On 4/8/02 10:12 AM, "Craig Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CM: Pop culture reference to a nemesis on Star Trek. Oh man I am really > blowing my credibility with this explanation.
Since Craig has refrained from taking any cheap shots at my being a pro sports fan to the point of supporting stadium bills, I'll refrain from taking cheap shots over Star Trek. I'll actually commend his bravery in explaining this since I'm sure we're all familiar with the kinds of verbal beatings Star Trek fans take already. :-) > CM: The Met Council would be great tool if it stuck to it's brief. When > strong consensus can't be arrived at, The Met Council should back off and > quietly work to get consensus. Mr. Mondale and his supporters have been on > frontal assault mode since the day he took office. Light rail and housing > policy views from the suburbs and the city have little to agree about, in > the last 3 years. Instead of working to consensus, we have open warfare on > the political front over these issues. One needs to remember that the entire Met Council, which includes Mr. Mondale and 16 members representing geographical districts, serve at the pleasure of the Governor and are ratified by the State Senate. In other words, the Governor appointed them and they're chosen, at least in part, because they agree with his vision for what they should be doing. Given the tactics we've generally seen from our Governor, should we be surprised if Met Council has aggressively pursued the Governor's agenda? We should also keep in mind what Met Council was like prior to Mr. Mondale becoming chair. Does anybody even recall the Council taking stands on anything? I sure don't. I know I personally prefer to have a Council that is out there promoting an agenda (even if I don't necessarily agree with everything they do) than one where they sit quietly and collect paychecks from our tax dollars. > One of my earlier posts, was responded to by Terrell Brown. I asked the > rhetorical question of: what if the suburbs spent as much time scrutinizing > city decisions. TB's answer went something like this. " Stadium, Guthrie > etc. Suburbanites do question city spending". He was right. I asked a > sloppy question. Now I'll try again. > > What if the suburbs scrutinized, criticized, all of the housing decisions > made by the city? Then demonized all those who made them. And finally, > but most importantly, > > 1. Made the offending decisions illegal (smart growth laws). > 2. Removed decision making power from local government (squishing local > townships). > 3. Used aid money as a club to coerce local governments for acceptable > housing plans > (Egan and multiple others) Judging by much of the rhetoric I've seen from members of the State House and guys like Senator Dick Day, there's plenty of scrutinizing, criticizing and demonizing coming from the 'burbs and outstate Minnesota regarding urban planning decisions, too. I don't remember the exact details, but there was some discussion recently about a suburban House Rep who was pushing a bill to overrule a Minneapolis zoning decision as a favor to a downtown property owner. Sounds like meddling to me. In response to #1 above, I'd like to point out that not every law is about making something legal or illegal. Some laws are actually just about encouraging or promoting certain behaviors. A good example is the Waste Management Act, which promotes a hierarchy for how we deal with garbage. At the top is waste reduction, followed by recycling, while at the bottom is landfilling. That doesn't mean landfilling is illegal, just that landfilling is less preferable than reduction or recycling. So unless someone can supply language from smart growth laws saying such and such behavior is illegal, I think my point is made. I also encourage folks less familiar with Smart Growth to check out "Smart Growth and You" on the Council web site: http://www.metrocouncil.org/mnsmartgrowth/sg_andyou.htm I'd like more detailed examples of #2 before I could respond to it, but as far as #3, if an organization is tasked with administering an aid program and they lay out the priorities of that program in a RFP or similar document, than it should be pretty straightforward for any applicant to decide whether they want to pursue that avenue for funding their project. If a local government wants aid from the Council, they should expect that Council would require them to follow the priorities of the program. No different than anyone seeking funding from a private grant foundation, a bank or any other source of funding. To call it "coercion" sounds to me like sour grapes from someone couldn't get approval for their project. > What Minneapolitans better watch out for is the following. Mr. Brauer > touched on it or came close to it. The city's dominance is over. The days > of Wes Skoglund or Dee Long setting STATEWIDE policy based on South > Minneapolis Pct Caucus Coffee shop liberalism are over. But the precedent > of demanding the whole state kowtow to your goals has been set. I didn't really follow politics as closely back in the days of Wes Skoglund and Dee Long, but I don't really like the idea of any small clique setting statewide policy, whether they're based in Minneapolis or Granite Falls. It would be nice though if folks who are still smarting from those days would get over it and start thinking about what policies make the most sense for everyone in Minnesota rather than what policies give us the best chance to get revenge for the old Minneapolis power trips. > What happens if every housing decision made by the city ( and you know my > objections) is getting scrutinized by suburban legislators, > suburban-republican-for profit-housing builders with their own > anti-orfieldian studies? What if they