� It's been interesting to read all the posts about property taxes, especially regarding the struggle of poor residents to stay in the city.
Wizard Marks: "Only the poor are being driven out of the city. The middle class have "rediscovered" us. We've been sitting in these big, old, high maintenance houses for long over 30 years because they were all we could afford." Gregory Luce: "More and more, Minneapolis is pushing the poor out, rather than lifting the poor up." Bill Cullen: "Over the past few years, we have heard our leaders talk about the need for affordable housing. They have poured millions into housing projects across the city." What I find most interesting about this, and what I'd like to question, is the underlying assumption behind these statements. Specifically, that Minneapolis has an obligation to the poor and to create "affordable housing." I have to agree with Robert Goldman that the suburbs design out many potential problems like poverty, homelessness, and new immigrants. Their main function, and the main function of most cities when you get down to it, is "growth." They want to expand their tax-base and create new housing that the middle-class and the wealthy can move into. That said, Minneapolis is in a period of growth right now too, where the middle class has, as Wizard said, "rediscovered" us. Also, academically speaking, the geographic patterns of poverty are beginning to change, moving from the urban core to older, 1st-ring suburbs. This raises a question for me: what is Minneapolis' obligation to provide things like affordable housing and support services? Does its status as the largest city in the state change the politics of growth from those in the suburbs? We've seen a continuous pattern of the state and region expecting the central cities to provide all of these services, but then cutting all of their aid to do so. Without state funding, is Minneapolis' choice between growth and helping the poor? And why should Minneapolis be denied its chance for growth? As a matter of fact, if the city did not have to subsidize affordable housing, property taxes would be lower, and people like the working lower-middle class Dan McGrath could more easily afford to stay here. I'm sure that, by now, I have given a terrible impression of my views toward the poor. What I'm really trying to do is sort these questions out for myself. What I'd most like to consider is, can growth and serving the poor come together? Or is it one or the other -- new homes for the upper-middle class, or homes for the poor? Does the city have an obligation to the poor? If so, should the state be helping us more? And, if the state were helping, couldn't the poor, middle-class, and wealthy all find places to live in Minneapolis? --Jeff Rosenberg East Isles 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
