I also agree with Ms. Nompelis' assessment and that is how it worked in Ventura Village until the most recent change that limited membership to residents and any others' who own property. The recent membership change eliminated many folks as members who operate businesses but do not own property--a negative change in my mind but so be it-- I actually find it somewhat laughable, given the odd paranoia that apparently drives it.
I should be clear so that I'm not continually misinterpreted: residents should have the predominant voice in neighborhood groups and I don't think anyone can point to a neighborhood group where this is not the case. I think the requirement that boards be at least 60% neighborhood residents is a good requirement and makes sense. I also think that business owners and neighborhood institutions (which are explicitly referenced in NRP's statutory requirements) deserve to be members of the neighborhood group, even if they don't meet the rather odd requirement of "owning property"--it's actually kind of funny that nonhomesteading landlords (i.e., those that may live in Edina or Rogers or even Arizona) are considered members but that "non-propertied" businesses that contribute and do good work in the neighborhood are not. What message does that send to businesses that want to invest? Come here but, alas, don't try to participate in our affairs? It comes down to this: are you inclusive or exclusive, and if you are exclusive, what do you legitimately fear? The idea of nonprofits or businesses 'taking over' Ventura Village or another NRP neighborhood group is rather ludicrous, particularly when there is always the reasonable "one business one vote" rule that most people follow. Now that Project 504 is no longer a member of the neighborhood group in the community where it works, it simply makes sense to be part of creating another one that is more inclusive, even while at the same time maintaining the group's focus on serving and empowering residents. Gregory Luce St. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Constance Nompelis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jim MCGUIRE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [Mpls] Ventura Village - Citizen Participation > > --- Jim MCGUIRE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The statement that it's "not out of line" to require > > that people own > > property in the neighborhood in order to vote really > > bothers me. It's > > clearly out of line to disenfranchise residents of > > the neighborhood simply > > because they're renters. Is it legal? Perhaps. > > Out of line? Unethical? > > Discriminatory? Classist? Absolutely. > > CN: As a previous member of the Ventura Village > board, I feel confident in stating that "residency" is > the absolute, number-one requirement. I have NEVER > seen someone being prevented from voting because they > didn't OWN property. Far from it. Those who own > property, be they one, two, or many, are only > permitted one voting representative UNLESS they live > at the property. Basically what that means is that > "business owners" only get one voice per parcel, > whereas residents get as many votes per parcel as > there are individual living there. What this means is > that the resident has voting priority in V.V., which I > think is fine. > > Connie Nompelis > Ventura Village (Board Member until two nights ago, > when I un-nominated myself for re-election.) > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com > _______________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________ 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
