A couple of initial points: I have never, nor am I aware of anyone working on this issue, called the NRP "racist," nor have I labeled current participants or NRP staff "racist." We are calling attention to the disparity in spending with respect to race and class, which is a far cry from using the divisive term racist. I find it odd that, each time someone brings attention to an issue that disproportionately affects communities of color, the response from those who are apparently uncomfortable with the evidence conclude that they abre being called racist, thus framing the issue as one that is divisive, rhetorical, and emotional. All I can say is, c'mon, knock it off--why not respond constructively, rather than destructively?
Second, it's fascinatingly ironic to hear Jim Graham rail about the use of statistics that are not my statistics, not a tenant group's statistics, but are NRP's own statistics. Normally, more marginalized groups (low income folks among them) must use anecdotes, personal experiences, etc., to provide evidence to overcome disparities because they don't have the resources to develop finely tuned statistical information. That is, the normal response from the status quo is--show me the evidence! But, suddenly, NRP has their own statistical evidence that support communities' experiential stories, and those statistics are dismissed with a cliche (they are damn lies?). C'mon, these are NRP stats, not some pie in the sky stuff, and anyone reading the Teamworks report can also find items that praise NRP and its effectiveness in other areas (most notably, in my mind, in the initial funding allocations to neighborhoods). In my comments, I'm neither dismissive of the statistics or the anecdotal information (e.g., Paul Weir and his Midtown Phillips neighbors should be praised for attacting so many Latino residents and community members to a meeting--way to go!, And efforts in the Lyndale neighborhood--where they made a concerted effort to reach hundreds of residents in public housing high rises, should also be praised). I'm more inclusive and like to believe I think more broadly with respect to the term community. I do not take such a hard-core and often angry approach to insist that it only include residents, especially given NRP and its insistence on a broader meaning of neighborhood interests. Members of the community are residents, business owners, nonprofits (and Wizard Marks makes a good point as to why), students, homeless, and those who consider it their community. Fears of a take over by evil nonprofits and/or non-residents are pure paranoia--or, actually, it's a fear-based organizing tool to rally the troops and to maintain status quo--and continued efforts to demonize those who are part of the community will ultimately alienate many and lead to a more ineffective and divided sense of community. Finally, we've made concrete suggestions for change, based on input from tenants, from tenant advocates, from our experiences, and I'd like to know or get comments about those suggestions--not just dismissive comments that rely on personal attacks and fear. Gregory Luce--Project 504 (North Phillips) St. Paul PS: I consider Minneapolis my city, having lived in Whittier (1/4 mile from the proposed Lydia House) for six years, Field for 3 years, and now find myself living in St. Paul until I can get back to the city I grew to love. Am I wrong to believe Minneapolis is my city, my community? _______________________________________ 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