determine that the problem is that > you have too many buses and sidewalks and have the votes to back it up? Then I guess we'll see our metro area fall into the same situation Atlanta is in now. They tried to build their way out of congestion with evermore freeway lanes and it's gotten so bad now that companies like Hewlett-Packard that were looking to expand are pulling the plug on those plans. >> I have no problem with organizations making a profit. I do have a problem >> with putting short-term profit ahead of every single other consideration. I >> particularly have a problem with the notion that we should be carving up >> farmland or prairie for yet more oversized housing plots > > CM Very illustrative of New Urbanist thinking. "oversized housing plots". > Using the force of government to decide how much land you can own. Does > anyone have a problem with my uncle who has 221 acres for his homestead? > BTW it's a farm, and someday he'll probably sell to developers. But since > it's over a hundred miles from Mpls, it'll take 2 years before the suburbs > get there. I don't have a problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with developers buying the land (though I think it'd be cool if he were to enroll the land with a conservation effort like CREP, especially if it's on or near the Minnesota River basin). Developing the land in itself isn't necessarily bad, it's what the land gets used for. Smart growth is about taking a broader view at how the choices made about how that 221 acres is used impacts the area and the people surrounding it. > I'd be fine with a demolition tax. Although I'd use the money to fund Mayor > Rybak's plan to renovate existing housing that currently sits vacant because > it's in disrepair. > > CM: I am not sure if Mr. Snyder got my drift. The city has to pay the > demolition tax. So it's a wash for housing money. Big loser for housing > stock. Craig is right, I didn't get his drift at first. I'll certainly admit that Minneapolis has made mistakes with housing decisions over the years. I'll also point out that many of the elected officials behind those decisions are no longer in office so maybe we're actually learning some things here in Minneapolis. Now, how many suburbanites are going to step up and admit they made mistakes with their big lawns that have been repeatedly doused with fertilizers and pesticides over the years to the point that their wells are now contaminated? Will the suburban legislators (besides the wonderful Peggy Leppik representing 45B) be willing to face their constituents and tell them that getting phosphorus out of commercial fertilizers isn't going to be the end of the world as they know it (assuming Ventura doesn't veto that bill)? Or will they blame it on those "meddlers" from Minneapolis, who can't stand the idea of anybody having a pretty lawn? >> Yes, Met Council does indeed dictate. Since they are responsible for >> maintaining the sewer lines, they need authority to dictate their use and >> protect the public investment. How is that different from a housing >> provider dictating behaviors to tenants in order to protect his investment. > > The Met Council, as stated earlier,has a limited brief. If they limited > themselves to just sewer lines, we would have no problem. If they charged > suburban growth 3 times as high, we would have no problem. But the Met > Council just can't limit themselves to that. The Met wants to tell people > where to drive, what to drive, how big house, how big a yard, what kind of > neighbors to have, where you should work. They don't want things to occur > naturally or as close to naturally as possible. They want Gosplan. I'll refer again to my Met Council research. According to their web site, the Council is the regional planning agency serving the Twin Cities seven-county metro area and providing essential services to the region. The Council advocates (as opposed to mandates as was suggested by Craig) smart growth development and works with local communities to provide these critical services: - operate the region's largest bus system - collect and treat waste water - engage communities and the public in planning for smart growth development - provide affordable housing opportunities for low-to-moderate income individuals and families - provide planning, acquisitions and funding for a regional system of parks and trails So nothing about telling people where or what to drive, although I'll agree that Smart Growth does talk about how big a house or yard may be preferable. Those seeking guidance on what to drive, however, might wish to check out this fact sheet from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, entitled "Buying a Cleaner Car": http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/aq-mvp1-02.pdf > Provider of over 300 affordable housing units. That's over 300 families and > households that have depended on me for clean, decent affordable housing for > 27 years. I charge less then 95% of the non-profits and I didn't get a dime > from the city taxpayers to do it. And by all accounts I do a darn good job. Sounds like good stakeholder qualifications to me, so I won't argue with that. > CM BTW You are all invited to come up to Camden on Saturday morning 9:00AM > GJ's Super Valu. 44th and Humboldt. Cookies, donuts, coffee from Camden > Coffee Company. > > Our 6th annual Adopt a Street Clean up. Thrice yearly we clean up the > street. And make a difference. Cool. I look forward to the opportunity to help out in Camden and sample a cookie from the CCC. Hope others on the List will consider joining Craig and me on Saturday for Adopt a Street! Mark Snyder Ward 1/Windom Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________ 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
