Maura Brown mentions the three-pronged strategy by some pro-NRP folks to
circulate two different petitions:
>1) Education/Outreach/Organizing Working Group: This group was explicitly
>charged with drafting a petition which DID NOT call for a referendum. The
>petition was to be used as a vehicle for communication about the situation
>within neighborhoods and to express concern to elected officials. It was
>the assembled group's will that this petition include strong language
>reflecting the expectation that the City honor its commitment to fully fund
>NRP but not lock ourselves into a specific strategy. <snip>
>Given this history, I hope you will agree that it is grossly
>inaccurate to portray this petition as a "Trojan Horse". Its presence
>preceded the circulation of the ballot initiative petition.
First of all, Maura, thanks for the detailed response. My comments about the
"Trojan Horse" were intentionally provocative, as I have heard the
"non-referendum" petition described by one proponent as an attempt to suck
time and energy from the "referendum" petition drive. The confusion among my
neighborhood's NRP activists is genuine, and if they're confused, other
citizens will be too. However, I accept your version of the time line and
gladly back away from describing all "non-referendum" petition creators and
their motives this way.
I also realize many things are being done helter-skelter because of the late
special session running into some council deadlines. Communication can be
sloppy (as can more important details, one reason why I oppose a hurry-up
referendum).
Given that the "non-referendum" petition won't put anything on the ballot,
I'd suggest adding a paragraph making it clear it is one of two NRP-related
petitions out there. I would also add a disclaimer, something to the effect
of "signing this petition is not intended to get a measure on the 2001
ballot," or whatever is most accurate.
Someone can edit the Word document on Community Zero's website and re-post
it with a note that it is updated. New petitions will be much clearer,
without changing the substance of those petitions.
For those who haven't seen the language of the "non-referendum petition,"
here it is:
"I am a resident of Minneapolis and I support the Neighborhood
Revitalization Program and the work enabled by NRP funding for neighborhood
projects, programs, housing, local commercial development and community
building.
Recent changes by the Minnesota Legislature to the tax code have nearly
eliminated the previously allocated source of funding for the NRP and all
neighborhood based community development work in Minneapolis. This action
by the legislature does not relieve the City of Minneapolis from the
obligation to continue the Neighborhood Revitalization Program.
Elected officials of the City of Minneapolis must take appropriate action
now to ensure funding for the NRP at the current appropriation of 20 million
dollars each year until 2009 and must identify sources to compensate for any
short fall in Phase One revenue. By my signature below I demand that they
fulfill their commitment to fully fund this vital work for our City."
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
