Some of the discussions in south Minneapolis regarding the role and influence of certain non-profits are very relevant to what is now happening in Northeast. While at some level there is a rhetorical commitment to "competition" by the city, all too often promoting real competition seems a secondary priority compared to ensuring that certain favored non-profits get access to project dollars. In many cases it is questionable whether these non-profits really provide good value for public or private resources.
When the Holland Neighborhood Improvement Association put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the New Holland Townhomes, several responses were received, three of which were finalists. Two were from well-known housing non-profits and one from a private developer. Both non-profit proposals would have required the HNIA to provide large subsidies - from 27,000 to 100,000 per unit. In contrast, the private developer (who got the contract) was able to provide an equally good, if not better, product with almost no subsidy at all. City staff were initially very skeptical that such a development could go forward without a large subsidy and with the use of a private developer but this is turning out to be a very successful model. More recently, when a publicly held empty lot was freed up for development through a neighborhood planning process, the public agency holding the property was reportedly ready to just turn it over to one non-profit housing group. It took the intervention of our neighborhood group to say "hold-on!" and to insist that a competitive RFP process go forward before such a decision is made. Given the recent experiences all over the city and our poor track record of actually creating much of an increase in affordable housing for the considerable amounts of public dollars that have been provided, it would seem self-evident that more competition would be healthy. However, one very influential agency, the Local Initiatives Support Committee, is actually pushing a very different model. LISC, a national group with a local office here in the Twin Cities, seems to be promoting a model of urban development that argues in favor of having one large non-profit Community Development Corporation (CDC) work in a large geographic quadrant and against the involvement of multiple service providers. This is behind LISC's strong support and funding for the Northeast CDC. LISC basically stage-managed the whole creation of the NECDC so that it would fit into their preferred model. Due to the lack of other CDC's in Northeast, they see this as their best opportunity to push the LISC model in Minneapolis. The LISC model may be having a large influence on current city policy. Take for instance, the whole thrust of NRP Phase 2 regarding the need for neighborhoods to work together, for collaborations between neighborhoods. It may have sounded good at first, but what this appears to be leading to in practice is a push for a handful of large CDCs to take over some of the functions (and funding) of neighborhood groups. Based on what we have already seen in Northeast, these CDCs do not stop with technical assistance or being service providers but are rapidly trying to take over aspects of the citizen review/participation mandate from neighborhood groups. Several prominent city staff playing key roles in city housing and neighborhood development policy are either former LISC staff or are on its local board of directors. LISC and the MCDA Funding Fast Track A main LISC activity in Minneapolis is providing support to the "Mainstreet" programs aimed at assisting with the revitalization of the commercial corridors of West Broadway and Central. For Broadway the work is being implemented by the West Broadway Area Coalition. On Central the original implementer was the Northeast Economic Development Council, which has now been transformed into the NECDC. While LISC is bringing in some outside resources for this program, it has also been relying on the MCDA to provide matching funds. Two years ago the MCDA provided a two-year grant of $224,000 for LISC. Now, LISC, is requesting another two-year grant of $226,000 to cover the next two years of the program. While it has had some problems (its "Community Participation" committees seem to end up mainly involving paid staff from LISC, NECDC, other non-profits, and various city offices), the Central Avenue Mainstreet Program (CAMP) has been generally well-received (I am not familiar with the work on West Broadway) and many of its activities have had at least initial support in my neighborhood. The staffperson is well-thought of and if she had been allowed to just run her own program she would have been doing a great job. But while she is being paid with Mainstreet funds, it often appears that she has been directed to take on other work in support of the NECDC's attempt to take over citizen review from neighborhood groups and even, at least in the recent past, in support of activities of the Northeast Business Association (now the NE Chamber of Commerce) with which the NECDC shares an office. So it appears that while this MCDA funding is meant for the Mainstreet Program, it also facilitates other initiatives of the NECDC (and at least in the past, the NEBA/Chamber of Commerce). At a time when the City of Minneapolis is going to experience very serious budget difficulties, it would be worth having some debate on whether this MCDA funding is an appropriate use of our taxpayer dollars and to have LISC and the MCDA provide some answers to a few key questions: What exactly is the LISC vision for Minneapolis regarding community development? How does LISC reconcile the need for competitive efficiency with its apparent advocacy for the establishment of non-competitive, non-profit CDC umbrella groups in Minneapolis? How does LISC view the relationship between neighborhood groups and the CDCs it is funding? Is it appropriate for these CDCs to assume the citizen input and review functions which have previously been the role of neighborhood organizations? If the MCDA is already providing funds to neighborhood groups for citizen participation, why should it also provide funds through LISC to CDCs that seek to carry out a similar role? Isn't this duplicative and a waste of our limited city resources? Do we want a structure that allows developers to "shop around" for the most amenable citizen review vehicle when they are proposing a controversial project? The City Council's Community Development and Ways and Means Committees will be considering this funding soon. The deadline for public comment regarding this funding was supposed to have been in early March. But just this past week, neighborhoods were notified that the deadline had been moved up to January 9th. This provides very little time to prepare comments on the proposal and raises more questions. Does this expedited approval schedule provide adequate time for public input on what is likely to be a controversial decision? What is the rush? Bruce Shoemaker Holland Neighborhood _______________________________________ 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
