List members: Despite his suspension, I offered Jim Graham a chance to respond to Steve Cramer's initial post. I thought that was only fair since Steve wrote in shortly after Jim was suspended.
For the record, I took out one section that deals with whether or not Steve Cramer broke list rules (I have such discretion with forwarded posts only). I've dealt with that issue in a earlier post today. Here are Jim's thoughts: I have decided to take David at his word and answer Steve Cramer's personal attack. I have been very careful not to portray the PPL-CVI project in personal terms or to attack Steve Cramer. Yet he has felt it necessary to treat the issue as if it were a personal one. What's more, he has done so in cowardly fashion by attacking me on the Minneapolis Issues forum at a time when he thought I wouldn't be able to defend myself. If his outburst were not so terribly sad, I'd find it amusing. He simply cannot have forgotten that it was I who tried time and time again to compromise with PPL on the CVI project. He himself invited me to meet with him to resolve our differences. But at the meeting, he in essence suggested that I shut up, sit down, and accept whatever PPL wanted. Not much to resolve there. I retorted by suggesting (and even pleading rather strongly with Steve) that PPL join with the neighborhood to open fortress communities for supportive housing and to use the Chicago-Franklin area for supportive homeownership. Steve said that was impossible and that funders were insisting the project be located only at Franklin and Chicago. Now, is anyone scratching his head here? Is anyone asking why public entities such as the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, the State of Minnesota, and even HUD would demand that a project that not only violates Minneapolis ordinances, but HUD regulations on "Impacted Areas" and Federal Fair Housing, be built in outright defiance of the wishes of the affected community? He starts out by calling people in Ventura Village a bunch of "white homeowners". But he's well aware that the people suing PPL and Minneapolis to stop CVI include as many African American and Native Americans as white people. Whether he uses the term "white homeowners" in a pejorative sense to deceive and mislead, I will not say. Readers must draw their own conclusions. And then there is this delicate observation: "I am quite certain a ruling by the Federal District Court thwarting Mr. Graham's (and Ventura Village's) goal to stop the Collaborative Village Initiative (CVI) project in mid-stream pushed him over the edge." Now, Cramer knows full well the temporary injunction that Ventura Village asked for was intended to prevent PPL from pleading hardship when the court case is eventually decided against them. To paraphrase the words of the presiding judge, PPL risks millions of public dollars by going ahead with the CVI project before the issue is settled. No doubt he was vastly amused by PPL's presumption that the case is over and that they have prevailed. (By the way, I can hardly be said to have gone "over the edge". I still have my wits about me, and, even though I hoped for a positive outcome on the petition for an injunction against PPL, which would have save the taxpayers millions of dollars, I did not view it as an adverse ruling. I only wish Cramer were capable of sharing some of my concern for the taxpayers.) Cramer says: "Even so, the poisonous language was remarkable even by his standards. There is no excuse for spewing such venom." To which I can only reply, physician cure thyself. I said nothing half so rancorous and mean as the words with which Cramer refers to me in the paragraphs above. Once again, I would direct his attention to the fact that it was I whom he felt it necessary to call the first minute he took over the directorship of PPL-at which time I advised him to talk to his own Board, because I had faith that with his leadership we could resolve the problem. Indeed, I continued to feel that way right up to the moment he posted his attack on me. What a wasted opportunity! Cramer says: "The organization Graham attacked (and not for the first time) has been a vital force in the Twin Cities for more than three decades." Unfortunately, it's not what it once was. From a community-based effort designed to help people, PPL has evolved into a rogue organization that has no concern for either communities or the people they should be serving. It is now an affluent, bloated entity that battens upon the problems of the weak. Its callous unconcern for its clients and neighbors over the years had earned it such a bad reputation in the Phillips community (where the organization was born) that I felt it necessary to help rehabilitate its image a few years ago and attempted to establish a more positive relationship with it. I now feel very guilty for having been so vain and naive as to think such a thing was possible. Alas, the CVI project is in part the result of that misguided attempt. For those who are interested, I will provide details off line. Cramer says, "Then there is Ventura Village and Jim Graham. Simply