Re: [Mpls] RE: Separate Police Communications Has Not Served the Community
Again, the truth is no one tells what is happening in mpls certainly not the police. The news reporters tell this story becouse it sells,period. If something else more sells worthy they would have covered it and this would be left alone. I also have to wonder do the powers that be (the same ones who complained so loudly about the election of Mr. Samuels are also pushing the no acess rule about the mpls government.Dain Lyngstad phillips/ edina --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > An important question regarding a separate Police > communications Department has been missed: What > motivates the huge media overreaction to this policy > change? Considering the paltry coverage of many > other, larger policy changes in City Hall, why has > this issue been the lead story on TV news? It would > be easy to say this story has gotten > disproportionate coverage just because the media > loves covering the issues that potentially affect > them, but I think the explanation goes deeper. > > Media outlets are especially inclined to overreact > to changes in Police Communications because crime > stories are their gravy train -- more than sports, > more than investigations of corporate malfeasance > (white collar crime), far more than boring > government. > > Why has perception of crime levels remained constant > or increased even while crime itself has been > decreased? Because crime coverage doesn't vary by > volume -- there's almost always enough to fill up > the first five minutes of broadcast, even if they > have to go out of state to find it. As they > say, "if it bleeds, it leads." > > Let's get real about police communications > competence and its relationship to media. > > ---Has Cyndi Barrington been responsive to > reporters? Or even returned their calls? > > Perhaps the calls from the daily crime beat > reporters but interestingly NOT calls from weekly > reporters inclined to write broader or more > introspective stories about her department. (See > quotes below from Anderson and Brauer) > > ---Do reporters (or the public) feel confident > they've been getting full & accurate information > from police communications about BAD NEWS i.e. > alleged incidents of excessive force or other police > misconduct? > > No. The department (represented by Barrington) > always goes into full "information containment" mode > followed shortly by complete denial. > > --Do reporters (or the public) get ANY information > from police communications about GOOD NEWS? > > No. The police officers who treat people with > respect and are involved in the communities they > patrol should be livid about the lack of coverage of > their work. Likewise the communities who band > together to stand up to drug dealers, build human > capital in their neighborhoods and institute > community patrols together with the good cops I just > described. > > This isn't about "happy news" or snuggling puppies > -- it's about setting an example for what community > policing can achieve when respectful, > service-oriented cops and active community members > team up. > > These success stories almost never get covered > despite the efforts of those community leaders to > get positive attention. It is the Police > Communications Department who should be DEMANDING > this example-setting coverage, because they have the > power to get it. While the mainstream media > feel free to ignore the community leaders, those > same media owe Police Communications a huge debt. > The media depends on them for quick access to the > constant flow of negative, "if-it-bleeds, it-leads" > stories which television news stations in particular > depend on. > > Isn't it about time the community got something > positive back from the media? What's Cyndi and > Police Communications been doing to balance the > ledger? Or is it that these old-style leaders in > the department don't actually want to collect on > this communication debt? Perhaps they prefer the > mayhem-only coverage even though it shortchanges > their best officers > from the recognition they deserve. Perhaps they > think only and always portraying the "inner city" as > a hopeless battleground serves their interest more > by helping to justify the acts of their rogue > elements they refuse to control. > > As with others, I will await the details of this > policy change to see how well it works. But I'm not > going to suddenly and conveniently pretend police > communications have been remotely competent in order > to claim the Mayor had no legitimate reason to seek > changes. On the contrary, separate > Police Communications has not served the community > at all. > > QUOTES > > "one reporter in my shop actually did a little dance > when he heard Barrington was gone. Cyndi wasn't > mean, or malicious, just endlessly unavailable. So > there's a silver lining to this turmoil." > > -- Southwest Journal Editor David Brauer > > "Ah, yes, Cyndi Barrington (nee Montgomery). Her > departure causes me just a li
RE: [Mpls] Response to Limitations on NRP Criticism (and emotional responses)
Since I am still working on a more compressive post I thought I'd use my second post today to clarify some issues. David Brauer wrote: > There is nothing "criminal" here that I can see. There is, > according to NRP, no "rule" being violated. And then Jim Graham wrote: > Michael Atherton seems to be saying they were neighborhood > residents, but that it was in some way "criminal" to not vote > the way he thought correct. Funny how rumors are initiated. I'll assume that both Mr. Brauer and Mr. Graham are using quotation marks for emphasis and not to infer that I had used the word "criminal," since I did not. I believe that I did use the word "rule" in response to Mr. Cross' use of the word "sanctions." It is hard for me to imagine sanctions without rules, but I suppose it maybe possible. Jim Graham wrote: > It is not criminal to pack meetings with residents; it's > what NRP is supposed to be about. Even if he does not agree > with the outcome Michael should be celebrating the democracy > and resident involvement. No, it's not criminal to "pack" meetings, but nevertheless I'm not sure that it results in wise or representative decision making. If packing meetings is what the NRP is about then I think the city has a real problem on its hands. Democracy? Hmmm...you should reread my second post in this thread: http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2003-February/021055.html I hope that I am not a knee-jerk anything and that I stop to give thought to issues of importance. I think that I have done so in regards to democracy. I know well enough that democracy does not always result in wise, fair, or just decision making. I'm sure that you could have used a democratic procedure with the White mob in Duluth and still have ended up with an unjust and "criminal" act with a great deal of "resident involvement." In evaluating the effectiveness and fairness of the NRP we should not rely on catch phrases and popular rhetoric. Doesn't anyone remember seeing "The Ox-Bow Incident" in high school, or don't they show it any more? Michael Atherton Prospect Park TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] Response to Limitations on NRP Criticism
