Historically Community Development Corporations were created by, and within,
neighborhoods to pursue goals of development within that community. The
boards of these Corporations were in the past by and large made up of
community members. While many Development Corporations don the mantle and
title of Community Development Corporations, what almost all now lack is
"Community" involvement. In many, if not most, situations the term Community
Development is nothing more than a title to facilitate pursuing funding.
Started primarily in inner city neighborhoods these community development
corporations continue to find fertile ground for their businesses in
inner-city communities, and they improve many communities.

It would indeed be unfortunate if the Community Development Corporations
found themselves fighting the resident groups of communities in these same
neighborhoods.  Much of the success of such Development Corporations has
always been dependent upon those neighborhoods that the Corporations have a
symbiotic relationship with. Community Development Corporations receive a
great deal of their funding from this relationship.  If conflict arose as a
general policy between such groups and the neighborhoods, it would be bad
for both.  Indeed Neighborhoods would lose a great resource, but Community
Development Corporations would lose their reason for even existing. I say
this as a warning that WE ALL have to consider.

Community Development Corporations are a vehicle to get Neighborhoods where
they wish to go, neighborhoods removing the gas, (support for funding
efforts), will quickly bring those vehicles to a standstill. While some
politically powerful "Community Development Corporations" may continue for
some time, the poisoning of their neighborhood environment will eventually
kill them.  With the present competition for dollars, and in particular
government generated dollars, no development corporation can long stand a
concerted lobbying effort by a community to cut off those dollars.
Surrounded by a sea of antipathy, such a corporation is doomed.  For a good
lessen in Community Development and Housing Corporations failures look at
the old Phillips Neighborhood for a good example.  While other Community
Developers got rich picking the bones of those disasters, it should have
been a warning to them of their own mortality.

There are just too many other places to put the limited funding available
without the controversy.  Government and foundation support sources simply
go somewhere else. The potential and embarrassment for being included in
lawsuits is more than enough reason funding sources to look at other "more
deserving" applications. Powerful politically connected organizations, such
as PPL, can look to receive support from their political cronies for a
while, but soon that support becomes an embarrassment and will go away.
While rich, powerful, non-profits may have tremendous ability to leverage
support, usually their people are in communities to do business, and live
other places.  They do not vote in the communities they seek to control, and
as such any long lasting opposition from a community will eventually make
that community a very bad place to do business.

Just as Non-Profit developers have the "Consortium of Community Development
Corporations" to protect their interests, it has been suggested that a
"Consortium of Impacted Neighborhoods" needs to be created.  The purpose of
such a "Consortium" would be the mutual defense and self-protection from
City and Non-Profit policies considered damaging or detrimental to the
neighborhood resident's interest.  Hopefully the "Consortium of Community
Development Corporations" organization and such a consortium of the actual
"Communities" would not have diametrically opposing interests.

While the Bradley Amendment was onerous to some, it was written directly out
of "Holman Decree" language.  Minneapolis was a signing party and agreed to
that decree.  Other language can be crafted that will limit the ability of
unscrupulous developers to concentrate poverty and social problems in a few
"impacted", discriminated against, poor neighborhoods that contain large
minority populations.  Community Development Corporations lobbying to remove
the 1/4-mile ordinance and not address concerns about "Concentration" issues
is a sure means of creating the terminal impetus towards an open conflict
with the neighborhoods where those developers do business.  Community
Development Corporations need to be aware of the potential disaster such
open conflict could cause for both the legitimate neighborhoods and the
developers.

There is a trend for Minneapolis neighborhoods to take more authority over
the planning, needs assessment, and recruitment of developers for their
areas.  This effort will leave most "Community Development Corporations"
more time for being the Real Estate Holding Companies, Rental Property
Managers, and Rental Real Estate developers they have become, and where
their true interest lays. This trend offers good opportunities for
"Community Developers" as well as the actual Communities and Neighborhoods
as long as each understands its role in the improvement of "Communities".  A
failure to honor the bounds of those roles, or CDC's presenting themselves
as "Citizen Participation", by unscrupulous developers, is the danger that
threatens both communities and these businesses. I would be happy to speak
in greater detail about these issues with those interested.

Hopefully responsible CDC's will join with Neighborhoods against the
unscrupulous ones to save this resource for the Communities of Minneapolis.
After all Neighborhoods can, and will, exist without CDC's.  The same cannot
be said for CDC's.  If you take the community out of CDC's they are nothing
more than businesses seeking to take advantage of the business opportunities
that will NOT exist in "Communities".

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

Reply via email to