The ying and the yang would have to express my feelings about Mr. Mork's posting in the wee hours of this morning.
I have to admit that I admired Jim Mork's description of the 1st Avenue Traffic experiment. The description of the neighborhood process flew as close to the mark as a written arrow could be. Though I happened to disagree with the other folks on the Whittier Board about the original Nicolett "diversion", I never remember them being shrill about it. Neighborhoods are probably not "shrill" enough on many occasions to get what they actually need from deaf politicians. High tones do make themselves heard more than soft tones sometimes to the hard of hearing. I sat on the Whittier Board when it was originally decided to divert traffic for supposedly "business" purposes, but actually to give some relief for the residents living along 1st Avenue. Some shortsighted "Business" people on the board vigorously supported the diversion as adding to their business, but the ultimate justification was the residents. At the time I advised making the street two way and forgetting the barricade, but some folks on the board felt that the City would never grant that so it was full steam ahead for the barricades. My opposition to the barricade led to some heated debate with my friend John Kramer and others on the Board as I remember. Jim Mork says: >Now it seems we have a group boosted into office on >the shoulders of neighborhoods. That must reflect an opinion by >voters that neighborhood concerns matter in a livable city. Now, >I wouldn't want business concerns forgotten. We don't need to >swing wildly from pole to pole. We just need to remember that >there is no trickle down effect. You cannot expect neighborhoods >to be preserved by attending only to the desires of business. And >revitalizing downtown has very little effect on other neighborhoods. How very true Mr. Mork is. Not only about the present group being "boosted" and reflecting the opinion of voters that neighborhoods "MATTER". Where the present Council and Mayor have faced some "shrillness" is when they have forgotten that fact after making strong promises. You cannot expect neighborhoods to be preserved by attending to only the desires of business. And I might add Non-profiteers to that attention to business. For the City to be livable we need to pay very strict attention to neighborhoods and their concerns. Business prospers only when the neighborhoods prosper. When the neighborhoods are not "livable" and decline the business climate will soon follow. The neighborhoods are the canary in the City's mineshaft. As long as the neighborhood bird is singing things are going good for everyone. When the neighborhood residents become quite sullen or "Shrill" the City needs to pay attention because bad and dangerous things are afoot. The shrillness about crime and concentrations of poverty in neighborhoods of color are such examples. Other examples were the shrillness that occured when there was a naked attempt to kill NRP or have Center Against Neighborhoods take out neighborhood control of it. But that shrillness helped present politicians when it warned them to avoid having a catastrophic vote against many of those same politicians in the coming election. Of course many politicians only want the "shrillness" when it is helping to elect them. NOT when it is demanding they fulfill their promises or when warning that their actions are dangerous for the City. This leads to the Yang of Mr. Mork's post. Jim how are neighborhoods, and the residents of them, to warn about problems without that complaining you talk about? Has it occured to you that possibly some people care enough about Minneapolis and "their" neighborhoods that they take the only measure that seems to work. Being shrill! Some of the most complaining are the ones most willing to do the REAL work in their neighborhood. The shrill complaining you hear is the mother cat and the barking dog being protective of their "family". It often comes from those most willing to WORK for their community. That caring causes them to attend countless community meetings and Council meetings. It also causes them to give money and work on campaigns, so politicians are wise to listen to that complaining. The reason those people stay and continue to complain is that they think the City is worth saving and making better. Otherwise they would just keep quite and quietly slink away to a neighborhood where they do not have to care. The reason Minneapolis is a great place is those same motivated and involved neighborhood residents. It is the envy of other Cities, and the only reason Minneapolis isn't as BAD as other "inner-cities" around the country. Our neighborhood residents "Care" enough to complain. They also "Care" enough to stay and fight. That rumbling noise you hear might not be complaining, but the growl of some protective resident. Jim Graham, Ventura Village >"Many a man has stood all his life, and in crowds, too, and yet never been noticed more than a lamppost. Yes, less than that, for a lamppost must by its nature hold up a lighted face." 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, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
