Last month a new community development corporation, the Northeast CDC, held its first official meeting. The NECDC initiative, which follows several previous failed attempts at formal inter-neighborhood cooperation in NE Minneapolis, came out of a group called the "Central-Lowry Task Force" which examined development options for the blocks immediately surrounding Central-Lowry during 1997-99 and included city officials and residents from three adjoining neighborhoods-Audubon, Windom Park, and Holland.
The NECDC now intends to focus on community development in nine neighborhoods bordering Central Avenue in northeast Minneapolis. At first glance, this would seem to be a very positive initiative. However, I would like to raise several questions and points of concern regarding the background, need, structure, and forces driving this CDC initiative. I would be especially interested in getting some responses and comments from people familiar with the work of other CDCs in Minneapolis or St. Paul. Issue 1: Size and Complexity: As the Central-Lowry group first explored its CDC initiative, several people affiliated with the Northeast Economic Development Council (NEEDC), a non-profit subsidiary of NEBA (now the Northeast Chamber of Commerce), some key city staff, representatives of LISC (a funder of NEEDC) and a small core of long-time neighborhood activists joined in and soon came to dominate the CDC discussions. They pushed to have the CDC mandate expand to all nine neighborhoods adjoining Central Avenue in northeast Minneapolis. NEEDC proposed to transform itself into the CDC and eventually, upon the appointment of a new board last month, this is what happened. Is this a good way for a new CDC to start? My impression is that most successful CDCs have started small, working in one or two neighborhoods. Over time some then expanded their mandates. What examples are there from around Minneapolis of successful CDCs involving so many neighborhoods right from the start? Is Lake Street Partners a positive example? Have such groups been able to retain a strong element of neighborhood/citizen participation even as they assume such a broad geographical mandate? How have such CDCs, if they exist, related to neighborhood organizations? Issue 2: Cost and Justification: One of the main justifications for CDCs is to facilitate appropriate community-supported investment in ways that might not otherwise happen through the private sector. At a time when there was general disinvestment in many urban areas this may have made sense-CDCs could help bridge the gap when the market failed to deliver needed services and housing for urban residents. But when an area is already on the upswing, and already attracting private investment, the rationale for a CDC seems less clear--particularly if there are active functioning neighborhood groups that are ensuring that proper citizen review of development initiatives takes place. In the case of Central Avenue, it is already having a renaissance and doesn't seem to be having trouble attracting private investment-even without the help of a CDC. Despite being "non-profit" many CDCs have rather high cost structures. In a time of diminishing state, city, and foundation resources, a new CDC has to obtain considerable resources just to fund its management and infrastructure. These resources have to come from somewhere--it is basically a zero-sum game in the funding world these days. Is it really a good use of public or foundation resources to fund another non-profit development agency in Minneapolis right now? Has it been adequately demonstrated that existing neighborhood groups, working together with existing for-profit and non-profit developers, lack the capacity to guide development work on Central? Is this a cost-effective approach? Issue 3: Is this new NECDC really community-driven? Even if there are real needs for a new CDC, the next question becomes, "Is this the group to fill those needs?" In the past most CDCs came out of community-driven grassroots organizing, were rooted in progressive movements for social change, and had real commitments towards serving poorer and less empowered communities. Many organized around a specific threat or issue in a neighborhood. It is certainly understandable that a modern-day CDC may be less ideologically oriented than in the 1970s. However, the push behind this NECDC initiative seems to be mainly coming from a totally different direction. The main advocates have been certain city staff and officials, the Northeast Chamber of Commerce, and a small core of self-appointed community "leaders," some of whom seem to gain their influence simply by having the stamina to show up at all the meetings rather than because they have widespread neighborhood support. An influential funding agency-the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), with several key allies in city government, has also played a major role. LISC's involvement relates to their involvement in "Main Street" programs on West Broadway and Central. LISC was already committed to supporting NEEDC when the CDC initiative first emerged and it has wanted to play a key facilitating role in Central Avenue redevelopment. Thus, merging the CDC initiative into the group they were already supporting became a high priority. Many of the NECDC proponents seem to have a fairly conservative agenda somewhat out of step with where at least most people in my neighborhood organization are coming from. In general they seem to have an agenda similar to the Chamber of Commerce representatives-lukewarm if not actively hostile to affordable housing concerns, lacking in appreciation for (or membership from) the newer ethnic merchants along Central, in favor of rapid gentrification, and supportive of efforts to attract brand name chain stores and big box retailers to the Avenue-possibly at the expense of smaller independent businesses and Central's current ambiance. In short, I would see some of them as the last people who should be running a real community development corporation. While the new 17-member board of the NECDC ostensibly has majority neighborhood control (each of the nine participating neighborhoods appoints one board member, the business community elects four, and four more are at-large), the reality is more complex and the CDC structure is vulnerable to domination by the Chamber of Commerce and its core allies. Why have these institutions and individuals pushed so hard for the formation of the CDC? There are indications that some may hope that a Central Avenue-wide CDC would allow larger development initiatives to bypass the detailed process of citizen input and review now required to take place at the individual neighborhood level. This process has delayed or killed many projects over the years-although I would argue that it has also improved many other projects and that most of those that went down were probably ill conceived and inappropriate in the first place. Active citizen involvement is usually a positive process--albeit at times frustrating for project proponents. Will the city or large developers try to short-circuit neighborhood groups that they feel might oppose a certain initiative by going instead to the more amenable CDC group? Are there any precedents for this happening elsewhere in Minneapolis? All these concerns boil down to a few key questions: Is the NECDC going to uphold the ideals expressed in the city-approved Central Avenue Plan for the development of a pedestrian-friendly streetscape, the preservation and enhancement of Central's historic urban nature, and the promotion of local independent businesses? Or is it going to be aligned with those influences trying to bring in chain stores, big box retailing, drive-thrus, and strip malls? Will the NECDC actively work to preserve and protect our existing affordable housing? Will it work to develop new low-cost housing options, including needed rental units? Will it really strive to represent the increasingly diverse population of Northeast? Or will it be aligned with forces promoting gentrification and the "mall-ification" of the area to the detriment of lower-income working class people and overall diversity? Time will tell, but early indications are not good. At least a couple of neighborhood groups are already concerned about the core CDC group's affinity for backroom closed door meetings - they so far seem to be resisting a commitment to keep all meetings open to the public or to provide proper advance public notice of such meetings. Bruce Shoemaker Holland Neighborhood/NE Mpls _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
