Jim Graham wrote: > Looking through different Sites for neighborhoods I came upon a great > article at the Nokomis site. www.nokomiseast.org > The article that follows is copied from that site. Not > believing I could say it better I simply copied it and present it here.
I certainly hope that you could have presented it better, because this letter is misleading and hyperbole. It uses false arguments to motivate people through irrationality and FEAR. The same tactics that have been used in my neighborhood to push though proposals and pack meetings. Which is why I hope that we can return to a fairer more representative democracy. > Longfellow/Nokomis Messenger, June 2003 > "Your Seat at the Table" > by Rita Ulrich and Doug Walter > > "Last Chance" > A meeting scheduled for June 17 may be the last opportunity > for Nokomis and Longfellow area residents to have a real say in > what happens in and to your neighborhoods. At stake is our > city's unique and effective system of citizen involvement in > local planning and development. Why is it the "last opportunity"? I believe that a vote for a councilmember provides a real say in what happens in my neighborhood. Certainly, being a member of my neighborhood association didn't allow me to have any control over whether issues have represented the views of a majority or even a plurality of residents. > Some members of the City Council and the Mayor's office would > like our city to return to the old district planning system, > where even the most minute planning and funding decisions reside > exclusively within City Hall. I believe that the mayor has said that he wants the neighborhood associations to influence planning decisions. >Gone would be neighborhood-based planning and priorities. Gone would be direct control of tax revenues by non-representative contactors with no real safeguards, checks, or balances. > Gone would be the neighborhood organizations and volunteer-based > projects and improvements. Are they going to pass a law banning volunteer-based projects and improvements? > Gone would be housing improvement loans and grants along with > any economic development projects. The MCDA would be prevented from providing home improvement loans and economic development projects? > Gone too would be seniors' and children's programs, > additional police coverage, and many more of the enhancements > that result from direct neighborhood empowerment. There are no other seniors and children's programs other than those funded with NRP dollars? > This meeting, the last of several being held around the city, > is about what happens to NRP-the Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization > Program. Through a series of carefully orchestrated statements, the City > would have you believe we can no longer afford NRP; that funding the > neighborhoods would necessitate a severe reduction in core city services. The money to fund the NRP has to come from somewhere and the State Legislature has shifted the responsibility for it to the city. So is there a funding proposal for the NRP that would insure that no reductions are required in core city services? > The truth is that while there is less money available to fund NRP, there is > still adequate funding to continue the program with voluntary reductions. I thought that we were considering closing libraries and laying off police personnel. Am I wrong? > FACT: NRP represents less than 1% of the city budget and is independent > of the City's general fund, the revenue source for services like police, > fire, and Public Works. And, unlike those services, NRP funding is not > affected by the State's cuts to Local Government Aid (LGA). FACT: NRP > recently set aside one million dollars for additional community policing > to relieve pressure on the City's budget. I would argue that the NRP has no legal legitimacy to fund community policing and that doing so is indicative of how much it abuses its mandate. And it looks to me as if it is just a political maneuver. > The City has offered a token trade for the neighborhoods' > voice and funding in the development process: Designated > residents would be allowed to sit on various city committees > to communicate the neighborhoods' wishes. Sounds good until > you remember that's how things used to be. The political reality > is that without funding, there is no voice at the City's table. No voice in city government? I thought that we lived in a democracy and that we are able to vote and elect representatives. I would argue that the "neighborhoods' wishes" not the interests of residents themselves, rather they are the wishes of neighborhood activists. The boards of neighborhood associations are not necessarily elected in fair and democratic processes. > Can these few Council members and the Mayor afford to kill NRP? Politically maybe not, but otherwise I hope they can and I would urge them to do so. The NRP is a government agency run amuck. > Consider this: Over 200,000 NRP volunteer hours are donated by > citizens each year towards bettering Minneapolis. The total number of volunteer hours do not speak to the value or the legality of the outcomes. > In addition, neighborhood groups have leveraged $4 for every $1 of > NRP funds spent, generating more than a HALF BILLION DOLLARS in > outside investment for development and revitalization entirely within > our neighborhoods. Do you have a reference for these statistics? Michael Atherton Prospect Park TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ 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
