Michael asked for criticism on his issue-based analysis. Here's my take. Michael writes:
> Mr. Cross' post clearly states > that supporters of the bundled proposals knew that their > actions were a violation of NRP policy: > > "NRP discharged its duty by telling the neighborhood > of the consequences and the neighborhood made and adult > choice to take certain action despite the sanctions the > NRP will impose." [I would point out that it was NOT > the "neighborhood" that make these choices, but the > residents who packed this meeting, not more than 4% of > the "neighborhood."] > > How do you think this makes those of us who are following the > NRP rules feel? It's ok to commit the crime as long as you're > willing to pay the penalty? It's ok to violate the rules > in order to achieve your goals over those of your neighbors? I think this is selective editing of Steve Cross, and hyperbole. Remember, the starting point for this discussion was NRP Phase I. Prospect Park is reallocating leftover Phase I money. According to Steve Cross, they have an opinion from NRP that the 52.5 percent housing-and-housing-related-purposes goal does not apply to one neighborhood in one phase. The goal must be met citywide by the end of Phase II. As I understand Steve Cross's analysis of the "consequences," Prospect Park risks losing NRP-2 funds until the CITY meets the 52.5 percent goal *by the end of Phase II.* (emphasis mine.) Now, you can certainly say Prospect Park should not risk Phase II money. That would be a very legitimate criticism, in my opinion. HOWEVER, you can argue that Prospect Park can't do much with its Phase I reallocation to help the city meet that goal anyway, so they might as well fund the neighborhood's top priorities while they can. In other words, there are a lot of NRP uncertainties out there, and little chance to affect them, so take the sure thing - your top priorities. There is nothing "criminal" here that I can see. There is, according to NRP, no "rule" being violated. I do think neighborhoods are borrowing trouble if they all wait for each other to fulfill the housing requirement. On this, Michael and I may well agree. It is certainly fair to say Prospect Park's actions will, in some incremental way, tie the hands of all neighborhoods to meet the 52.5 percent housing-and-housing-related standard in Phase II. (It probably also means that whatever $$ are left for Phase II - and I think there will be some - will probably all have to go to housing and housing-related purposes.) But the bottom line is, Prospect Park committed no crime, broke no rule at their recent meeting. They may have made a shortsighted decision, and borrowed trouble. That's a fertile basis for criticism, and doesn't need talk that crimes were committed and rules were broken. David Brauer King Field 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
