Michael A. writes:
>Although one goal of the NRP may have been some type of democratic >pluralism in which the greatest good is fairly distributed by a >reallocation of >governmental power, I would have hoped that by now people would have >realized that the NRP has simply shifted power from a large municipal >bureaucracy >to smaller one, and not to the "people." Keep in mind the people just voted. The council/mayoral winners overwhelmingly backed NRP - and even if you are skeptical of Strib polls, that was ballot-box confirmation of the 70-plus percent approval the program racked up in a summer poll. >Just as communism was based >on an implicit assumption that the goodness of human nature would surface >after the end of capitalism oppression, the NRP founders must have assumed >that shifting power to the neighborhoods would automatically result in >fair, wise, >and representative decision making. Unfortunately, unlike the the Framers >of the Constitution they failed to account for the propensity of humans to >favor selfish personal interests over the general welfare. This is a straw man argument: NRP promised no such absolutes. The question is whether decision-making was fair enough, wise enough, etc. Secondarily: whether NRP is fairer, wiser, and more representative than leaving the decision-making solely to councilliers and mayors. That's a judgment call, but a more real-world question. >This reliance on >the goodness of human nature and not on a series of checks-and-balances is >the NRP's fatal flaw. Let it die its natural death, along with so many >other failed >social experiments. As has been noted (endlessly) there are plenty of checks and balances in NRP. The state legislature had to approve it; the NRP policy board, which approves neighborhood plans, is made up of elected officials, and there is judicial review in the case of disputes of law - as in the Prospect Park street-lighting case where Michael's side lost. NRP has its flaws. The process produces decisions some don't like. It should continue to be reviewed by citizens and electeds for relative effectiveness versus other methods. However, turning disagreement into de-legitimization is not supported by the facts, and lets the other branches of government, and the voters, who are involved in program oversight off the hook. David Brauer King Field - Ward 10 _________________________________________________________________ Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
