the
BEST way to overcome affordable housing resistance.
We need to reauthorize NRP with a substantial affordable housing (not just
housing) guarantee. We know it will be a priority through 2009. We need to
assure neighbors will direct it. We need to make sure there is also money
left over for other neighborhood needs. And we need to reevaluate the
formula for doling out money to the neighborhoods, either reclassifying
neighborhoods to acknowledge their gentrification or altering the basic
formula.
We need to work these things out as activists, citizens, and neighborhood
officers. Perhaps the new Minneapolis United group can do it, or the Center
for Neighborhoods, whatever.
But we need a sound, smart proposal to take to the voters. We need several
weeks, not several days. We need to add allies, not enemies. I want this to
uphold Green Party values of social justice and grass-root democracy, and
Republican values of efficiency (I believe NRP is very cost-effective - it
uses volunteers!), and the DFL principles that brought it into being.
We must exploit the election year. We must have a finished proposal ready by
Labor Day, and get candidates to take a definite position on it before the
primary. That way, we have candidates on the record and can choose
accordingly. Even if a taxophobic mayor is elected, we are not such a
top-down city that we can't do a referendum next year.
If we can get this thought-out referendum out in time for November, great.
If not, we can wait into 2002.I'm told NRP director Bob Miller is a "genius"
at finding money, so I'm hopeful that Phase I plans will not suffer with a
delay. If we have to pause briefly to get a better Phase II plan, that's no
sacrifice.
That's my two cents for Independence Day, and I look forward to more
feedback.
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Fredric Markus
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 7:19 AM
To: Mpls-Issues
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Proposed NRP Referendum and Levy
This is a great list dicussion to be having on Independence Day!
George Garnett, a former NRP Policy Board member and an old hand in
these matters posts elsewhere:
"RE: Is a Referendum the Best Alternative?
It seems to me that a few points need to be made. First, the City
Council has the power to implement a levy without a referendum. Second,
it is very possible that a referendum could lose at the polls in
November. I think there are a lot more people who would rather have
lower property taxes, and the NRP and/or affordable housing does not
enjoy the same base of support as for instance schools do. An
unsuccessful referendum effort could do tremendous damage to any other
effort to fund neighborhood work in Minneapolis by demonstrating
weakness. Has anyone considered a more direct lobbying campaign focused
at getting seven votes on the council and the mayor to support a levy
NOW while the city is working on its budget?
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
