All: Greg Luce gave an exposition of how NRP works using Nerpy dollars. But I feel that he went off the track in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of his essay.
I'll blatently rip off his "Nerpy dollars" to state how I would state those paragraphs: "525,000 Nerpy Bucks to housing programs and related purposes (the 52.5 percent we always talk about); and 175,000 Nerpy Bucks go for all other allowed purposes. "What can the 525,000 Nerpy Bucks be spent on? There are three things that it can be spent on. They are: (1) housing; (2) housing related; and (3) otherwise permitted by law. "First, Nerpy bucks can be spent on "housing" programs including: "*rehabilitate existing housing and encourage homeownership *construct new housing *rehabilitate and construct new affordable housing *remove vacant houses and *rehab or construct community-based facilities "Second, the Nerpy Bucks can also be spent on "housing related" programs including: "*removing hazardous waste and pollution; *renovating, constructing, rehabilitating commercial and retail facilities; *eliminating "blighting influences"; *assisting in redevelopment of industrial properties; "Third, after the 525,000 Nerpy Bucks are spent, that leaves 175,000 Nerpy Bucks to go purposes "otherwise permitted by law" as the same subdivision of the law explicitly allows. "So, of these 175,000 Nerpy Bucks, what can we spend it on? Here, I have seen the light because of the brilliant exposition of Mr. Cross, I now agree with Steve Cross since, because they are "otherwise permitted," so clearly don't have to be either "housing" or "housing related." And by merely going on reading the section of the law, I find those "otherwise permitted" enumerated. They are: "*social needs *quality education *public health and safety *economic vitality *a sense of community *social benefits "These are clearly intended for expenditure of Nerpy dollars. After all, if subdivisions 3 and 4 of the law meant what I have incorrectly said before, then it renders subdivisions 2 and 5 meaningless. The legislature surely didn't enact meaningless law. To make my theory work, I'd have to explain what subdivisions 2 and 5 meant, and since I can't, then I must be wrong. Huzzah to Mr. Cross." Well, maybe Mr. Luce would leave out some of the commendations for myself, but I hope everyone will take my point nevertheless. If this doesn't work, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Steve Cross 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
