While I'd like to get back to the affordable housing discussion and hope to jump in on that in a bit, it's good to get continued discussion of NRP. Fred's historic perspective is really helpful to put it into context.
I've been what some could say a committed nay-sayer about NRP and I've often used arguments similar to that of Michael Atherton. I do think he has a valid point, in that participation is difficult for some and, in some organizations, participation is strictly watched over and hyper-controlled so that those who do show up are those for whom the agenda already fits. Sort of a circular problem where people participate if what is on the plate is relevant, but those who are already participating have defined what is relevant. I'd like to see much more outreach and inclusiveness, and part of that is not simply designing programs for those who show up, but also making a committed effort to figure out what is relevant and what could benefit those who do not show up. What are neighborhoods committed to do for the homeless, for instance, or specifically for low-income tenants? My frustration overall with NRP proponents is the general lack of acknowledgement of some need for reform or even a good discussion of what reform could mean. I think Cam Gordon has tried to address this as an NRP board member, but not sure how much success he has found. I'd especially like to see additional--but certainly not exclusive--means of participation, and one of those could be a more regional participation focus as well as an affinity group or cultural group focus, which may increase overall participation by Latinos, Somalis, tenants, and others who have not been as welcome or included in NRP efforts (and particularly benefits) in the past. Now, before folks personalize this, I certainly acknowledge NRP's remarkable success of involving residents. It's remarkable to see and, in agreement with Barb Lickness, a model of citizen participation. But, as she also said, it's not perfect. I believe it could use a hefty tune up to be better. Gregory Luce St. Paul -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of fmarkus Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 6:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Mpls] Stone Arch Apartments - Affordable to who? Perspective does wonders for elevating discourse. In the 1950s and '60s, urban renewal was a blunt instrument. Highways ate neighborhoods, demolition trumped preservation, people affected were objectified by decision-makers remote from the living realities involved. In the 1970s, post the time of troubles in the late '60s, steps were taken at the federal level to give people affected at least an advisory voice in what was being contemplated for their living situations. We had quite an abrasive time with that notion in Minneapolis at first and the lessons learned then were applied by new leadership in the 1980s. Remember LUPA in the mid-'80s? The Minnesota Land Use Planning Act? What a toothless wonder that turned out to be. Some suburbs are still dragging their feet on affordable housing issues and we are twenty years beyond that early effort. In our fair city, NRP was born in the 1990s and it caught on in a big way. What had started out as a thin veneer of "professional citizens" in the 1970s - as then City Council Member Dziedzic described the impudent rascals who insisted that Minneapolis toe the marks laid down by federal imperatives - became a force to be reckoned with as neighborhood after neighborhood learned how to take on decision-making previously reserved for the cadre in City Hall. Still advisory, mind you, but multiplied exponentially and exceedingly fine-grained and linked to elective politics. We come to the municipal election cycle in 2005 and the two mayoral candidates are forced by the active participation in NRP by thousands of citizens to wrestle with what to do with all these informed fishermen - No more fish on the municipal blue plate specials - we know how to fish now and are not about to surrender our fishing poles. What's more, learning "how to fish" has become a popular course for our new arrivals and the more seasoned neighborhood activists have had to make room on the fishing docks for these new faces. There has been occasional venality over the years. Clever people have gamed the system and sometimes jostling for a place on crowded fishing docks has been more than a little violent. But I submit there has been a structural change in how the City of Minneapolis conducts its thought processes since my arrival here in 1969 and I really don't think the annoying budget shortfalls we have on our hands compliments of conservative majorities elsewhere are going to put an end to our fishing habits. Fred Markus, Phillips West, Ward 6 --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! --- REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
