The Rant: Tom Leighton writes, "It's hard for me to hear the tone of the e-mail without wanting to re-frame the issue a bit."
Tom continues, "While there have been issues around certain projects, in my opinion it's an extreme stretch, and very counter-productive, to brand any of these organizations as "parasitic" or "unethical". " And continues: "While I object to characterizing non-profit development organizations in this way, the fact is that conversations between developers (non-profit or for-profit) and communities sometimes break down. This is a critically important issue for neighborhoods, as well as developers, and worth spending some time thinking and talking about." My answer: Before beginning this rant, let me say that Tom Leighton has shown himself sufficiently brave to raise the issue of "concentration of poverty in impacted areas" with his masters in Minneapolis' Planning Department. He has also noted the possibility of that such a pattern of discrimination may be a violation of federal law. Though he was totally ignored, I must say his act was very commendable. (Isn't it amazing that an act is considered commendable these days even though it is part of a city employee's job description? Most city planners would have covered the exposed parts of their anatomies by checking with their masters and City Council members before venturing to offer an opinion on any subject -- this by way of making sure their "professional judgment" accorded with the political requirements of the moment.) However, having said as much, I must add that Tom's actions have dramatized the reality of the "development" situation in Minneapolis. His disagreement with my description of non-profit developers throws light on the partnership (and conflict of interest) that has existed for sometime between these developers and the Minneapolis Planning Department. Such a partnership, I am sure, was originally created with the best of intentions by Council Members when they ordered the Planning Department to do what was necessary to help favored "developments" move forward. The problem is that these orders created a pattern whereby the planning department collaborated with favored developers in overcoming opposition of neighborhoods, often in defiance of the law itself. I have personally heard (and this is a matter of record, I'm sure) the Chair of the Minneapolis Z&P Committee order the City Attorney to write an opinion that would justify violating City ordinances and possibly federal fair housing law. (Remember I said order to, not ask for a best opinion of.) This has become a regular way of doing business in Minneapolis. It has also created a conflict of interest and resulted in a waste of taxpayer dollars. No wonder Minneapolis has such a hard time recruiting and retaining good planning staff. As guardians of the City Plan, these supposed "professionals" have become little more than paid "enablers". It's as if physicians were to serve no other purpose than to write prescriptions on demand for addicts. The guardians are guardians no longer. They've been instructed to ally themselves with wolves in order to guard the sheep. Is it any wonder, then, that the wolves feast on a couple of sheep from time to time? Or that planners now write opinions arguing that the loss of an occasional sheep or two to the wolves is good for the herd? I anticipate that Mike Christianson will change the term "collaboration" to something more candid and descriptive. While Tom is correct that there are ethical and responsible non-profit developers who are "open to neighborhood input", he is either naive or purposefully misleading when he lists them, for he includes a couple of the very worst. We in Ventura Village have found Alliance Housing to be very open and receptive in seeking neighborhood support for the Portland Village Project. We have also found Allen Arthur and CCHT very receptive to neighborhood input. American Indian Housing Corporation (or AICDC as it is now called) has been MORE than open and receptive; they have fully participated in the neighborhood's planning activities and have undertaken only those projects that were specifically identified as neighborhood needs. Each of these organizations has attempted to be as honest as possible with neighborhood residents and has solicited major design input from them. But Tom's inclusion of PPL in his list had to be a sick joke. In the past three years, PPL has not been responsive in any way to any neighborhood wish or concern. They have purposefully used their political power and friends to overcome any neighborhood action that did not support the original intention of PPL, regardless of the resultant harm to the neighborhood. I would challenge Tom Leighton to show me JUST ONE instance where PPL has been open and responsive to the neighborhood since the departure of Joe Salvaggio. JUST ONE! Open and responsive does not mean attempting to take over the neighborhood. Open and responsive does not mean being totally unconcerned about possible violations of federal law and discrimination against poor people. Open and responsive does not include ignoring neighborhood concerns and purposely housing recovering addicts and their children on the corner of Franklin and Chicago where the greatest concentration of drug dealers in Minneapolis does business. Well, this rant is over. Be sure to look for "suggestions" in #2, my next post. Jim Graham, Ventura Village >"The attempt to close the gap between what is known and what IS, is the temptation behind the apple in Genesis." REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ 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
