>>>" Ms. Colvin-Roy argued for letting neighborhoods be given
control over dollars designated for "affordable housing" rather than some
money going to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. She too alluded to
"special interests" (I assume poor and homeless-but that is my assumption.)
She seems to ignore the ongoing dynamic of the "fortress
neighborhoods" who fight tooth and nail to keep out poor and low income
people, and they have been allowed to do this for years"<<<
Margaret Hastings in her post causes a small amount of confusion for me, and
I am sure others. She seems to indict Sandy Colvin-Roy for arguing in favor
of letting neighborhoods be given control of dollars designated for
"affordable housing". Perhaps Margaret Hastings is unaware that the
movement and pressure to build "affordable housing" came from the
neighborhoods, not from a centralized downtown. Her post was actually good
news for me.
I had worried that Colvin-Roy would be on the other side, the "Downtown
Control" side, of the issue. Sandy Colvin-Roy is to be commended if she
actually supports independent neighborhoods controlling NRP and housing
dollars. Neighborhoods build sustainable affordable housing, downtown
"Affordable Housing Trust Funds" seems to be controlled by those only
wanting to build large "Institutional" types of housing. Such interests
build large "Cabrini Green" institutions of poverty; neighborhoods know such
institutional poverty is bad. Neighborhoods also "KNOW" such institutions
are incredibly wasteful of tax dollars and human resources.
Margaret Hastings may be unaware that the special interests being referred
to by Colvin-Roy and Johnson could possibly have been the "Poverty Industry"
that preys upon poor people, not the poor people themselves. It is this
industry that has helped maintain the "Fortress" walls around some
communities by attempting to create non-profit ghettoes of concentrated
poverty. Poor people do not hire expensive law firms such as Dorsey and
Whitney to protect their "special interest". Wealthy non-profits seeking to
maximize the profitability of their industry do hire such firms, and do
lobby to keep poor people concentrated.
Why Margaret Hastings believes that "Downtown" would open the "Fortress
Walls" is beyond me. Perhaps she does not realize that it is those
"Downtown" interests that have necessitated Federal lawsuits against the
City of Minneapolis. The Ventura Village lawsuit against Project for Pride
in Living and the City of Minneapolis is to force the City of Minneapolis to
STOP concentrating poverty and to force Minneapolis to affirmatively OPEN
the Fortress communities for supportive housing.
Margaret, the cost of the land is a small part of any development cost when
amortized over the number of units. If land costs are the problem, then
have a "fund" that supplies the land cost for such a project. This is the
type of "land-trust" that works. Have the City of Minneapolis use its City
owned land as a start and assemble such sites in "Fortress Communities".
The excuse for putting "Institutional Housing" in poor communities is that
zoning laws and City Ordinance does not allow such housing in "Better"
neighborhoods. It does not allow it in "Concentrated Areas" either. The
City seems eager to change the ordinances in poor neighborhoods to enable
the City to concentrate poverty, why not get to the heart of the matter?
The City of Minneapolis should address its pattern of discrimination, and
change such ordinances as necessary in ONLY non-impacted areas. The City
already ignores its own ordinances while concentrating poverty in poor
"Impacted" neighborhoods. The purpose of present new zoning is its intent
only to avoid further lawsuits. Such zoning changes are NOT intended by the
Council to address "Fortress" issues and build affordable housing anywhere
else but in "Impacted Neighborhoods". Council members have assured their
ward residents of such as they voted for the changes.
Neighborhoods are not against affordable housing; neighborhoods are against
"institutional warehouse" types of housing, which creates impoverished lives
for everyone. Margaret, please realize there is a difference. Some City
Council Members also need to realize that we know the difference.
The only way neighborhoods will ever address and be open to "affordable
housing" is to allow them to control how those dollars are spent to create X
number of affordable housing units in there own way. The way to create
acceptable affordable housing is to mandate a certain dispersion of
affordable housing and to say to communities, "You will have X-number of
units, here is X-number of dollars, create a plan that fits your community
or the City will create it for you". I suggest removing politics from the
process, by having an outside computer model do the allocations. I am also
not against neighborhoods of wealth being able to "buy" such units in other
places to fill this need. If Kenwood or Linden Hills wants to buy some lots
in a suburb and build X-number of units I am fine with that, as long as
there is an increased tax levy upon those particular neighborhoods only to
pay for such units.
----------------------------------------------------------------
As far as Barrett Lane's tantrum about his rich friends moving out of
Minneapolis. Please, don't let the door hit you in the tush on the way out.
There is a housing shortage, and someone else will buy your house. Barrett
probably has not realized that the trend is to move into town, not out. His
ability to ride his bike to anywhere in Minneapolis is the reason a lot of
young people are moving back into town. The ability to walk around the
corner to the coffee shop, after stopping at the neighborhood bakery, and
yakking with friends out doing the same, is the reason older people are
moving back in.
Take away the concentration ghettoes and the related crime and blight, and
you will have a whole lot more folks wanting to move back in. Some houses
in downtown neighborhoods now sell for, and rent for, higher amounts than in
suburbs. So you rich folks who can't stand poor people should leave while
you can, so poor working people can still afford your houses. I guarantee
every one of those houses will sell. I like to walk along the river so could
we get some affordable housing over there. So the rich will "maybe" leave.
That way I can "maybe" afford to buy one of those "abandoned" houses. I'll
still pay the same taxes, so Minneapolis doesn't lose a thing, except
someone who didn't want to live here. In fact it gains.
I do not think the idea of Barrett annexing Linden Hills and Southwest
Minneapolis to Edina is a good one. If most of those folks wanted to live
in Edina they certainly would have bought a house out there. Most folks
living in Linden Hills and Southwest want to live in Minneapolis, and choose
to live in Minneapolis even if there are some poor people here.
What we really need is to annex those suburbs into a larger City so that we
can stop duplicating services and save everyone a huge amount of money. One
park system, one health board, police, schools, etc. The savings on
administration alone would wipe out the deficit and create more dollars for
neighborhoods and smaller towns to build "sustainable affordable housing".
Jim Graham,
Ventura Village - in Metropolis
>>>"We can only be what we give ourselves the power to be" - A Cherokee
Feast of Days
>>>The people are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our
liberty. - Thomas Jefferson
TEMPORARY REMINDER:
1. Send all posts in plain-text format.
2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible.
________________________________
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
