Terrell writes: > McKinsey on page 4 tells us that the past 10 years was worse, quoting: <snip> > ?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.
I think it is unfair to blame NRP for the city's net housing loss. NRP has set up to spend 52 percent of its money on housing - not affordable housing, not rental housing, but housing. Although some authors of the NRP legislation CLAIM the money was supposed to be spent on affordable housing, they didn't write the law that way - and, as a reporter who covered the birth, didn�t want to. At the time (late '80s), the city was worried about **declining** property values, so middle-income housing-stock preservation was a much bigger worry than it is today. Remember, most of the NRP plans were drawn up and most of the money dedicated before property values zoomed (I know; I bought my house cheap in '94 and the big bump-up didn't happen until '96 or '97). Also, as far as the declining quality of rental stock goes, there could be other explanations. For example, a lot of the better quality stuff has been converted to home ownership (my house, for example), which means what's left over may be relatively poorer. Inspections could have gotten tougher. I don't want to paper over NRP's shortcomings. I do think there has been less attention on the rental side, partly because of homeowner bias and partly because of some landlords' cynicism about govt. I think too much money was spent on middle-class stock and too much on wealthier neighborhoods. But that was by design, and to get the program passed politically. Now is a great time to re-evaluate, without demonizing. I do think there was a lot of middle-class housing improved - see the earlier NRP evaluation from Teamworks, which showed housing quality and values went up faster in NRP neighborhoods than non-NRP neighborhoods. The process does take awhile - too long - but it meant the neighborhoods by and large were solving 1989's problems into the mid-'90s, and the depth of the problem showed up after most of the plans had been made. Of course, we now have a different problem (although some landlords say the affordability crisis has also passed, right Craig Miller?) That's why it's hard to argue that the city and the neighborhoods should be quicker about how they get things done. It's one reason I strongly support the McKinseyian idea that the city should do a better job of setting citywide priorities - but that the neighborhoods should be more integrated into implementing them. As a former neighborhood board president, I would gladly trade a little freedom is establishing goals for a more ongoing and integrated role in city decisions. I think a combination of City Council goal-setting and neighborhood-level implementation, the process can be faster and more representative. One other thing: less than $200 million of NRP's Phase I money has been spent: McKinsey identifies $960 million spent overall...so whatever the city has done developmentally over the last decade, NRP is responsible for less than 20 percent of it. And NRP had a much broader mandate than development - unlike some agencies with Development in their name. Just remember the overall context when assigning blame. David Brauer King Field _______________________________________ 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