I am only posting on this to clarify that Prospect Park did not violate any NRP rules. There is no policy or law that exists within the NRP that requires any individual neighborhood to meet the 52.5% housing requirement. Again I will state that as a program NRP has a legal obligation to meet 52.5% over the LIFE of the program. The program is only half way over if the original commitment to this program is kept by the politicians. In fact, there have been no neighborhood plans approved by the city council for Phase II of this program at this point. NRP fully expects that there will be neighborhoods that will invest well over the 52.5% on housing activities during Phase II of this program if it is allowed to proceed. There will also be some that do not. NRP has built in "insurances" to guarantee that the program meets this goal by placing hold-backs on discretionary spending until such time as the 52.5% threshold has been met. The more a neighborhood invests in housing for their Phase II action plan, the lower the hold-back percentage. There will be many neighborhoods that will have hold-backs on discretionary spending based on Phase I and Phase II numbers. This policy is no mystery. You can retrieve it from the NRP web-site at www.nrp.org. Feel free to e-mail me off-list with any questions. Barb Lickness Whittier NRP Staff to Prospect Park = "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Response to Limitations on NRP Criticism (and emotional responses)
I must admit to no small amount of humor I had when reading Michael Atherton's post that read, "And, as I pointed out in a previous post: Minnesota Niceness seems to be used to suppress opposition, not only during NRP meetings, but now here as well." This post starts out with the words Jim Graham. Michael seems to be saying he wants to deal with NRP on a more emotional level when he says: "It is also interesting that these posts seem to imply that being upset or angry diminishes the credibility of one's experience or the value of their opinion. But, this isn't "Leave it To Beaver" and it's no longer the 1950s when emotions were left out of polite conversation. I believe that in order to understand the worthiness of someone's perspective you need to know what lead up to their emotional state, not to claim that a person's emotional state invalidates their viewpoint. Well Michael anyone that knows me will tell you that dealing with issues in a less than "Leave it to Beaver" method is just my cup of tea. Unfortunately, David Brauer has admonished me to treat folks in a gentler manner. In fact he has absolutely demanded it! And David, I do try! I have to admit that I also get a little emotional when I hear people put down NRP because their neighbors and fellow community members prioritize things differently than they do. In fact, I probably get more than a little irate at someone with such self-righteousness as to label "criminal" an act of citizen participation when those citizens honestly express opinions that might differ in someway from the righteous path that person has imagined. Either the folks showing up for the meeting were fraudulently voting because they were not from that neighborhood, or it was neighborhood residents taking part in a decision making process and honestly voting for their preferences. Michael Atherton seems to be saying they were neighborhood residents, but that it was in some way "criminal" to not vote the way he thought correct. I am sorry Michael, but exactly who died and made you either God or the Emperor. It is not criminal, or even sinful, for people to vote the way they prefer. It is probably criminal if people are coerced into voting some way other than what they prefer. It is not criminal to pack meetings with residents; it's what NRP is supposed to be about. Even if he does not agree with the outcome Michael should be celebrating the democracy and resident involvement. The beauty of NRP is that individual residents get to vote on what their priorities are, and vote for what measures best address those priorities. Michael, if you truly wish to change those priorities I would suggest you follow NRP accepted procedure. Get together enough residents, sharing your opinions, and go force a new reallocation. You just need to get a few more than the 250 who showed up to the last meeting. Go to your Prospect Park meeting and take the darn thing over, do the required notification and then reallocate that money to the proper priorities. My question for you is why didn't you do that before the last reallocation meeting? At the same time could you please get enough people together in Florida to call for a recount, I did not like that vote either. I, like David Brauer, understand why Prospect Park would take the short view and get their priorities funded now. The uncertainty that has been created by a City Hall intent on attacking Phase II NRP is part of the reason. Politicians promised to fully fund NRP when running for election. Politicians promised to fight to insure NRP would remain in the control of Neighborhoods when running for election. Now some of those same politicians are using false information and innuendo to attack NRP, and to not fund NRP. So what should a neighborhood believe? Prospect Park was only reacting to a need to secure funding for their own priorities; while they still can. Before the capricious powers that be also grab those funds. Some neighborhoods might willingly attempt to fill an inside straight by waiting for future NRP, but Prospect Park is just playing the cards on the table. Not a bad bet since most neighborhoods will beat the housing percentage and deliver the 52%. Prospect Park takes this money off the table for its highest priorities, and is still in the game if Phase II money comes through. It was only two years ago that elected officials and residents worked together to establish the goals for phase II of NRP and strengthen the program. That very public and actively supported process established certain goals. Some of those goals were: 1) Create a greater sense of community so that the people who live, work, learn and play in Minneapolis have an increased sense of community and confidence in their neighborhood and their city. 2) Sustain and enhance neighborhood capability in order to strengthen the civic involvement of all members of the community. 3) Ensure that neighborhood based planning remains the foundation of the
