Jeff Carlson wondered "why Jim Graham > voted yes to a project that so damages his > neighborhood." While Jeff is entitled to his own opinion, and I will not discuss the merit of other portions of his "opinion", I feel I just have to answer his assertion that Jim Graham would EVER vote yes to a project that would "damage his neighborhood".
My neighborhood has received more damage than any community in Minneapolis from freeways, and the disregard of political "representatives" from the area. Before my involvement the PAC, which included Mr. Lillegrin, had not come up with a plan to ameliorate, or mitigate, the damage that had been and continues to be done for the entire 40 years until the present. This damage continues with the City of Minneapolis trying to create an Institution for Supportive Housing in this "Reservation" the Planning Department once labeled as the "Black Zone". I spoke openly and aggressively about my dissatisfaction with plans that did not include mitigation, for not just the present plan, but for the incredible damage done over the last forty years. The reason I voted for the preliminary plans was that it put on the table the Decking of the Freeway that isolates Ventura Village, and the study of adding the accesses that the freeways originally left off, (in an attempt to kill inner-city commercial corridors). For twenty-five years I have hammered MnDOT about this issue. Some may not know, but it was me who hammered Peter McLaughlin to have a seat at the PAC table for the Ventura Village Neighborhood and for Stevens and Elliot and others. It was me that hammered politicians to change the plan so as to retain the 5th Avenue on-ramp. Sure others helped, but ask Peter who he thinks started and spearheaded that "discussion". Peter McLaughlin was very open and helpful in each of these situations over two years ago. If there was any deal struck, it was between Peter McLaughlin and myself back then. Peter and I made a deal between us to try to get the best we could for my neighborhood, and to try as hard as possible to fix this monstrosity that had so damaged my neighborhood. What did I pay Peter for that deal, just support and friendship. It was a good deal Peter, thanks! If readers even consider Peter McLaughlin not to be acting in his constituents' best interest, or doing what the majority of them don't want, I think you are wrong. Peter is a politician who deeply wants to have the support of those who elect him. Peter is also one of the most open people in government to neighborhood input. While Peter had no Hennepin County "official" interest in some of our developments on Franklin Avenue, he has fought and leveraged to get that development from the City and State. When MCDA and the City were leveraging behind close doors and under the table for "Many Rivers" to not be funded and killed, it was Peter McLaughlin who walked behind those same closed doors and fought for us. I well remember a call at 10:30 on a Friday evening when Peter had just gotten off the phone working a bargain and getting a commitment for the Bonding that made Many Rivers possible. No, we in our neighborhood do not find the fault with Peter McLaughlin and his interest and help with our neighborhood. Fault that we might with other politicians, who continue to not fulfill promises, and to treat our area as their own private social engineering lab. But that is another Post. I was ELECTED (and I wonder how many others were elected by a neighborhood's membership) to be my neighborhood's representative on the PAC. I was elected specifically to force the issue of the "Franklin Decking" and the possible additional "Freeway Accesses" to and from our Franklin Avenue Commercial Corridor. Franklin Avenue is an "Impacted Commercial Corridor" because it lacks access and is cut off from commercial traffic. These features are the ONLY impact on our neighborhood by the project under consideration by the PAC. These features can only be positive for Ventura Village, Franklin Avenue, and our community. To NOT have voted for a preliminary project plan that committed to include them for consideration, would have been irresponsible and not representing my neighborhood's "Interest". If the final plans do not include them we will have another fight, but I think they will at least partially be included. it is just the right and smart thing to do. There is a "Fiduciary Responsibility" to "Representing" a neighborhood. For those who do not know, "Fiduciary Responsibility" means an obligation to put the interests of the party being represented above any all other interest, including personal interest. No matter what my personal interest and opinion of the freeway system I fulfilled that Fiduciary responsibility. I voted to support a project that will now do something for my neighborhood, and fix problems the freeway originally created. Jeff Carlson apparently thinks I should dishonor myself and forget my fiduciary responsibility so as to please my friends and supporters. Sorry Jeff, it just does not work that way. Don't the readers wish all Politicians would take serious their "Fiduciary Responsibility" instead of helping their "Developer" friends? Then you would not have the lawsuits that the City invites upon itself, and you would not have a pattern of institutionalized poverty in Minneapolis. Jim Graham, Ventura Village _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
