David Bruer writes: >"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." Jim Graham answers: I am amazed at this question. Where was such a question when David Fey and Eric Takashita were appointed? There were certainly big concerns about those two appointments and their connections with large non-profit developers and a possible bias in favor of large multi-unit rental housing projects by "non-profits". There was very real concern that those appointments would favor a top-down philosophy and local control of planning and NRP. "Issue" members might comment how those appointments have gone. Though it might seem a contradiction given their recent involvement, both Mike Christianson and Xiong have very real histories of being open to and supportive for bottom-up economic development and community based planning. The skepticism for these two should be on the part of large development supporters. These two appointments are probably the most open to "Bottom-Up" community based planning and economic development that have come from RT's administration. These appointments seem to indicate that the Mayor really has begun to take serious the promises he made during his campaign. RT promised to have MORE neighborhood and community control of economic development, and MORE neighborhood control of Planning, Housing and the NRP. Well two out of three is a start! (We will have to wait on the NRP. The day is growing near when the Mayor will need to put up or "crawfish" on NRP. The money is there; the question is who will control it? Top-down, large downtown and non-profit developers, OR the neighborhoods? Will the Mayor keep his promises?) As for "history", we need look no further than Xiong championing local initiatives and causes at the Met-Council. When the neighborhoods had to fight for projects from the Met Council the one sure friend who could be counted upon was Lee Pao Xiong. Given Xiong's background and experience in his immigrant community it is very likely he will continue his "history" of support for "affordable homeownership" and neighborhood initiative. I fully expect that Xiong will make use of that "Local" input to more creatively address the shortcomings of present affordable housing policy, (a lack of affordable homeownership), rather than beating the same old dead horse multi-unit rental housing that is already over developed. Xiong knows that the way to simultaneously create affordable housing and economic development is to give poor people the opportunity to OWN their on house. If you want to make poor people middle class in just a few years then give them the opportunity to own a house. Skeptics about Mike Christianson should also look at history. Ask real neighborhood people engaged in the fight for community based planning. While we have fought with some of Rybak's appointments to secure or maintain that "bottom-up" community based planning, NOT with Mike Christianson. It was Christianson that insisted on and brought community planners and representatives to give input into the "Phillips Partnership". They certainly have NOT been as welcome since Mike Christianson left. Mike Christianson KNOWS what potential there is for community based planning. He personally experienced it in Phillips. As for salaries, I do not mind paying to get quality people who will produce. I care about paying petty bureaucrats that hold a job and look for ways to stop neighborhood development rather than finding ways to make worthy projects happen. Fire three or four of those and replace them with a couple of good ones. Sounds like a good deal. Christianson and Xiong should save money by including more community-based planning, and give a much better product for Minneapolis at the same time. The Minneapolis Planning Department has been far behind the neighborhoods in both creative problem solving and progressive planning for several years. Both in capacity and creativity. I am sure Christianson will tap that resource to do a much better and less expensive job of planning. These forecasts and prognosticating are just that. They are based on potentials, not prescient knowledge. These appointments may turn out to be busts, but their real "history says otherwise. The race does not always go to the swiftest or the fight to the strongest. But that is where the smart money lies! I am betting on Lee Pao Xiong and Mike Christianson. I will be one of their harshest critics if they do not live up to their "Potential". Hopefully they will be personally meeting with some neighborhood planners in the near future. Personally meeting to start the dialogue that is necessary to make those prognostications a reality and not just a hope. Jim Graham, Ventura Village >"With calm eyes gauge your fellow men; with a calm heart deal with all matters; with a calm mind find the reason in things." - Hong Yingming 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