Re: [Mpls] RE: Separate Police Communications Has Not Served the Community
Hello Jonathan: I do not know all the detail just what has been provided to me by the media. I have concerns about centralizing communications or centralizing any kind of power. The cities communications are a significant portion of the power. I believe the Mayor compared this to business centralizing communication. I think other people view centralized communications as being very fascist. The former Soviet Union and many current countries run by dictators have centralized communications. I am not sure what the Mayors goals are, it could have been better communication, and some may call that controlling communications. I agree the media has many other important stories to cover. I can think of several off the top of my head. I have spoken with immigrants that have had their homes torn apart by police with out a warrant. I have listened to anti-war protestor s talk about being video taped by our local police. I have not heard either of these stories on the news, yet spend any time within the immigrant communities or activists communities and you will hear these stories numerous times. All of this is legal under current law. The police do not need a warrant or permission to search peoples homes, or cars, wiretap phones, trace email, credit card, library, financial, and medical records. This is all legal and we have very few people willing to talk about this. I have a great fear about centralizing power. Our constitution has been altered and civil rights have been taking away and the media does not cover that story. The public is scared, and many fear to speak out. George Bush just did some of the most sweeping changes of centralizing information and power. I would like the media to cover that centralizing of power. Maybe everybody is just to scared... Respectfully, Ken Bradley Corcoran Neighborhood --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > An important question regarding a separate Police > communications Department has been missed: What > motivates the huge media overreaction to this policy > change? Considering the paltry coverage of many > other, larger policy changes in City Hall, why has > this issue been the lead story on TV news? It would > be easy to say this story has gotten > disproportionate coverage just because the media > loves covering the issues that potentially affect > them, but I think the explanation goes deeper. > > Media outlets are especially inclined to overreact > to changes in Police Communications because crime > stories are their gravy train -- more than sports, > more than investigations of corporate malfeasance > (white collar crime), far more than boring > government. > > Why has perception of crime levels remained constant > or increased even while crime itself has been > decreased? Because crime coverage doesn't vary by > volume -- there's almost always enough to fill up > the first five minutes of broadcast, even if they > have to go out of state to find it. As they > say, "if it bleeds, it leads." > > Let's get real about police communications > competence and its relationship to media. > > ---Has Cyndi Barrington been responsive to > reporters? Or even returned their calls? > > Perhaps the calls from the daily crime beat > reporters but interestingly NOT calls from weekly > reporters inclined to write broader or more > introspective stories about her department. (See > quotes below from Anderson and Brauer) > > ---Do reporters (or the public) feel confident > they've been getting full & accurate information > from police communications about BAD NEWS i.e. > alleged incidents of excessive force or other police > misconduct? > > No. The department (represented by Barrington) > always goes into full "information containment" mode > followed shortly by complete denial. > > --Do reporters (or the public) get ANY information > from police communications about GOOD NEWS? > > No. The police officers who treat people with > respect and are involved in the communities they > patrol should be livid about the lack of coverage of > their work. Likewise the communities who band > together to stand up to drug dealers, build human > capital in their neighborhoods and institute > community patrols together with the good cops I just > described. > > This isn't about "happy news" or snuggling puppies > -- it's about setting an example for what community > policing can achieve when respectful, > service-oriented cops and active community members > team up. > > These success stories almost never get covered > despite the efforts of those community leaders to > get positive attention. It is the Police > Communications Department who should be DEMANDING > this example-setting coverage, because they have the > power to get it. While the mainstream media > feel free to ignore the community leaders, those > same media owe Police Communications a huge debt. > The media depends on them for quick access to the > constant flow of negative, "if-it-bleeds, it-leads" > stories which tel
[Mpls] Re: HR341 Flamingos with Power Tools and their Allies
From: "Amy Draeger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I wonder what it would take for those who support this kind of measure to realize that discrimination DOES occur against GLBT persons Oh, they realize that it occurs -- it's just that they approve of such discrimination! They even enshrine it in their republican party platform. And this from the party of Abraham Lincoln! Tim Bonham, Ward 12, Standish-Ericsson TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Guthrie Allocation
I saw in this mornings paper that the Guthrie's allotment of state dollars was struck to the tune of $2 million. If I remember right, the total allotment was stated to be $3 million and $1 million had previously been diverted from the fund to another arts organization. Does anyone know what this means for the Guthrie? Has the Guthrie already purchased its campus by the river, or is that dependent on a successful capital campaign? What are the implications if it is? Will they be able to afford their new building by just getting a bigger mortgage, or will this delay their plans? Is there any chance a delay means a different design? Sorry -- that last question is just wishful thinking on my part. Barbara Nelson Burnsville Once and future Minneapolitan TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP and Spending Beyond Housing; To Be or Not To Be
