Jim Graham wrote: > Barbara Lickness is absolutely correct. In fact Michael > Atherton could not be more wrong, and if he had been active > at any level with NRP he would know this.
I have been active in the NRP, although not during plan development. I think that it's fair to say that at this point I know more about the NRP than all but a handful of people in my neighborhood. Which maybe one reason I am so opposed to it. > The greatest criticism of NRP was that early in the > process poor communities too often assigned too much > of their money to non-housing related social programs. I would join in this criticism. I don't see any justification in the state statutes for spending NRP funds on such programs. If you understand so much about the NRP why don't you tell us what part of the statutes supports these allocations? > Michael need not worry about Prospect Park's reallocation. > As it is small compared to the reallocation to housing in > the Phillips Neighborhoods and Ventura Village. $600,000 dollars maybe small in relation to other neighborhoods, but small is not the issue here; principle, accountability, and ethics are. You retitled this post as "NRP Hypocrisy? There is Hypocrisy, But Whose?" I claim that the NRP is being hypocritical because they have a set housing goal and it doesn't appear that they will ever meet it and it doesn't seem that they ever intended to. The NRP is being hypocritical because they seem to have ignored the mission established for them by the state legislature. That is my position, now please explain to me how I am being hypocritical, as your title asserts. 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
