Hal Johnson wrote:
I'm not familiar with the details of either of the city council's actions
mentioned below, but my reaction is that the actions are, in the bigger
picture, good policy, and I'm happy to hear about them.
I think my bigger picture can trump Mr. Johnson's: If a family can buy a
home, even one with vinyl or aluminum siding, they will be able to
improve their economic lives. If the siding crumbles in 30 years,
chances are they'll be much more able to afford residing their home.
The two instances I cited are part of a long string of efforts on the
part of the council to gentrify the entire city. It's very short-sighted
of them. It serves no one's interests to have all the blue and pink
collar working class move out. Then, who will drive the bus, provide
janitorial and clerical services, plow the streets, etc. The blue and
pink collar working class are integral to the proper functioning of a
city. While the council sits down there pontificating this kind of crap
into prissy ordinances, you know they won't be taking up the broom or
the keyboard or driving the plow any time soon except as a photo op.
If I had the patience to go through the ordinance changes in the last
four years very carefully, I'm sure I'd be able to point to item after
item displaying this short sighted mentality. There's another new
ordinance section insists on a minimum roof pitch to new construction.
That one might even make some sense if it weren't for global warming.
More like, in MN, it will make it more difficult to put photo cells on
the roof to defray utility costs.
What it will clearly mean to the Northside, for example, is that fewer
people who are strivers will be able to build homes there when the
council members for the area finally realize that until they knock down
or rehab all their vacant/boarded houses, they will not make a dent in
the crime situation which is presently making their lives a misery.
This is class warfare at it's finest and is no different from those who
create gated communities, covenants about who you can sell your home to,
and other exclusionary instruments to make life harder for others. (Red
lining comes to mind.) It's certainly anti-diversity, since folks coming
from other parts of the globe may have some ideas about housing that
could be better choices than the ones we are making now.
What it says to me, in an election year, is that we have a city council
which is entirely undistinguished in its performance when it isn't
downright counter productive and probably none of them should be
returned to office. Certainly those who promoted these ordinance changes
should not be in office, but those who did not organize an adequate
objection should not be there either.
WizardMarks, Central
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