All: Sometime back, I said that I thought that the statute creating the NRP was clear. It did authorize spending by neighborhoods beyond just housing. In response, Greg Luce said that he didn't think it was all that clear and that there was language that required NRP dollars to be spent just on housing. (Others have, I think, twisted what Mr. Luce said. He does not say that spending NRP dollars on anything but housing is illegal. He says he doesn't think it is clear that such spending is legal.) I've spent some time now reading the law and I must say that I think Mr. Luce is right. It's not very clear. But despite the less than sterling drafting, I'd like to lay out why I think that NRP money on other than housing is not only legal but expected. I hope to persuade Mr. Luce if not some others. I hope to say it in terms that are clear to everyone and not in the argot of lawyer-to-lawyer argument. Minnesota Statutes 469.1831, Subd 3, says that: "A neighborhood revitalization program may provide expenditures of program money for the following purposes." It then goes on to state nine instances of spending. All are housing or housing related. Subd. 4, then goes on to say, "program money may only be expended in accordance with the program for a purpose listed in subdivision 3 or this subdivision." That would seem to be it. Case closed. The money is for housing only. Right? Wrong! While the language of subd. 3 and 4 would seem to be categorical that the money is only for housing, it's necessary to keep reading in the entire section of the statute. Here's why. About six lines after the declaration "only may be expended" is the language, "revenue derived from tax increments may only be expended for the purposes OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY LAW,..." (Sorry for seeming to yell but in a text system caps are the only way I have to give words emphasis.) In addition, the same section of the statue most assuredly does provide for other spending. Several paragraphs after the "otherwise permitted..." language is this language, "the city must expend on housing programs and related purposes as provided by the program at least 75 percent of the program money," Mr. Luce has already explained how 75% winds up being 52.5% and I'll not repeat it. But, trust me, 52.5% is the real percentage to of funds to be spent on "housing programs and related purposes." The housing programs are those listed in subd. 2 because the earlier language in subd. 3 says that's what it's to be spent on and its all housing. However, a careful reader must now make use of the negative implication of the 52.5% language. If 52.5% MUST (again, sorry for yelling) be spent on housing, then 47.5% can be spent on programs OTHER than housing. That is because of the earlier "otherwise permitted" language that I quoted. That "otherwise permitted" language means that 47.5% of the money may be spent on programs otherwise permitted by law." And note that it's as otherwise permitted "by law" and not just subd. 3 and subd 4 as is the housing money. What is otherwise permitted by law? We don't have far to look. In Subd. 5, the contents of the revitalization program are covered. Among what is listed includes: --- "social needs of neighborhood residents" --- "a safe and healthy environment," --- "self-sufficiency of families," --- "the economic and social stability of neighborhoods," and --- "the opportunity for quality education." In Subd. 2 is more of the same. That section says, in its entirety, "A city of the first class may establish a neighborhood revitalization program authorizing the expenditure of neighborhood revitalization program money. The activities of a program must preserve and enhance within the neighborhood private and public physical infrastructure, public health and safety, economic vitality, the sense of community, and social benefits." It's obvious that there are some pretty broad fuzzy-feeling type programs beyond "private and public physical infrastructure" which is the reference to housing. It's also obvious to me that spending NRP on those fuzzy-feeling type programs is also not just authorized but encouraged. There is another issue that Mr. Luce did not touch on but I think I should touch on it anyway. That is, even if you agree with me that 47.5% of NRP money can be on programs other than housing, how come any neighborhood decision that does not stay within that 47.5% limit is not illegal? That answer comes from the NRP statute also. That, fortunately, is resolved by an actual definition included in the NRP law. Subd. 1, paragraph (d) says "'program money' means the money derived from the tax increments required to be expended on the program under section 469.1781, paragraph (b)." And, throughout the NRP law, the term "program" is consistently used regarding the entire NRP without limitation as to neighborhood or time. So, while the program as a whole must get to 52.5% and 47.5% on housing and
[Mpls] Citizens of Mpls to cheap..
I have to disagree with Val with extreme vehemence. My dumpsters in Minneapolis were the target of everyone else's free dumping for 25 years. I first must commend city solid waste for taking many things that the suburban haulers and cities would not take. Your garbage bill is one of the few deals you get in Mpls. The apartment dweller just pays higher rent to support the illegal dumping of the homeowners in the city. I know few do it, but until you have owned a dumpster in a residential neighborhood, you wouldn't believe it. Anything that was billable or the free drop point was too far away, ended up in my dumpsters. All the construction materials from other peoples houses ended up in my dumpster. We put locks on the dumpsters, the stuff piled up on top or in the alley. The crime was rampant. I kept track of my extra billing one year on an 11 unit building. The total was $482.74 That was more then two months billing. Oil, couches, beds , tables, tv's, tires, excess lawn clippings when the city is past the free point, full automobile transmission, bumper from a Buick, Paint cans, etc. I once caught a man in progress. Called 911 and followed him home and took digital pics of the whole act. The police never did a thing. I then picked up large amounts of the " garage clean out" that he had left and delivered it back to his yard within 10 minutes. This brought a response from the cops. I denied doing it. You know, the cops didn't believe me. But they still didn't bust anyone. Go figure. Craig Miller Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Greeting's List, and Happy Saturday! > > (Comment: Not all rental property owners do this, but there are a few that > do. This post is about the ones that are to cheap to handle their own trash > and leftover furniture, or kitchen appliances removal.) > > I'd like to know, is there a law or city ordinance against dumping your > waste onto someone else's property? Here lately more so in the 5th ward, > landlord owners have continue to dump rubbish from their rental units onto > someone else's property. > > In one weeks time a renter told me about three drop offs' that she has seen, > and plenty more is delivered when she was not watching.She tells me this is > becoming the norm. One was asked what he was doing, leaving trash and > furniture in the back of these homes. He said they were dropping of some > stuff that needed to be pick up by the city. Not only at this particular > house, but the one behind her, on the side of her, and down the alley from > her. When she kindly ask them to remove their rubbish, they became > completely upset and asked her why. > > > Does anyone on the list or lurking about have an ideal of where one could > report such blatant disrespect and obviously to cheap to haul away their own > junk. Please e-mail me. > > Thanks! TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] Response to Limitations on NRP Criticism