put they have declared war on PPL, and its time for us to respond. Here is a different perspective for Minneapolis Issues List readers to consider when they evaluate the current state of affairs between PPL and the handful of white homeowners, including Graham, who hold an iron grip on the Ventura Village organization." The truth is otherwise. In fact, Cramer and PPL have decided to sack our neighborhood, and they believe they have the political power to get away with it. "War," cries Cramer. Apparently that is the case, at least in his mind. Surely it's consistent with PPL's strategy of forming alliances with people such as Basim Sabri in order to take over Ventura Village. They will be coming to our next meeting with precisely that end in mind and have bragged about it openly. Cramer says, "The root cause of tension is PPL's commitment to build Collaborative Village at Elliot and Franklin." He's confused cause and symptom here. The source of the tension between him and us is the continued mismanagement of every project that PPL owns in Ventura Village. The organization cannot point to a single instance where they've exercised responsible stewardship of their properties in the neighborhood. Cramer says, "Graham persists in characterizing the future tenants of the project as 'recovering addicts'. I assume he does not mean the children who will reside there instead of a shelter or a relative's couch, nor does he mean the future adult tenants whose disability has nothing to do with drugs. Mr. Graham must have a powerful crystal ball to know in advance the mix of tenants before PPL or our partner Pillsbury United Communities (PUC) have selected among applicants." Once again, Cramer is misleading. He knows very well that PPL and its partners have claimed from the outset that these are the people who will be housed in the project. Indeed, it was on these very grounds that they attempted to force the City of Minneapolis to violate its own zoning ordinance. If that's not the case, Cramer should withdraw PPL's request that the quarter mile exclusion rule be ignored. Cramer says: "One more fact about CVI. Funding for the project is being provided - despite the cloud of the Ventura Village suit - by the City of Minneapolis, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Hennepin County, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Home Loan Bank, the National Equity Fund, Twin Cities United Way, and the Otto Brememr Foundation. These are not institutions which hold ill will for the inner-city." Cramer inadvertently makes an important point here: This is not private development, it's quasi-public housing. As such, it falls under the Hollman Decree, and the City of Minneapolis has violated its agreement with the Federal Court. PPL may feel they are above federal and state law, but they are not-- as they will soon discover. Cramer: "Graham's screed repeats the saw about non-profit organizations victimizing helpless neighborhood organizations like Ventura Village because of our money and power. Please." Please, indeed! What I have said--repeatedly--is that unscrupulous non-profits victimize neighborhoods. I have been very clear about this, as I have been about the fact that responsible organizations are a benefit to the neighborhoods. I have even listed the latter. Any casual observer of Minneapolis City Hall knows that affluent neighborhoods hold considerable sway over decision-making, but poor "impacted neighborhoods" are continually victimized. Why is it, I would ask Cramer, that almost all the city's supportive housing is concentrated in these neighborhoods? In fact, CVI is, by the admission of PPL staff, sited in Ventura Village because PPL did not have the stomach to fight a more powerful neighborhood and council member, both of them opposed to CVI. Cramer: "For PPL's part, in virtually every interaction over 30 plus years it has been possible to find common ground with other interested groups - including neighborhood organizations". Our neighborhood has had the opposite experience with PPL. The organization has taken advantage of Ventura Village at every turn and lately has used its considerable political power to override both the neighborhood's wishes and the city ordinances. PPL representatives began by telling us that they had the political power to get what they wanted, and if we did not like it, they were going to "stuff it down the neighborhood's throat". Some common grounds! Cramer touts PPL's work on Portland Village. How many taxpayer dollars were they given, I wonder, in development fees for that project? People might want to inquire of Muriel Simmons about the beneficence of PPL when they wanted to take her house as part of the project. And they should be sure to ask who it was who helped defend her from PPL's lawyers when they tried arbitrarily to change their agreement with her. Cramer says, "Predictably Graham attacks Chicago Crossings at Chicago and Franklin as the cause of drug problems in Ventura Village. The assertion that a building causes the drug trade so many have combated so vigorously in so many ways is simplistic and