I find some recent veiled suggestions regarding the NRP Home Loan Guarantee Conjecture (it has never been allowed to become a genuine proposal) to be remarkable in their creative fantasy. I think some folks need to know the real genesis of the NRP Home Loan Guarantee Proposal. There seems to be some suggestion floating about that Peter McLaughlin, from ulterior motives, had something to do with this. I can see for conspiracy theorists with fantastical imaginations where this could come from. Some connection between * McLaughlin�s acceptance of the freeway access to Wells-Fargo and *the fact that he is on the NRP Policy Board and supported the NRP Home Loan Guarantee idea and * the fact that Wells-Fargo is a bank which gives less than glorious deals on home loans and *some assumption that those on the Policy Board are so stupid and amoral that we would intentionally set up a program to facilitate something like predatory lending for our own neighbors.
This is a heady concoction if it weren�t another sad case of impugning decent people�s motives through innuendo and irresponsible inflammatory language without knowing the facts. Remember, Neighborhood Policy Board Reps are elected and by an informed electorate of some of the City�s most active and knowledgeable citizens. The electors who elected us are those who have cared and worked hard for their neighborhoods. They would not have chosen people who are that stupid. However, this stuff becomes urban legend and goes on and on. Here�s another example of the same thing. I have already received nasty phone calls because of Gretchen Nichols damaging �money grabbing� language in the Strib. Perhaps others have too. People want to know if I am personally pocketing the 2 million. From the language they think someone grabbed something. What a sad joke, but, just as in the other case, this language has been used to cast shadows on the hard work of members of the Policy Board at a time when there are some who would like nothing better than to make it seem irresponsible, out of control and headed for the dust bin of history. Perhaps some light on this unformed proposal will help move the whole thing back into the realm of good, honest, sane and civil discussion about what it would be best to do. But maybe that's only �in my dreams�. The truth is McLaughlin had absolutely nothing to do with this proposal. He was as surprised as anyone that it came up. The real truth, if anyone cares about that poor beggar in this controversy, is that the elected (not appointed as claimed by the City Council this Friday) NRP Neighborhood Representatives had been discussing a variety of approaches such as this for a long time. Months, in fact. Suddenly we ran out of time and had to put conjectures to pen. We had been aware that there is a clear niche for a portion, but only a portion, of affordable housing money to be spent assisting home ownership in this way from our experience with our own neighbors. The plan in part was: 1) to set up a program that required homeownership classes on the order of those designed by PRG, 2) to use loan counciling, again as PRG or SNHS has done it, to avoid all predatory lending and 3) take advantage of the current low interest rates for low income buyers, and then 4) to have an agency available for foreclosure assistance with a mentoring/nurturing component to avoid these obvious difficulties. 5)Guarantee 20% of the mortgage until that portion is paid off 6)Then return that portion to the fund for use again on another mortgage. No one ever suggested that we spend ALL the money that way. With 10 million to spend on affordable housing, we believed it was timely to take a fifth or even less of that money for a targeted group we are aware exists. Perhaps this could be a pilot program. Our motivation was to engage in equity/stability building for some lower income families. A number of us (who have no connection to banking at all) simply felt that the housing issue has complexities greater than a single solution can accommodate. This was in no way an attack on new construction or those who support this. It wasn�t an attack on anyone. In fact, we all support new construction of affordable housing. We simply tried to come up with some cost saving creativity and all hell breaks loose. We are accused of �raiding� a fund for which we are to have the responsibility of setting policy. I have no idea what nerve we struck and why the response was so volatile. This effort to form a new policy came about because the neighborhood reps on the Policy Board were listening to the pain of our neighbors who planned and voted to build houses they cannot buy. We were not trying to do anything other than something we thought to be wise, caring and valuable. We were not trying to attack the Mayor. Nor does he need Ms. Nichols to protect him from us. Nor were we trying to be uppity with NRP so-called power. I believe we walked into someone else�s plot or urban myth and inadvertently flipped some switch that we didn�t even know was there. We exercised our right to begin a process to determine the policies that govern NRP funds. This has been going on for years. In addition, we simply voted to move ahead toward a formal proposal. There is no proposal yet. For this creative concern with a wise use of money on the part of Neighborhood Policy Board Reps, we are being pilloried as conspirators and the NRP Affordable Housing Conjecture(it isn�t even a formed proposal yet) is being relentlessly pounded on by a City Council frequently lurching from one self-created crisis to another. Can anyone explain this to me? Right now what I know is: 1) There was no proposal for the City Council to vote on, therefore their pre-emptive action seems to embrace the very poor procedures which they condemned. (as graciously noted by CM Zerby) 2) This NRP Affordable Housing Conjecture is not part of a broad conspiracy 3) Everyone who proposed this is open to rational serious discussion and modification of the whole thing. We simply wanted to form the proposal. 4) There has as yet not been the serious and careful discussion and research from CMs that one would expect about this proposal as a valuable response to specific issues concerning many citizens. It was dismissed too hastily and with too much aplomb. 5) The escalation of overheated language is unnecessary and unhelpful. 6) Council Members are unwise and ungenerous to beat up on their well-meaning citizens in this way. Right now many Council and Mayoral observers have no cogent explanation for the extreme reaction to this non-proposal. Can someone offer one? From President Bush to our own City Council, pre-emptive strikes seem the order of the day. Carol Ann Pass, NRP Neighborhood Policy Board Rep. East Phillips Neighborhood __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com 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