Michael asked for criticism on his issue-based analysis. Here's my take. Michael writes: > Mr. Cross' post clearly states > that supporters of the bundled proposals knew that their > actions were a violation of NRP policy: > > "NRP discharged its duty by telling the neighborhood > of the consequences and the neighborhood made and adult > choice to take certain action despite the sanctions the > NRP will impose." [I would point out that it was NOT > the "neighborhood" that make these choices, but the > residents who packed this meeting, not more than 4% of > the "neighborhood."] > > How do you think this makes those of us who are following the > NRP rules feel? It's ok to commit the crime as long as you're > willing to pay the penalty? It's ok to violate the rules > in order to achieve your goals over those of your neighbors? I think this is selective editing of Steve Cross, and hyperbole. Remember, the starting point for this discussion was NRP Phase I. Prospect Park is reallocating leftover Phase I money. According to Steve Cross, they have an opinion from NRP that the 52.5 percent housing-and-housing-related-purposes goal does not apply to one neighborhood in one phase. The goal must be met citywide by the end of Phase II. As I understand Steve Cross's analysis of the "consequences," Prospect Park risks losing NRP-2 funds until the CITY meets the 52.5 percent goal *by the end of Phase II.* (emphasis mine.) Now, you can certainly say Prospect Park should not risk Phase II money. That would be a very legitimate criticism, in my opinion. HOWEVER, you can argue that Prospect Park can't do much with its Phase I reallocation to help the city meet that goal anyway, so they might as well fund the neighborhood's top priorities while they can. In other words, there are a lot of NRP uncertainties out there, and little chance to affect them, so take the sure thing - your top priorities. There is nothing "criminal" here that I can see. There is, according to NRP, no "rule" being violated. I do think neighborhoods are borrowing trouble if they all wait for each other to fulfill the housing requirement. On this, Michael and I may well agree. It is certainly fair to say Prospect Park's actions will, in some incremental way, tie the hands of all neighborhoods to meet the 52.5 percent housing-and-housing-related standard in Phase II. (It probably also means that whatever $$ are left for Phase II - and I think there will be some - will probably all have to go to housing and housing-related purposes.) But the bottom line is, Prospect Park committed no crime, broke no rule at their recent meeting. They may have made a shortsighted decision, and borrowed trouble. That's a fertile basis for criticism, and doesn't need talk that crimes were committed and rules were broken. David Brauer King Field TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Budget agreements
Steve Sumner writes: Failure of the Senators to reach an agreement on their elected duty is something to be congratulated It's embarrassing that they can't do their jobs!What good are they if they can reach an agreement on solving this budget crisis. I guess they are very good at letting other people make the big decisions. Don sez: The DFL-controlled Senate DID pass a plan to balance the FY 2003 budget through June 30, 2003, and they did it quickly (first two weeks of the new legislative session). The GOP-controlled House waited to pass theirs, and when they did, it was heavy with permanent cuts to pregnant women, new Americans, higher education and much more. These cuts would have hurt Minneapolis hard, because many new immigrants live in the city. Also, the University of Minnesota main campus is in Minneapolis, and the city is home to many students, faculty and staff, who would be hurt disproportionately because the House cuts to higher education were permanent cuts. The Senate plan had smaller, one-time cuts. In conference committee, the Senate tried to compromise with the House, but apparently House members felt that since they had the Governor on their side, they didn't have to do much compromising, and that's why things did not work out legislatively. That's a far cry from the notion that Senators didn't do their job. I believe in avoiding personal attacks on this list, and I imagine that Steve Sumner is a great guy, but it is fair to point out that Steve was the GOP nominee for the state senate last fall and lost to Larry Pogemiller by a margin of 75% to 24%, so when he attacks the DFL Senate and says they are not doing their job, he is not exactly serving as an objective observer. Of course, since I work there, I guess neither am I! Don Jorovsky New Brighton Senate staffGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
[Mpls] RE: Separate Police Communications Has Not Served the Community
An important question regarding a separate Police communications Department has been missed: What motivates the huge media overreaction to this policy change? Considering the paltry coverage of many other, larger policy changes in City Hall, why has this issue been the lead story on TV news? It would be easy to say this story has gotten disproportionate coverage just because the media loves covering the issues that potentially affect them, but I think the explanation goes deeper. Media outlets are especially inclined to overreact to changes in Police Communications because crime stories are their gravy train -- more than sports, more than investigations of corporate malfeasance (white collar crime), far more than boring government. Why has perception of crime levels remained constant or increased even while crime itself has been decreased? Because crime coverage doesn't vary by volume -- there's almost always enough to fill up the first five minutes of broadcast, even if they have to go out of state to find it. As they say, "if it bleeds, it leads." Let's get real about police communications competence and its relationship to media. ---Has Cyndi Barrington been responsive to reporters? Or even