I agree with both David and Karen regarding the hasty challenges and negative assumptions regarding the new CPED hires, although I find it interesting that an Interim Director is doing the hiring.
My more immediate concern is over city housing policy specifically, and economic development policy in general. In particular, I'd urge a very market-oriented approach that minimizes public expenditures/subsidies by local government. I don't believe that current rental housing vacancy rates warrant more new, highly subsidized construction by non-profit organizations. I feel a more effective approach would simply subsidize low-income renters in current housing (and I'd recall the recent study by a Mpls Fed economist to support that position), while relying on inspections to help assure a quality rental stock. I realize there are limits programmatically on what can be done with given sources of funding, but I think that is THE challenge facing the CPED team-- how to make it work in a cost-effective manner; and that will require collaboration and MAJOR INNOVATION. Granted, including affordable housing units with larger market-based housing developments (that receive public subsidy) is a required, and positive strategy that furthers several goals (especially when the subsidized units ARE co-located with the market=rate units), the larger emphasis should be on stimulating private- not public development. Building new subsidized units penalizes private owners of rental housing and will drive them out of this marketplace-- there is no doubt about it. If your rentals are vacant, and the government keeps building more, it makes no sense to maintain your property and stay in the game; best to cash out and enter the game elsewhere. But, I don't think we want local government destroying the private rental housing marketplace in Mpls.-- that is a death spiral we don't want started. Recent density bonus incentives incorporated in the zoning code further our housing goals without the use of public dollars; and, adding mixed-use, commercial/retail components serve as added incentive for developers to make local investments. Economic development, jobs, and housing-- this is what CPED is all about. I think local government should be helping plan and facilitate strategies that move us toward the broad goals in these areas-- however, it should not attempt to provide the jobs, housing, etc. directly via public subsidy. That is not the role of local government. Michael Hohmann Linden Hills -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 8:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Mpls] Mayor Rybak's CDEP appointees In a message dated 7/14/2003 7:42:22 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems time for our city council to voice their outrage at the CDEP appointments coming from Mayor Rybak... There seems to be no fear by Mayor Rybak that he will be held accountable for this most recent insult and raiding of our coffers... Please, let the Mayor know this is not going to be taken in silence. Margaet Hastings-Minneapolis-Kingfield [KC] I'm sorry, I don't get it. Why are you expecting the people recently appointed will not be good for the City? Do you have some evidence of which I am totally unaware? The fact that someone known by Lee Sheehy was appointed should not be a detriment. At least he knows going in what the person is capable of doing. I am sure he took quite a reduction in pay from his law firm to accept the position. The other individual had a track record in St. Paul. Let's withhold judgment until these individuals are on the job and can show us what they are capable of doing. Why is this an insult to the people of Minneapolis? I just don't get it. Karen Collier Linden Hills [DB] I, too, would like to hear a bit more about what he will actually do - and in fact, what he has specifically done - before pronouncing him an outrage. But snap judgments aside, I do think the mayor and Mr. Sheehy should take note of some legitimate concerns: 1. Restructuring. How can the city justify $100,000 salaries at a time of layoffs - and when a similar number of MCDA high-level execs were let go. 2. Related to #1: Is this about downsizing, or merely cleaning house at the top? 3. The 35W Access Project has split neighborhoods and activists. It has been portrayed as helping major employers at the expense of neighborhood livability (though others say major employers and neighborhood livability will both be improved). Was Mike Christensen involved in the Access Project, and how will he handle it as head of strategic partnerships and planning? 4. What neighborhood-level experience does the CPED leadership bring? Based as much on history as any one appointee's resume, there is skepticism that economic development will be guided by a "bottom-up" philosophy (as opposed to a long-running "big-employer, top-down" one.) How can the mayor or Mr. Sheehy reassure reasonable skeptics that CPED's "reform" is nothing more than repackaged top-down. As you can tell, I find the snap judgments and instant memorials silly and premature. I hope elected & appointed officials will at least answer reasonably skeptical questions as a way for all of us to make better, fairer judgments, whatever those judgments may be. David Brauer King Field - end - 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
