Lisa McDonald is right about the potential minefield, and the devil is always in the details. There is a huge issue currently of this swallowing up the administration in trying to get it implemented, which is why McKinsey probably recommends a rather swift 12-18 month implementation schedule.
I attended the July 9 meeting and brought with me a statement from the Tenant Issues Working Group, which we are submitting to the administration. Our concerns are two-fold: 1. elevating NRP contracting groups to a more prominent role without doing the hard work of requiring that these groups be truly representative of the neighborhoods; and 2. assuring a more prominent role of affordable housing within the structural components of the proposed reorganization. While affordable housing is mentioned numerous times throughout the report, we are concerned that it does not have a dedicated and real presence within the resulting reorganization. The partial statement of the Tenant Issues Working Group (made up of 8 tenant advocacy groups in Mpls and growing) is as follows: The McKinsey Report acknowledges just once that "participation and leadership is not always representative" in the NRP contracting neighborhoods. We believe that the Report should have more accurately stated that NRP has failed to include many tenants and people of color in its governance, programs, and ultimate products. Moreover, we find that the method of assuring citizen participation in the McKinsey Report was itself flawed, reflected by an overemphasis on a web-based survey that was inaccessible to many people, particularly people of limited resources. With respect to the recommended consolidation of NRP, MCDA and the City's Planning Department, the McKinsey Report essentially recommends moving NRP functions into a new office of "Neighborhood and Urban Planning." It also recommends that current NRP neighborhood groups take a more prominent position within that office, becoming elevated, in the words of the Report, into a "leading role in shaping the city strategies." We believe this move is unwarranted and unwise without the City first reforming its citizen participation goals and procedures, particularly in requiring NRP neighborhood leaders and groups to reflect the demographic makeup of their own neighborhoods. In essence, the move recommended by the Report will act to freeze the current racial and economic underinclusiveness of neighborhood groups, will legitimize them into a more prominent position within city government without taking steps to assure inclusiveness, and will likely act to continue to divide the city into haves and have nots. We believe that, if the City moves forward seriously with consolidation, a unit of any neighborhood related office must include a unit dedicated and committed to increasing participation from tenants and people of color, particularly in NRP-related activities. We believe no further funding of NRP should continue unless such reforms take place. Gregory Luce Project 504 (egads, a non-profit)/Minneapolis (North Phillips) Lisa McDonald wrote: > This thing is a minefield in terms of implementation. There are > various union negotiations to go through as well as a trip to the > legislature. > NRP is a multijuristictional agency. You cannot make it a department > unless you go to the legislature and change it's structure. Trust me > Ron Abrams would love to restructure Minneapolis government. Be > careful what you ask for, it might not turn out how you imagined. NRP > just might be totally eliminated. Certainly a director for this > mammoth new agency shouldn't be hired until the city has a road map, > presented to the public, of the hoops that need to be jumped through > to achieve this merger. > > _______________________________________ 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