returned their calls? Perhaps the calls from the daily crime beat reporters but interestingly NOT calls from weekly reporters inclined to write broader or more introspective stories about her department. (See quotes below from Anderson and Brauer) ---Do reporters (or the public) feel confident they've been getting full & accurate information from police communications about BAD NEWS i.e. alleged incidents of excessive force or other police misconduct? No. The department (represented by Barrington) always goes into full "information containment" mode followed shortly by complete denial. --Do reporters (or the public) get ANY information from police communications about GOOD NEWS? No. The police officers who treat people with respect and are involved in the communities they patrol should be livid about the lack of coverage of their work. Likewise the communities who band together to stand up to drug dealers, build human capital in their neighborhoods and institute community patrols together with the good cops I just described. This isn't about "happy news" or snuggling puppies -- it's about setting an example for what community policing can achieve when respectful, service-oriented cops and active community members team up. These success stories almost never get covered despite the efforts of those community leaders to get positive attention. It is the Police Communications Department who should be DEMANDING this example-setting coverage, because they have the power to get it. While the mainstream media feel free to ignore the community leaders, those same media owe Police Communications a huge debt. The media depends on them for quick access to the constant flow of negative, "if-it-bleeds, it-leads" stories which television news stations in particular depend on. Isn't it about time the community got something positive back from the media? What's Cyndi and Police Communications been doing to balance the ledger? Or is it that these old-style leaders in the department don't actually want to collect on this communication debt? Perhaps they prefer the mayhem-only coverage even though it shortchanges their best officers from the recognition they deserve. Perhaps they think only and always portraying the "inner city" as a hopeless battleground serves their interest more by helping to justify the acts of their rogue elements they refuse to control. As with others, I will await the details of this policy change to see how well it works. But I'm not going to suddenly and conveniently pretend police communications have been remotely competent in order to claim the Mayor had no legitimate reason to seek changes. On the contrary, separate Police Communications has not served the community at all. QUOTES "one reporter in my shop actually did a little dance when he heard Barrington was gone. Cyndi wasn't mean, or malicious, just endlessly unavailable. So there's a silver lining to this turmoil." -- Southwest Journal Editor David Brauer "Ah, yes, Cyndi Barrington (nee Montgomery). Her departure causes me just a little bit of glee, she whom I've come to believe legally added "Did Not Return Phone Calls" to the end of her name." -- City Pages Reporter Gerry Anderson Jonathan Palmer Victory TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Mpls bill of rights/Bill Moyers
You can get the text of this act online at http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/lewis.html#docs George Orwell, anyone? Bert Black King Field
[Mpls] Dave Shove's Comments and Mpls Bill of Rights Forums (thank you)
Hello Minneapolis Issues Folks & Dave Shove: DS Wrote: "See the fwd post below on Moyers on the new expanded even worse "Patriot" Bill. And yet the majority of the Mpls City Council says this is 'none of our business.' This is surreal. One can only hope a sufficient number of them will reconsider by vote time on Friday February 14. Nine are needed to override a mayoral veto." KB Wrote: Its is incorrect to say the majority of the Minneapolis City Council says this is 'none of our business.' I do not believe a single Council Member has come out and made that statement. I believe 5 Council Members are supporting The Minneapolis Bill of Rights Committee resolution at this time and several very close to supporting. They just need agree on the language. I have not heard a single Council Member state they would not support the resolution. We have several that need to read the language and make a final decision. The Thursday and Friday forums this week at Henry and dialogad great dialoge between our panelist and city residents discussing this important issue. I want to public thank Rep. Keith Ellison, Karen Clark, Neva Walker, Senator Scott Dibble, Caroline Palmer from the National Lawyers Guild and Peter Erlinder President of the National Lawyers Guild, Omar Jamal SomaAdvocacytice and Avocacy Center, and last but not least Jaye Rykunyk Vice President of the HoteRestaurantes and Resturant Employees International Union. I was impressed with all the speakers. Representative Ellison waparticipated and particpated in both evening at Henry and South and did an excellent job connecting the problems related to the Homeland Security Act, and Patmunicipal to our municpal government. National Lawyers Guild President Peter Erlinder came to speak even though surgeryjust had suggery and gave a very passionate speech that brought down the house. I also want to recognize State Senator Mee Moua. She was not able to attend the Thursday night event because the DFL caucus had and emergency meeting related to the budget cuts. I also want to thank Council Members Zimmermancomingnson for comming and listen to our speakers. We are very happy with the outcome and the forum helped to establish many new relationships that will help us all organize around civil rights in the future. Thank you to all Minneapolis folks that attend the events. Ken Bradley Corcoran Neighborhood 612-728-8962 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] Section 8
