Barb Lickness wrote: > Greg Luce, another NRP critic organized a citywide > renters assembly which I attended. From the crowd I > counted, only about 20-25 people showed up from the > entire city. The rest of the attendees were from > agencies claiming to represent or provide services to > renters. So, he wasn't successful at engaging them to > get involved either.
Just so I can clarify some things. I was involved in a collaborative effort to organize a Tenants' Summit--it was not my effort, but the effort of my organization (Project 504) and five other tenant-oriented groups. So, I prefer that we give credit as well to the other groups and their advocates and members so that this does not become some personalized effort on my part. The Summit came the day after Senator Wellstone's death, which cast a pall on most political activities--but nevertheless we got about 70 to 80 people there, including CMs Zimmermann, Lilligren, and Schiff. We have sign-in sheets from approximately 80 individuals, some of whom are organizational representatives, but most of whom were tenants (and many of whom were both, like I am). Another 20 or so organizations endorsed our proposals. It was the first event in our campaign, so judge it from that perspective as well. I am not saying, however, that it is easy to engage tenants. It is difficult work, and my general point, in criticising NRP's housing expenditures, is that it benefits largely white homeowners and does not generally benefit tenants, who make up approximately 46 percent of the city's population and are disproportionately people of color. I think that criticism is legitimate and deserves further attention. I've been quoted in City Pages some time back in a story that indicated that the tenant coalition I'm in plans to sue NRP. Not true. I was asked if there are legal grounds for a lawsuit, and I indicated that there very well may be--either in challenging the statutory application of NRP or on the grounds that it, in practice, violates the Fair Housing Act. But, that's a rather big political fish to fry and one that I'm not personally endorsing, primarily because I believe NRP can effectively be reformed. Reform to me means a number of things, some of which Alan and others have touched upon: 1. Voting. It makes sense to me, when electing neighborhood boards or in determining significant issues, to keep the election open for a number of days and at various locations, including large apartment complexes, neighborhood stores, etc. That way, the issues can be laid out and publicized more extensively and people who cannot generally make an evening meeting can vote and participate. This would mean some additional volunteer or paid hours, but I also imagine neighborhoods can collaborate to support such a process and/or to obtain funding to pull this off effectively. I believe this should be pursued centrally through NRP staff and encouraged strongly (required?) in each neighborhood. 2. Participation and Programming. The overall purpose of NRP, as mandated by statute, is generally on housing. As I've said before, a logical but circular process develops where those who show up are those who generally benefit, and for the most part it has been those who do not have evening commitments, such as family, jobs, or other caretaking duties. This has generally favored white homeowners, and anecdotally it has appeared to favor those who do not have financial or time constraints, such as retirees, multi-property owners, and families without children. As a father of a three-year old, I've found it increasingly difficult to participate in evening meetings, so much so that I don't go to Ventura Village meetings anymore (the fact I am no longer eligible to participate was not actually known to me until recently). But, back to programming--I believe it is an obligation of each neighborhood group--an obligation enforced by NRP--to look at the overall purpose of NRP and to follow the mandate of the law. That is, to create programming (and I mean programming in the broad sense--such as housing development as well as lesser dollar expenditures on educational or recreational issues) that directly benefits low-income residents, most of whom are tenants. There is no better way to attract participation than to propose programs that benefit a typically disenfranchised group directly. That is, you can have all the daycare and chicken dinners you want, but it still won't engage tenants unless they know that the issues being discussed and implemented will directly benefit them. To put it frankly, why come to eat dinner when the real issue being served doesn't even involve you? NRP is at a point now where we can really take a long look at it and come up with good strategies to engage those who have largely been left out. I believe the fiscal crisis--however you want to characterize it--gives us the chance to step back and to look long and hard at NRP and determine how we can reform it before money money money again becomes the predominant issue, which apparently is the strategy of NRP staff and activists. We may be wise to look at Powderhorn Park's Phase II planning, pick apart what works for participation and what does not work, and determine a strategy for Phase II that assures that we engage people who have given up or have no clue what NRP is and can do. I'm not about suing people and I hope David Brauer's comment about the "demonizing of disagreement" was not also applicable to me, a frequent critic of NRP. If it was, so be it, but I feel I and others have always suggested constructive methods for change. Gregory Luce St. Paul 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
