-----Original Message----- From: Keith Reitman
Keith Says; I have made a conclusion, having witnessed two decades of willful destruction of the affordable housing stock of the City of Mpls. Also witnessing the artificial, public debt driven redevelopment of DT, my conclusion is reinforced. And finally, observing the subsidized building boom of our victimized residential neighborhoods without satisfactory promotion of neighborhood training, and employment opportunities for residents, my resolve is quickened and finalized. [Terrell] The McKinsey report tells us "Over the past 5 years, considerable city spending made limited progress against housing and job creation needs, suggesting that Minneapolis will be unable to meet its development needs using current approaches." (p. 7) Over the last 5 years we have spent over $960 million and gained a grand total of 52 housing units, housing quality and affordability has gone down and our job growth is will behind the suburbs. McKinsey on page 4 tells us that the past 10 years was worse, quoting: � Over the last decade, � Rents and home prices have increased over 10% faster than income � The city sustained a net loss of 1,882 housing units � Housing quality has deteriorated significantly, with units rated �average minus� or below by city inspectors moving from 13.1% in 1995 to 21.5% in 1999 So using neighborhood based planning with an NRP program that allegedly spends about half its money on housing we gained 52 housing units in 5 years. It cost us nearly $9.5 million for of that "housing money" to gain each of those units? So you tell me we improved some housing with that money and then McKinsey tells me our housing quality is going down. We spent nearly a billion dollars and what did we get? A new Target store and 52 housing units? What gives? The McKinsey report is long. The main document on the City website is 45 pages, it says it is the document used in the presentation to the Council. I'm not sure if there is an actual report that is longer. What is clear is that they think there are to many planning groups with no coordination. It starts with each neighborhood group that doesn't consider the overall city goals. Its not unlike each of the 200 plus municipalities in the metro area that do their own thing without concern for the overall needs of the metro area. [Keith] Dissolve the DFL political party while there appears to still exist a, modestly functioning, City of Minneapolis. No halfway measures, The DFL Party should cease to exist. It should end through the goodwill and forethought of it's less culpable members. I post and pose this outlook to help frame the perimeter of a discussion that should occur within and without the DFL. Please let that discussion begin. [Terrell] Interesting solution. I'm not sure that you just dissolve a political party. Much less dissolve the part of a national political party that functions within one city. I find the idea that people shouldn't associate with other people of similar views to be a bit frightening. I think that thru NRP we put together a planning structure that just doesn't work. I think it was a good try by very well intentioned people. Sometimes things just don't work like we think they will. One planning agency (NRP group) for every 4,000 people is to many. The Mayor and City Council, aided by a single planning department, needs to take responsibility for overall planning goals. Projects administered by neighborhoods or similar groups must support those overall goals. This shouldn't be a partisan political activity. Reduce the number of NRP planning groups to a manageable number, probably a number less than 20. While we are at it we should reduce the number of Council members to about 7 (yes I know we had 26 and the reduction to 13 WAS an improvement). Reducing the Council size does a couple of things. It forces the Councilmembers to focus on the important stuff. This should make some Councilmembers less inclined to try to micro-manage every city department. The Mayor is reported to have sent a letter to city staff promising that no jobs would be eliminated implementing any changes that were due to the McKinsey report. That's a bad promise about a report that tells us we have to many planning agencies. Its also a bad promise given the lack of performance of our development function. Now this Mayor isn't one that the DFL party suggested that we should elect. Maybe that means that the DFL isn't as strong as Keith is suggesting. Then maybe it just means they couldn't find a good candidate last time around. The McKinsey report seems to provide a good basis for change. Terrell Brown Loring Park terrell at terrellbrown dot org __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.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
