In disagreement with Mr. Brauer I believe that we need to review, and possibly repair, the problems with the NRP prior to moving on to the mechanics of Phase II. There is no way that the NRP is going to repair itself without external pressure and review.
I believe that the NRP wanted to showcase the Reallocation Meeting in Prospect Park to illustrate how the NRP can work effectively. But, no matter how hard they try, no amount of spin or blind optimism can hide the glaring problems in the current implementation. These problems are: Legality, managerial control, participation, equal representation, effective decision making, and accountability. I'm going to cover these in a series of posts. 1) Legality Although the NRP management would like to ignore it and Steve Cross would like to deny it, it appears that the NRP is operating outside of its legal mandate. Mr. Cross' logical contortions to eke out an interpretation that justifies spending on social and educational expenditures falls short. Please allow me to provide an interpretation that cuts through the Gordian knot of NRP legislation: The additional language that covers health, safety, and social needs refers to the fact that the allowable expenditures listed in Subdivision 3 for housing must be made with these considerations in mind. Any other references refer specifically to the social allocations (i.e., the percentages of TIF financing predefined by the statute) in Subdivision 4. The statue details exactly what types of expenditures can be made: those in Subdivision 3 for housing and related purposes, and provides for no other specific expenditures except those necessary to carry out the program and the percentages set aside for TIF revenues. You can huff and you can puff, but you can't make this statute into something it's not. As I understand it, the legislature pulled the TIF financing for the NRP partially because they we upset that revenues were being expended for purposes not in line with the original goals of the program. Which is why the City is now in the mess it is in trying to scramble to find other sources of revenue for Phase II. If the program had actually stuck to its mandate there might be no worries about Phase II. Which leads directly into another issue. What's all this hand waving about the 52.5%. If that was what was required to be spent on housing, why not insure that it was? Why wait until Phase II? A phase that may never actually occur. There's absolutely no reason that the NRP couldn't have met this goal in Phase I if they had been acting in good faith. And if they had not been so arrogant as to ignore it, they might not have lost the TIF financing that has them threatened with extinction. Which leads me to a local question. If the NRP is acting in good faith in fulfilling its mandate, why not simply inform Prospect Park that money originally budgeted for housing cannot be reallocated to other items. It's absurd that at this time when the program is behind in meeting its goal that they would allow funds to be diverted from housing. This means that the original roughly 40% of Prospect Park's Plan that was intended for housing is now down to roughly 25% while the entire program is still short of its goal with little likelihood that it will ever meet it. Barb Lickness writes: "NRP fully expects that there will be neighborhoods that will invest well over the 52.5% on housing activities during Phase II of this program if it is allowed to proceed." "If it is allowed to proceed?" Why should the NRP be trusted to do any better in the future than it's done in the past? It's like a contractor who's quoted you a price on a job, stops in the middle, and tells you they can't finish unless you cough up more money. Maybe it's time to get a new contractor. So, pray tell, what would realistically happen if in Phase II the NRP fails to meet the 52.5%. Is the state going to sue them? Will the NRP force each neighborhood to refund a portion of their allocations (which is not legal anyway if the funds have already been contracted for)? No, what I think would happen is that the NRP takes the Phase II money and goes on merrily on as it has in the past ignoring the housing mandate. That is unless the NRP is reformed prior to receiving Phase II funds. 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
