Barbara Lickness wrote:
> As the NRP staff person assigned to Prospect Park I
> would like to respond with the following:
>
> The 52.5% housing expenditure mandate is on the
> program over the 20 year period. NRP has NEVER
> required or dictated what each neighborhood spent
> individually on housing in Phase I of NRP. While some
> neighborhoods have spent nearly 80% on housing, others
> have not.
> Secondly, to say that poorer neighborhoods have not
> invested in things in their neighborhoods that go
> beyond housing is just plan flawed and untrue. My own
> neighborhood spent nearly $2M of it's $7.7M on the
> park and school complex. We also spent money on
> programming for the park and school and provided
> program funds for youth serving agencies in the
> neighborhood. We paid to build the bookmobile and
> Prospect Park kicked in some NRP funds for books. We
> did commercial loan funds for businesses and invested
> in a plan for Nicollet Ave.
I never said that poorer neighborhoods did not expend
NRP funds on items other than housing. I said that
wealthier neighborhoods might be in a better position
to allocate funds to community schools. What I do say
is that expending funds on the types of activities you mention
above does NOT adhere to the original state statues that created
the NRP and that the NRP is "neighborhood realization" run amuck.
To claim that the majority of funds did not need to be
spent on housing in Phase I is disingenuous to say the least
(especially given the fact that there might be no Phase II to
speak of). Please identify which of the purposes stated in the
statute below allows funds to be spent on remodeling a community
center to create public school classrooms (a project that I
believe be financed by the MPS budget or private donations).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
469.1831 Neighborhood revitalization program; first class city.
Subd. 3. Purposes; qualifying costs. A neighborhood
revitalization program may provide for expenditure of program
money for the following purposes:
(1) to eliminate blighting influences by acquiring and
clearing or rehabilitating properties that the city finds have
caused or will cause a decline in the value of properties in the
area or will increase the probability that properties in the
area will be allowed to physically deteriorate;
(2) to assist in the development of industrial properties
that provide employment opportunities paying a livable income to
the residents of the neighborhood and that will not adversely
affect the overall character of the neighborhood;
(3) to acquire, develop, construct, physically maintain,
rehabilitate, renovate, or replace neighborhood commercial and
retail facilities necessary to maintain neighborhood vitality;
(4) to eliminate health hazards through the removal of
hazardous waste and pollution and return of land to productive
use, if the responsible party is unavailable or unable to pay
for the cost;
(5) to rehabilitate existing housing and encourage
homeownership;
(6) to construct new housing, where appropriate;
(7) to rehabilitate and construct new low-income,
affordable rental housing;
(8) to remove vacant and boarded up houses; and
(9) to rehabilitate or construct community-based nonprofit
and public facilities necessary to carry out the purpose of the
program.
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/469/1831.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> In closing I will state that if Prospect Park votes to
> support Pratt school in their redirection meeting next
> week, it is within NRP policy for them to do that.
Being within NRP policy does not appear to be the same as
adhering to state law. I suppose that since I am not an
attorney or a legislator that I must be missing the part of
the law that allows money to be spent on items other than
the above, please identify and post the section that repeals
or modifies the statute above.
> The Prospect Park East River Road Improvement
> Association (PPERRIA) Board has been advised in
> writing regarding NRP housing policies in addition to
> legal opinions on program proposals that were
> submitted to PPERRIA for funding consideration.
> PPERRIA has followed the NRP Policy on Changing
> Neighborhood Action Plans and has gone above and
> beyond the notice requirements to the entire
> neighborhood for this redirection of funds.
Regardless of whether PPERRIA follows NRP requirements,
does not assure that their decisions are wise, fair,
or ethical. I have argued in this thread that the
ability to provide funding that results in disproportionate
spending per pupil for education, while legal, may not be just.
Michael Atherton
Prospect Park
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
