In a message dated 8/26/02 11:54:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Many of us felt a great deal of anger and resentment when the residency idea > came up. First, it presumed that because an employee doesn't live in the city, > we therefore don't care about our jobs; don't care about the community we > work in; don't care about the residents of this city and the problems we face; > and that we are not professional enough, and don't have enough integrity to > do our jobs to the best of our abilities. Believe me, that vast majority of > us do care. Keith says; Many landlords agree; CCP/Safe demonized "absentee landlords" for so many years; some say the unfair and disingenuous treatment continues from DT. Peculiar that the residency issue that disturbed so many city employees didn't sensitize them against cheap shots at landlords who commuted in to their property/jobs. The cheap shots were not cheap. CCP/Safe was all too often unwilling to work with property owners to solve urban crime problems that washed up on urban porches. Blaming the landlord and closing the buildings speeded urban disinvestment, and housing demolition. The trail of tears to the shelter we should name SSB Boulevard. It has become a super highway for the building trades unions and small, most exclusively White, construction companies from the suburbs and beyond. Yes, I say make the Absentee Safe Department shiver; maybe then they will learn compassion and understanding beyond the impact on their narrow, petty, self interest in their jobs. (Though some now may have evolved) Maybe then they will understand our narrow, petty, self interest in our jobs; The rental property we secure, preserve, restore, and provide to the public for homes and business. Keith Reitman NearNorth _______________________________________ 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
