David originally commended the Strib for its story on Block E. I responded that I didn't think the story was all that good. David sliced and diced that response. Now I repay in kind:
On the Strib's Wednesday Block E story, David said: > I think this is a subjective and inaccurate interpretation of McKinsey. > My response: Yes, it is subjective. I don't kow how such a thing could be objective by anyone. But I think that my statement is an accurate statement of McKinsey. David said: > I made no link to McKinsey in my original post. > My response: True. But the article that you comment on does. David said: > My comment on "connecting the dots" was merely that Mack provided > fascinating detail about how exactly Block E received inconsistent > approvals > My response: I'm not sure that the point of the story is "inconsitent approvals." Rather, it's how did a developer defraud the city by building contrary to the approvals that were given? David said: > made the McKinsey link in the story, but that came at > the very end of the piece. > My cheap shot: So, information at the end of a story can safely be ignored? David said: > but since Mack story illustrates the confusion of a decentralized system, it does > illustrate a problem the report is attacking. > I get back to serious: To turn the tables, I don't think that your statement is a fair reading of McKinsey. The point they make, largely in the need for a "one-stop shop" is that the whole process is so convoluted and time consuming that it prevents development. Nowhere does the report complain that bad development is slipping through the process. To my assertion that the spider-web graphic was erronious, David asked: > Why? > My response: Because the graphic takes many separate processes and stacks them on top of each other. Nobody goes though that whole diagram and that's not because it's difficult. Different developments go different, and shorter, routes depending on the nature of the project and where the project is to be built. I will also answer your question with a question. Here 'tis: "I present to you a diagram consisting of three overlays on clear plastic. The bottom overlay is a diagram of how a bill becomes law in Congress. The second is a logic-flow diagram of Microsoft's Word. The top level is a schematic diagram of the electrical system of the USS Los Angeles fast attack submarine. As you stare down at the overlayed diagrams, what would you conclude (other than it looks complicated)?" Are you interested in what I would conclude looking at the same thing? David said: > McKinsey's answer to structural reform may be too broad or > wrong, but the Block E story's process details indicate they are asking > the right question. > My response: I'm not so sure that McKinsey did ask the right question. Among other things, we don't know the actual question that was asked and to which the report is the answer. And, if you don't know what the question is, pretty much any answer will do. It also troubles me that the methodology of the report includes the bald assumption that housing and jobs were set as goals sometime back. It then goes on to castigate the city for doing a bad job of delivering on those goals. I think it would be more honest to say that we must (prospectively) make housing and jobs a goal and then figure out the best way to do it. And I'm afraid that looking at the issue prospectively rather than retrospectively means the city has to start over at "go." 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