A lot has been written about the pros and cons of Section 8. Here's some more information and two questions about what Minneapolis should do about it: *With vacancies rising, the affordable housing problem is as much an "income shortage" as a "housing shortage." Most voucher holders earn less than $10,000 per year and are not income-qualified on their own to rent the vast majority of vacant apartments - even those financed with tax credits. To provide affordable housing for these families, their out-of-pocket rents need to be under $350 per month. *The National Multi Housing Council is pushing Congress to fix the Section 8 program so that more landlords would be willing to accept vouchers. The recommendations include reducing the paperwork, eliminating HUD's duplicative inspection process and eliminating HUD's special lease provisions that create two sets of rules for landlords - one for voucher holders and one for all other tenants. *Contrary to some postings, landlords do not have to accept vouchers -- unless the project was publicly financed with tax credit, bonds, etc., in which case it's part of the deal. *A 2001 GAO report examining the total per-unit costs of various housing assistance programs found that production programs are more expensive than vouchers. However, it did not recommend replacing production programs with vouchers on a national basis because in many markets production programs are the only source of new affordable rental units. In others, they are an integral part of revitalizing distressed communities. *Congress is likely to cut Section 8 funding by at least 10% this year. So my questions are these: Can the city/county invest some of its affordable housing dollars in a local voucher program to supplement Section 8 or is all of the money from federal programs specifically targeted toward new development (CDBG, HOME funds, etc.)? If the city/county can establish a local voucher program, should it? John Rocker Calhoun TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Mpls bill of rights/Bill Moyers
See the fwd post below on Moyers on the new expanded even worse "Patriot" Bill. And yet the majority of the Mpls City Council says this is "none of our business." This is surreal. One can only hope a sufficient number of them will reconsider by vote time on Friday February 14. Nine are needed to override a mayoral veto. --David Shove Roseville -- Forwarded message -- Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 00:40:43 -0600 From: Andy Driscoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Personal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: This week on NOW with Bill Moyers Friends, if you missed this program tonight, you missed an exclusive bombshell on a piece of secret legislation (leaked) from the Ashcroft Justice Department that would expand the already expansive powers of the Patriot Act to further infringe on the rights and privacy of citizens, including secret arrests (1st time in history), unfettered collection of your personal data ad, get this: the setting aside of almost all health and safety regulations now requiring disclosure of dangerous chemicals or environmental hazards at the manufacturing and storage facilities of any number of corporations and industries. The act would give Ashcroft near dictatorial police powers throughout the country. The teaser below barely touches on the explosive nature of this NOW segment and the legislation which has been shown to just two people in all of government (Speaker Dennis Hastert and Dick Cheney) and not a single oversight committee chair in either house of Congress. NOW's field producer and reporter tracked down Republican committee chairs in both houses and showed them the leaked document, horrifying them in the process. The presumption is that the legislation will be introduced at about the time Bush declares war on Iraq and the most secretive administration in the history of this nation will try, as it did with the Patriot Act following 9/11, to rush it through Congress as an emergency powers measure to buttress the country against terrorism in the face of war in the Middle East. Unless you're awake at this writing, the opportunity to tape the 3 AM replay of NOW on Channel 2 will have slipped by when you read this, but I urge you to tune in and/or tape the 7 PM repeat of the program on Channel 17 Monday night at 7:00. The news is truly frightening. We are in far more danger form our own government than we are from any nation outside our borders. Andy Driscoll > > NOW with Bill Moyers > Friday February 7, 2003 at 9pm on PBS > (Check local listings at http://www.pbs.org/now/sched.html) > > = > This week on NOW: > > * How does the government balance our need for security with the protection of > our civil liberty? Bill Moyers interviews Chuck Lewis, founder of the Center > for Public Integrity, on the Patriot Act. > * As the nation begins smallpox vaccinations, many wonder: Is the vaccine more > dangerous than the threat? NOW goes inside healthcare's heated debate in > BRACING FOR BIOTERROR. > * NOW interviews Frank Rich, the newly appointed Associate Editor of THE NEW > YORK TIMES who adds a weekly Arts & Leisure essay to his plate. > > = > CHUCK LEWIS > After 11 years in network television, Chuck Lewis founded the Center for > Public Integrity, the non-partisan organization whose mission is to provide > the American people with the findings of their investigations and analyses of > public service, government accountability and ethics related issues. Bill > Moyers interviews Chuck Lewis on the Patriot Act and the balance of security > and liberty in our government. > > = > BRACING FOR BIOTERROR > As the government begins its campaign to administer smallpox vaccinations to > millions, the killer disease that was officially declared eradicated more than > 20 years ago has returned to the forefront of public health concerns. While > some government officials fear that samples of this virus may have fallen into > the hands of countries like Iraq and North Korea, many wonder if the threat is > great enough for the United States to commit substantial resources to combat > the potential outbreak of this deadly plague. NOW analyzes the threat of > smallpox as a bio-weapon, examines the safety concerns over the President's > three-phase vaccination proposal, and looks at the human and financial cost of > protecting the United States against this virulent disease. > > = > FRANK RICH > Frank Rich is theater critic turned op-ed columnist and now Associate Editor > at THE NEW YORK TIMES. Starting in March, Rich will have an essay in every > Sunday's Arts & Leisure section. He's a man of many words and he doesn't mince > them. Bill Moyers talks to Rich about his new role and his excitement over the > nexus where politics meets culture. > > ===
[Mpls] Education; More on NRP
"Failure of the Senators to reach an agreement on their elected duty is something to be congratulated It's embarrassing that they can't do their jobs! What good are they if they can reach an agreement on solving this budget crisis. I guess they are very good at letting other people make the big decisions. Steve Sumner Ward 1 " Steve: Explain to me what you think the "checks" in "checks and balances" means. My definition includes stopping proposals that are a bad idea. "I believe that I have presented legitimate arguments to show that the NRP reallocation meeting did not fairly present all residents with an equal opportunity to be represented." -- Michael Atherton Well, even if true, that does not mean the process is flawed. For that to be proven, you must first show that all the residents TRIED to be represented. -- Jim Mork--Cooper "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our Country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out." Gen. William T. Sherman (1864) Letter to the Mayor of Atlanta. Get your free Web-based E-mail at http://www.startribune.com/stribmail TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] Response to Limitations on NRP Criticism
