David said: > The story today connects the > dots on how the city's development system failings allowed Block E's > foibles to get through. >
To the contrary, I don't think it "connects any dots" regarding the city's development process. At a minimum, it's inconsistent with the recommendations of the McKinsey Report. The whole point of that report is that "we gotta do something to free developers from all the blankety-blank rules at City Hall." What is stated as connecting the dots is that the Block E development was constructed contrary to all those blankety-blank rules. That only proves that it isn't that hard for developers to get around what the city says you have to do. If anything, what apparently happened with Block E is an argument to toughen the rules, not to make them faster and easier, so no one can get around those rules again. The story's inclusion of the spider-web graphic from the McKinsey report was also unfortunate. That's because that graphic is erronious. A graphic may be as good as 1000 words but THAT particular graphic is as good as 1000 erronious words. My ultimate point here is that controlling development is a complicated matter particularly when you want the development regulation to be both fast and correct. The McKinsey Report as well as "connecting the dots" from Block E are simple answers but they are also wrong. Steve Cross Prospect Park _______________________________________ 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
