Dennis Plante wrote:

If you want to do everyone a favor, including the impoverished, lower-class,
maybe mobilizing to pass a city ordinance that caps the number of rental
properties by neighborhood?


Bill Cullen Responds:

Is rental property density or concentration of poverty the problem?

There are many neighborhoods that have a high concentration of rental
property and do not have the problems of North Mpls.  I am unable to find
rental property density information by neighborhood.  Maybe someone could
provide me with a URL?  However, I suspect that Loring Park, Downtown and
parts of Uptown have nearly as high or higher rental property density than
North Mpls.  I know those neighborhoods are not perfect, but none of them
have the constant battle North Mpls has.

The danger in blaming landlords is that tenants believe they are not the
problem.  I once received an application from a tenant that had been evicted
five times -- all because the "landlords were slumlords."  It never occurred
to this lady that maybe she was doing something wrong (especially
frightening because a lease violation must be proven in court to win an
eviction!).

I am not saying landlords have no responsibility; only that the tenants have
to be held accountable if we want them to behave differently.




Jim Graham wisely added:

the only way to create affordable housing without concentrating poverty is
to create more "affordable homeownership".  ....  The City of Minneapolis
has totally ignored the implications of the Hollman Decree.


Bill Cullen Responds:

I agree.  Our current solutions are likely to repeat our past results.
Instead of Public Housing, we concentrate poverty in heavily subsidized
buildings owned by the private sector (usually a non-profit).  Who expects
different results from this?

If we help people purchase their own home we give them an investment in the
community and an asset to build on.  For those families unable to purchase
(or not ready to), we should provide them with something like "rent stamps."
Then every rental property in the twin cities is affordable housing and
opens up all the neighborhoods to low income families.

The best part?  Both options cost a lot less than $158,828 per unit!

Regards, Bill Cullen
Hopkins & Uptown.


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Dennis Plante
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 3:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Crusaders;Affordable Housing




Jim Mork Wrote:

I agree with the idea that no city problem should be solved on the back of a
poor neighborhood.  Cooper or Kenwood could be a location as easily as any
other.  Two PRACTICAL problems I'd like seen addressed, though. Problem 1:
Nice neighborhoods generally contain well-maintained properties. That fact
TENDS to make it pretty expensive to acquire property for any kind of social
institution.  Contrast that with a poor neighborhood which probably has high
densities uninhabitable properties.  Poor people generally can't shoulder
the expense nor have the energy for the kind of maintenance activities that
keep property expensive.  So, what is a practical choice.  Spend MORE
taxpayer dollars to acquire property that doesnt need a change of use?  Or
get rid of something that is unfit for use and build something new?  Because
I'm sorry but it is sounding to me like some of the residents of these poor
neighborhoods have some real RESISTANCE about being neighbors to people who
have problems.  I guess I understand that, but to make a different "crusade"
about shoving the people into Kenwood or somewhere else sounds like
prejudice.  OK, fine, prejudice is nobody's exclusive property.  But it is
aggravating to have the people who feel that way tee off on OTHERS about it
seems a bit hypocritical. It sounds like these people are saying "OK, you
made the effort to keep your property up. Here's your rewardd, the people WE
don't want to live next to!  Gotta love the justice of statements like that.

Dennis Plante Responds:

On the surface Jim, your contention that that well-maintained properties in
more affluent neighborhoods would be cost-prohibitive to include in the
affordable housing mix seems valid.  However, I think it's important to way
both all the costs and all the benefits before coming to that assumption.

I'd be curious to find-out just how proportinate the staffing of the 4th
precinct is to the number of citizens it provides services to.  Who pays for
this currently?  I'd be curious to find-out just how less likely a child
would be to join a gang, commit a crime, or generally end-up not reaching
their full potential IF they had at least some options for positive role
models and options available to them? Who pays for this currently?  I'd be
curious to find-out just how many of the young African American males we
currently have incarcerated MIGHT not be there, had they been afforded the
same opportunities that their more fortunate WHITE counterparts had?  How
much does this cost, and who pays for it.

Not too awfully long ago, classroom size (in MN schools) was a hot topic.
To make a bad analogy, would you rather have your child (assuming the
teacher's skills were equal) enrolled in a school that had a class size of
20-1, or 40-1?  I have known far too many minority children in my
neighborhood that came from both stable and unstable homes, that were sucked
into a life of crime and pverty due mainly to the overwhelming peer pressure
they felt.  Right now, the neighborhood I live in has a 40-1 ratio, and I
want it changed.

My main reason for becoming a proponent on this issue is NOT because I want
to "reward" Kenwood (or other affluent neighborhoods) for their hard work by
making them take the people "I don't want to live next to", but to give the
people that I live next to as close to the same chance (in life) as I have
had.  They will never get it as long as we compact them into very limited
geographic spaces.

Not to say that this is the ideal end result, but I quite often read the
outdoor section of the Strib.  I recently came across an article written by
a late 70's man (it had a photo) that had taken his grandson fishing at a
northern Minnesota lake.  The grandson caught a very nice Walleye.  The
grandfather was a "lilly-white" Norwegian, and his adopted grandson was a 10
year-old black child from Jamaica.  For most of the children (in my
neighborhood) the potential for this experience will never become part of
their reality.  Personally, I'd like them all to have the ability to
experience it and form their own opinions.

Dennis Plante
Jordan

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

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

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

Reply via email to