ignorant of the complex underlying causes of the crack phenomenon in Urban America." Well, yes, I'd be more than happy to give credit to PPL for fighting the crime problem at Chicago Crossings-if there were any to give. But there simply is none. PPL's refusal to address the problem for years created an open sewer at the strip mall. The neighborhood begged PPL to do something about it, but the organization refused to admit that a problem existed. Cramer boasts about PPL's cop shop at Chicago Crossings. The question is: Why did it fail so miserably when the one at Ancient Traders just two blocks away has been so successful? (If I were a drug dealer, I would gratefully credit PPL for making their strip mall one of the best venues for drug dealing in the country.) The good news here is that PPL is now selling Chicago Crossings. Needless to say, we all hope that the new owners will manage the shopping center more responsibly than PPL did and that they will end the drug dealing that PPL helped to create. Crammer says, " Our staff have put their personal safety at stake many times. We have also focused on finding productive options for those who might gravitate towards drugs as an alternative." Oddly enough, PPL employee Ron Price testified under oath that he did not see that much drug dealing even though PPL office windows front Chicago Crossing. Now, Cramer can't have it both ways here. Either Price was telling the truth, in which case PPL's staff can't really be said to have "risked their personal safety many times," or (what is in fact the case) there is a great deal of drug dealing going on at PPL's strip mall, and the organization will not acknowledge it. Cramer has the gall to say, "[PPL's] response over several years has been a team effort involving many groups and individuals from the area. And we have had success." He's right, there has been a team effort involving many groups and individuals in fighting the drug problem on Franklin Avenue, but PPL was never part of it. Though the problem has not been eliminated, it has been dramatically reduced through the efforts of responsible businesses and the bravery of residents of the neighborhood. This team included neither PPL nor Steve Cramer. Cramer says, "There are many other points to be made - about PPL's relationship with the Somali community (25% of our tenants, a large number of employment trainees and three full-time staff are Somali, and our relations are excellent), the motives of our staff (dedication, service, compassion, selfless are terms that some to mind) ... I could go on and on, but won't". That was a prudent decision by Cramer, given the fact that an elderly Somali man stood up at a neighborhood meeting recently and made a motion that Ventura Village sanction PPL by withholding all support until they (PPL) begin to act as better neighbors. The motion passed unanimously, with every Somali in the room voting for it (this after months of complaints by Somalis that PPL had discriminated against them). Even the other non-profit and service organizations who were present at the meeting voted in favor of the motion. This seemed to impress PPL staff, so perhaps the organization is taking corrective action. Cramer: "Here is the final point. Graham's recent diatribe was in response to an inquiry from a list member elsewhere in Minneapolis. His precise language was deeply offensive, but the essence of his message was he hopes PPL will leave Ventura Village. No chance. Our new Service Center and Headquarters is under renovation at 11th and Franklin. CVI will be built. We are almost done with a new single-family home to be sold to a lower-income buyer at 21st and Elliot. Our building across from Chicago Crossings will be renovated into an education and employment learning center as part of our current $10.8 million capital campaign." In a moment of hubris, PPL Executive Director Jim Schiebel once promised that if Ventura Village did not want PPL, then PPL would move, and we 'd see how we liked it. Frankly, the only way that that delightful event might come to pass is if Ventura Village were to become so affluent that PPL could not use it for their "Capital Campaigns". We can only hope that political leaders across the city will wake up and deny to PPL the tax dollars the organization so arrogantly claims as its tribute for stealing our neighborhood. As I said in the beginning, I had very much hoped Steve Crammer would see the light and agree to collaborate with the neighborhood. Sadly, I know now there will be no compromise or partnership with PPL. PPL's Board and Cramer have decided that they already own Ventura Village, so why compromise on anything? A helluva note to end on, but sadly there it is. Goodbye to all, Jim Graham Ventura Village P.S. People reading this please, please, ask questions about the tax dollars going to PPL for CVI. Ask about the support from politicians for such an organization to ignore the laws and ordinances. Please call our United States Senators and Congressmen and ask them to have HUD begin an investigation. 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
