[Johnson writes] True, but irrelevant. So compare data for the 1997 and 2001 November General Elections which were for City of Minneapolis/Minneapolis School Board - and the 2000 November General Election which was for Federal/State/County, resp.:
Minneapolis total turnout: 47%, 41%, 68% Cedar-Riverside West Bank: 28%, 25%, 47%
to the 1% turnout of C-RWB voters eligible to vote approving the
Dania Hall renovation project for an expenditure of $1,500,000 of Phase I NRP funds. Recall that of 6,212 C-RWB residents eligible to vote, only about 60 did vote.
If NRP used the election machinery already in place for City of Minneapolis/Minneapolis School Board elections, turnout would still
be incredibly improved. Why has NRP Headquarters never considered
using the election machinery in this City which stages elections almost every year? Could be that such would be too transparent.
NRP Headquarters has to have known about the amazingly poor turnout to approve neighborhood projects, and nothing has been done! Why?
In any event it must be recalled that posters to this List frequently write eloquently about what a great city this Minneapolis is. So how is it that Minneapolis became this great city under a City Council elected at good voter turnouts? NRP only came into existence in 1991.
Is Titus arguing that Minneapolis only became a great city after 1991?
Remember that [Titus wrote] "Even though the turnout for NRP review is small, at least it is a review by residents. I don't see how it would be better to let the city council determine where the money is spent. There are roughly 80 neighborhoods but only 13 city council members."
[Johnson writes] It is the official job of the City Council according
the City Charter to make such decisions. Or am I dreaming? This is not
a situation where a committee is making recommendations to the Council
on relatively small problems and for relatively small amounts of money.
[Titus wrote] "Surely it is better to have 60 C-RWB residents making the decisions about C-RWB than having them made by the city council where only one member represents C-RWB's interests and that member also represents the interests of other neighborhoods. While turnout may not be impressive, at least the people affected are the ones who have the option of being part of the decision."
[Johnson writes] Not at all. And I will tell you why.
First of all, it is not sufficient for "...the people affected...[to] have the option of being part of the decision." This is the old saw
that Joan Campbell was fond of repeating, "those who show up make the
decisions." In Minnesota, that would follow if the turnout was 60% but not for a 1-5% turnout.
Remember the role of the neighborhood organizations in acting as the official first level of consideration of applications for zoning
matters, for liquor licenses, etc. Some neighborhoods receive "citizen
participation" funds each year in recognition of this duty. However,
never forget that the finding of the neighborhood organization is only
advisory. That is to say, the neighborhood organizations DO NOT make
the decisions - that is the right and duty of the City Council.
So even for those matters which do not involve the large amounts of money customary for NRP projects, the City Council makes the decisions.
[To avoid my forgetting it, I will note for the record, that not one of the great (participatory) Democracy advocates on this List has yet posted his/her outrage of the violation of the one person - one vote principle. I repeat from my original post, "Where is the outrage...
about the gross disenfranchisement of eligible voters when it comes to authorizing the spending of $millions from NRP pots."
Also, no neighborhood organization has yet made known the voter turnout at meetings to approve NRP projects, as I requested in my
original post. Sgt. Schultz comes to mind, "I know noooothink."]
Getting back on track, the problem with NRP goes far beyond the big decisions by a few neighborhood activists - paraphrasing the statement by Council Member Goodman (Strib, "Civic funding agency emerging as issue in mayoral campaign", 02Jan05) - on neighborhood projects often involving large amounts of NRP money.
There is the serious problem of poor oversight and mismanagement of
NRP funds not only by NRP Headquarters but also by the neighborhood organizations, which are the contracting agents. The few activists
who dominate the contracting agent seem to be sometimes incompetent,
and to be allowed to go their merry way by NRP Headquarters. At least
that may be deduced from the following four episodes which I didn't
even have to search for:
(1) Strib, 30May2003, p. B3, reported mishandling of $567,000 in NRP funds by the Southside Neighborhood Housing Services (SNHS) over ten years. REPEAT, over ten years up to May 2003. Tough luck folks, they sort forgot about that $567,000 for ten years. Who got fired at NRP Headquarters?
(2) Six weeks later, Strib, 15Jul2003, p. B1, reported mishandling
of $500,000 in NRP funds by the Northside Neighborhood Economic Development Council (NEDC) between 1996 and 1998, but the only penalty was to cut off any further funds. Now five years later, a
lawsuit is being filed to attempt recovery. Tough luck again folks, but this time it took only five years to realize that another half
million had fallen through the cracks.
(3) In Spring 2004 there was a flap involving the misuse of NRP funds by the Seward Neighborhood Group. Send me an email for details for I am saving KBs for the next episode about which I have learned too much.
(4) The Dania Hall renovation project came to a bitter end when it burned to the ground in Feb2000 as the renovation was just being
completed. $1,200,000 in Phase I NRP funds went up in smoke because
the Cedar-Riverside West Bank elite activists (supposedly) managing the project had not taken out an insurance policy. Those activists
were the Community Technical Committee of the West Bank Community
Coalition, which is the official neighborhood organization and the
NRP contracting agent. Once again, no one wants to talk about it - "let's move on". Wasn't incompetence, no, not at all, couldn't have
been, impossible. To top it off, a NRP Headquarters official tried in Nov2001 to get me and another C-RWB resident to file a private lawsuit (for which we would have to ante up the $10,000 just to retain a lawyer) to recoup the $1,200,000. Naturally, we refused.
NRP Headquarters has yet to act on this.
I am convinced that the NRP experiment in Minneapolis is a misconception and must be dismantled.
[Titus wrote] "The system isn't perfect. We need to work on more citizen participation. But I don't think the solution is to dismantle a system that gives the neighborhoods a voice. When people care enough, they get involved.
[Johnson finishes] Ya, you betcha the system isn't perfect, and obviously people don't care enough to get involved.
It is curious that the official NRP website, itself, carries an article titled, "Money Pit", with the initial synopsis calling
the NRP Chieftain, "the best politician in town", "City Pages", Vol. 21, Issue 1016. Just google - Minneapolis Bob Miller best politician - and you might find it on the NRP official website, unless it has been removed
Bob Johnson Cedar-Riverside West Bank W2/P10
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
