David Brauer wrote: > If I had to choose between special interests lobbying the > legislature and neighbors organizing to influence how NRP > money is spent, I'll take the neighbors every time.
I generally expect that lobbyists at the legislature will skirt ethical boundaries, I don't need to find out the same about my neighbors. > Frankly, I find the demonizing of disagreement to be particularly > distasteful. It seems like so much of our civic discussion > lately does not recognize legitimate differences of opinion - > someone must be corrupt, or selfish. We, on the other hand, are > selfless and pure and so much more decent. This is not the demonizing of disagreement, it's the demonizing of an unfair process. Mr. Cross made it clear in his post that neighborhood residents were made aware of that their proposals were in violation of NRP policy and they when ahead and acted in disregard of the rules. When people act in such a manner to gain selfishly over others who are adhering to the rules then I think it is disrespectful and discourteous. Let me suggest how not to run an NRP reallocation. 1) Don't inform residents that a preliminary meeting is purely informational and then take a straw vote which determines which proposals will dominate the actual reallocation meeting. 2) Don't bundle three proposals together so that they exhaust available funds and then limit the discussion of alternative proposals. 3) Don't make the meetings procedural rules so complex that only someone who's had an extensive course in Robert's rules can understand them. 4) Don't add additional rules which limit options and debate at the beginning of the meeting without prior notice. 5) Don't limit the translation of debate on issues for residents who don't speak English and also fail to translate specific dialog when asked to do so. 6) Don't allow disruptive cat calls for one side and not for another. 7) Don't allow the chair of the meeting to voice their personal opinion about particular motions. > It's never that WE were simply outvoted by our equally > civic-minded fellow citizens. To be simply outvoted would be quite refreshing, playing against a stacked deck gets tiresome after a while. > Making an important public decision always involves > disagreement. This is the real world. In my experience, > neighborhood biz is significantly more transparent and > less creepy than much of what I've seen covering City Hall. You haven't lived in my neighborhood and had your house vandalized. > It's nice to imagine a societal decision that doesn't pit > someone against someone - but that's rarely how it works. > And so often, the ones who criticize genuine differences > start from the most adversarial mindset of all. For me it isn't that hard to imagine a societal decision in which competing parties treat each other fairly and with courtesy. > Just curious: how many people were at the Prospect Park > meeting the other night? A dozen? Or several hundred > involved citizens? A rhetorical question I suppose, given that you already know the answer. As Mr. Cross stated there were approximately 250 people present. However, only approximately 200 were listed as residents (and then again no one was required to show proof of residency). Regardless 200 people still represents only a 3 to 4 percent turnout. Not what I would call a high level of participation, especially when the majority of those attending had their own pet projects to fund. > As far as a court case, I hope if it's tried and fails, we > won't read about the court was illegitimate. You will if the court process was illegitimate. I'm still waiting for someone from the NRP to explain to me how funding of social and educational programs is legal under the current state statutes. As Mr. Luce pointed out Mr. Cross' interpretation seems to be in error. Also, please tell me who is accountable if it turns out that the proposals passed are not acceptable uses under state law. As far as I can see no one is. Barb Lickness wrote: > You speak of balancing conflicts. I thought the > conflicts were balanced very well last night. The vote > confirmed that the overwhelming majority of the people > in that room last night wanted to support Pratt > School, Somolian Woman and Senior Citizens over the > trees, parks, art, housing and an air conditioner. You forgot to mention that the proposals for HOUSING were never discussed. Please remember that HOUSING is the mandate given to the NRP by the state for neighborhood REVITALIZATION, not education, not socialization programs for new immigrants, and not social programs for seniors (all worthy causes, but not covered by this law). As I said previously, the NRP is neighborhood revitalization run amuck. You also forgot to mention that many of the proposals had legal problems as identified by the NRP's own lawyers and there is no guarantee that they will ultimately be accepted even if approved. It might be nice if residents could be given a set of proposals to vote on that are within the law. However, you did mention that your lawyers have been successful at massaging proposals into legality after the fact, but somehow that doesn't make me feel really great about the NRP. 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
