Well, Susan Herridge certainly did a fine job pointing out all of the weaknesses.
Yep, democracy is flawed, yet a bunch of us still vote. Practice, practice, practice, perhaps? How could residents be represented or direct the economic development of their neighborhood otherwise? Just through feedback to their councilmember? I don't think so. What's encouraging is how often neighborhood boards succeed in representing the interests of the whole neighborhood. Like a good focus group. At the very least, there are some residents given a stronger voice in the political/economic process. The addition of making decisions about actual money legitimizes their stake beyond tokenism. And, the practice of getting diverse interests to articulate a common vision make us a wiser and more wily citizenry. An increasingly handy tool as our cityscape evolves. I think a key is in shoring up the organizational structure of neighborhood groups, and putting them in a better position to succeed. Like a neighborhood cafe, the board and staff, (and city) need to make it an attractive, welcoming place to come chew on some tasty issues and not get heartburn. I think the organizations that have the most trouble with staying in business, are the ones that don't realize they are a business in the first place. Businesses succeed because someone has a solid vision, develops a good plan, manages the money, hires and retains a good staff, and adapts to a changing market. I think we would be sad if our neighborhood organizations went out of business. Where would we go for our meeting fix? This virtual forum just isn't the same. -- Dan Nordley Cooper The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 10:27:09 EST > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Mpls] of neighborhoods, NRP, fiefdoms and participatory government > > After having read the posts of James Jacobsen, Dan Nordley and Paul Lohman > about how we might characterize neighborhood organizations both before and in > the wake of NRP (fiefdoms, or the last bastion of participatory democracy?) > I would like to respond with some observations of my own, based, I will > admit, on my somewhat limited experience with three neighborhood > organizations here in the southwest corner of Minneapolis. > > I suspect that my concerns will be moderately to wildly unpopular among most > of the readers on this list, but I trust you all to critique my ideas and not > moi. (lest Mr. Brauer swoop in and scold, crow-like). And please, if those > of you who live in the same, or other parts of the city have different > experiences than mine, I would really like to hear about them. > > Although Mr. Jacobsen purports to avoid neighborhood organizations > altogether, it does seem as though his extremely jaundiced view of the > actions and motivations of neighborhood groups in total were engendered by > the group that he encountered on the West Bank of the University 27 years > ago. I am somewhat in sympathy with that because my ever-so-slightly > jaundiced view of the NRP/neighborhood organizations is very much colored by > an unfortunate run -in with a wrong-headed neighborhood group who could not > have been more parochial in their outlook, or more exclusionary in their > attitude and actions ( I should hasten to say that this is NOT the group > which runs the Lynnhurst organization, in my home neighborhood, today. It > was a different neighborhood, about 8 or 9 years ago. Other than that, all > identities shall remain anonymous in order to protect the innocent.) > > So I struggle sometimes not to judge the neighborhood groups of today by my > experiences in the early days of NRP. I do realize that giant strides have > been made in terms or regularizing operating processes, funding, and > providing competent staff support. As well as strides in attracting > diligent, bright and community-spirited folks to serve on the various boards > and committees. And allowing folks who have a beef with the process their > day in court. > > But here are my concerns: > > 1. The neighborhood groups are touted as grassroots democracy at its best. > But at best, how much of the neighborhood actually participate in any part > of the process? In my experience, Board openings are typically filled by > gentle arm-twisting amongst the small group of people who have been > volunteering along the way. I have never participated in an election where > there were more candidates than there were open slots. Unless there is a > burning issue that brings out folks against and in favor, (as Lynnhurst > experienced during the recent brouhaha on the Boulevard mixed-use housing > project) the board meetings are usually populated by the Board, and just a > few hardy souls who love the process. Or perhaps those hardy souls are > actually the guest speakers for the evening. Attendance of one hundred folks > or more at this sort of event would be an absolute coup, and only achieved by > packaging it with fun and games for the kids, free food and high-interest > speakers. > > So is, at most, one or two hundred folks coming out to vote for a board > enough? And what about input from the neighborhood for the myriad of > decisions that take place along the way? Is there enough to call it truly > participatory democracy? I realize for those who are faithful to the > process and do participate, that it seems frustrating and insulting to > critique their efforts. Flyers are sent out, posters posted, and e-mail > reminders fly. Anyone who wants to participate has ample opportunity to do > so. But still, it doesn't quite set right to me that so few do. > > The neighborhood group with whom I did battle lo those many years ago used a > poorly written survey to the neighborhood with a response rate of less than > 2% to justify many of their questionable decisions and actions. Today, there > are straw polls and "dot-mocracies" and other methods for gathering input > from the community, but it still, in my mind, is just a fancy way of taking > input only from those few who have the time and energy to show up to a > meeting. Which then could allow the process to be dominated by a single > issue, or simply by the small group who shows up, perhaps with a specific > agenda . (it could be a great agenda that you agree with.. and then its easy > to swallow.. but wait until its not.. ) > > I remember thinking that if the original NRP guidelines had included, as a > requirement, that the neighborhood groups use professional research > techniques (qualitative methods for determining the areas of interest to the > 'hood and quantitative techniques for capturing the feedback of a > STATISTICALLY PROJECTABLE sample of the neighborhood,) then we'd be in much > better shape to say that the actions/direction of the Board and Committees > really were reflecting the wishes of the greater community. So we'd be > capturing the concerns of the elderly lady who is afraid to go out to a > meeting, at night, and the working couple with young children who are too > bushed to do likewise, and the young singles who don't yet have enough > interest, or perhaps too active a social life to attend neighborhood > meetings.. In short, we'd capture the concerns of the community as a whole. > > Many neighborhood board and NRP committee members take great pains to solicit > and accept feedback from their community - they feel it is extremely > important to do so. But lets face it, they are not elected officials with the > same compensation and same obligations, as say, city council members. In my > experience, they do not door-knock or have regular "coffee times" with > constituents. They typically do not attend block parties (other than their > own) or other community and church meetings to hear what the neighborhood > concerns are. They make themselves available as best they can in the course > of their daily lives, but they all have other lives: jobs, families - > things that keep them busy and keep the input from the community mostly > "inbound", and somewhat limited. > > 2. The money, honey. In the current state of a horrendous budget shortfall > - I've heard a minimum of $15 million to the city, maybe more. .. I have to > ask the hard question. How much money do we want parceled out to the > individual neighborhood groups to work with, when aggregated as a whole, that > money might make a considerable difference in shoring up the deficit in key > areas, or making a significant contribution to, say, affordable housing or > other areas in which I have to believe that individual neighborhoods will > struggle to implement effective programs? > > If we take housing, or affordable housing as an example ( and perhaps some of > the NRP specialists on the list can enlighten me.. do phase 2 NRP guidelines > call for a certain percentage of the dollars to go into affordable housing, > or into housing? ... I've heard it explained both ways). > > How would the neighborhood groups actually deal with it? Setting up loan > programs for exterior renovation ( an example of a "housing" project,) I > would imagine, is a piece of cake compared to attempting to stimulate > affordable housing projects within their community. Does one give the pot of > money to the first developer that comes calling? Or save it to parcel out to > developments that may not materialize? Do the neighborhood groups have the > expertise to evaluate proposals and assign monetary support on their merits? > Do they have the knowledge and contacts to evaluate possible sites within the > 'hood and approach developers proactively? > > [ these questions are not merely rhetorical. I truly am interested to hear > if neighborhood groups out there have successfully developed this capacity. > I do not rule out the possibility that, with people of goodwill, the > expertise to handle these sorts of projects can be purchased, or acquired and > rather quickly, if needed. It just seems like a long shot to me] > > If it were merely a question of intelligence, dedication and insufficient > exposure to the political process to be corrupted, then I would say, by all > means, give the money to the neighborhoods. My early experience aside, I > have been uniformly impressed by the quality of virtually all of the Board > members or neighborhood participants that I know- in that case, I agree > completely with Dan Nordley's assessment of their virtues. And in any case, > you stack them up against the past slate of distant, power-hungry, corrupt or > jail-bound City Council members, and it ain't hard to shine. > > But the issues are complicated, and in many cases the best solutions should > stretch beyond neighborhood boundaries. Understanding and moving forward > requires an understanding of city processes that are captured by only a few > of the most policy-wonkish of neighborhood activists. And the time involved > could easily overtax the limits of essentially a volunteer corps. > > The development of a strong, coherent sense of neighborhood identity, and the > influx of bright, dedicated community activists is one of the very best > things that has come out of the NRP process. And I suppose that we captured > folks of that caliber because there was real money, that could make a real > difference to the neighborhoods, at their disposal. And the improvement in > process and support has been profound, over the years of NRP phase 1. I'm > just not sure its enough to justify the diversion of significant funds to > high caliber volunteer groups during a time of excruciating budget shortfall > to the city. > > OK, now I'm gonna duck... > > Susan Herridge > Lynnhurst > love my neighborhood, and its local governance, but.. > > _______________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________ 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