Michael writes: > In your original follow up to my post you first accused me > of "demonizing disagreement," it now seems that I am accused > of demonizing the process (which I wouldn't necessarily > deny). Criticizing the process is fine. I disagree with you on that, but that's not what I'm talking about. > Perhaps Mr. Brauer can describe a legitimate means of criticizing > an unfair and biased process in a way so that one cannot be accused > of "demonizing disagreement." Just what conditions must be met > to de-demonize legitimate criticism? It's pretty simple. Criticize actions & outcomes, but resist speculating on motive, don't mind-read your opponents. I am most certainly not trying to stop disagreement - far from it. That is a red herring. It is demonizing intents, motives, mind-sets, ethics, etc. of those you disagree with - your neighbors, volunteers, who frequently reap little direct gain and are more often "paying" in time and energy. There's a certain lack of charity that, as Michael would say, distracts from the very issues we both deem important. Nuff said. David Brauer King Field TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] Response to Limitations on NRP Criticism
David Brauer wrote: > In your original post, you wrote "What I find most > distressing about this process is that my neighbors care > little what means they use as long as their ends are achieved." > Now, to some, that might be character assassination. In your original follow up to my post you first accused me of "demonizing disagreement," it now seems that I am accused of demonizing the process (which I wouldn't necessarily deny). > It is at least mind-reading...and very unkind mind-reading at that. > Discussing process, in my view, doesn't absolve one of demonizing > disagreement. It is not mind-reading at all. Mr. Cross' post clearly states that supporters of the bundled proposals knew that their actions were a violation of NRP policy: "NRP discharged its duty by telling the neighborhood of the consequences and the neighborhood made and adult choice to take certain action despite the sanctions the NRP will impose." [I would point out that it was NOT the "neighborhood" that make these choices, but the residents who packed this meeting, not more than 4% of the "neighborhood."] How do you think this makes those of us who are following the NRP rules feel? It's ok to commit the crime as long as you're willing to pay the penalty? It's ok to violate the rules in order to achieve your goals over those of your neighbors? Perhaps Mr. Brauer can describe a legitimate means of criticizing an unfair and biased process in a way so that one cannot be accused of "demonizing disagreement." Just what conditions must be met to de-demonize legitimate criticism? > When I was neighborhood board president, I received a call from a > councilmember about the proposed Ace Hardware house move. The > councilmember was letting me know a new organization had approached > him about moving the houses. At the time, they were offering to move > the houses WITHOUT NRP money (potentially saving us money) but making > them affordable. I don't see how this example does anymore than distract from the fundamental issues I have raised. It is not at all similar. Your behavior did not violate existing rules and procedures, although someone might argue that it did bias the process; which is a legitimate concern and you as a board member should have been willing to address these questions. I believe that public officials can be legitimately asked to justify their actions and motivations. That is exactly what is required when you need to show that you don't have a conflict of interest; you must show that your personal motivations do will not influence your policy decisions. The questioning of motivations is only limited in procedural regulations such as Robert's Rules, questioning the of motivations is clearly an acceptable and common practice in politics. You are welcome to question my motivations and I will respond accordingly, but that is not what is occurring here. I believe that I have presented legitimate arguments to show that the NRP reallocation meeting did not fairly present all residents with an equal opportunity to be represented. In my next post (if I can resist defending myself against additional personal attacks) I will show how this is related to basic problems inherent in the NRP and its current management. I would hope that Mr. Brauer would directly address these issues, which, by-the-way, he could still do by responding to my second post in this thread (it might provide a good role model for new list members). Michael Atherton Prospect Park TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] HR341 Flamingos with Power Tools and their Allies
I wonder what it would take for those who support this kind of measure to realize that discrimination DOES occur against GLBT persons (and those perceived as members of the GLBT community as well) and that is why civil rights measures like the ones we have in MN are necessary? I don't expect people like Tom Pritchard to send my partner and me anniversary cards every June but I really would appreciate him just leaving GLBT people alone. I really would appreciate it if the MN Family Council and the Republican Caucus would discontinue seeking the repeal of laws which simply let GLBT people know we won't be denied a livelihood, medical care, and restaurant service in Minnesota because of who we are. I say "who we are" because as Sen. Dibble noted, the bill even goes so far as to strike "sexual orientation" from the definition of "Holocaust survivor" and "Holocaust victim" in MN Statute 60A.053, the law that provides state assistance to Holocaust victims and heirs in settling insurance claims improperly denied or processed. The law defines survivors and victims as: (a) "Holocaust survivor" or "Holocaust victim" means any person who was persecuted, imprisoned or liable to imprisonment, or had property taken or confiscated during the period of 1933 to 1945, inclusive, by Nazi Germany, its allies, or sympathizers based on that person's race, religion, ethnicity, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, or similar class or group-based animus; http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getbill.pl?number=HF0341&session=ls83&version=latest&session_number=0&session_year=2003 Deleting "sexual orientation" wasn't an afterthought on the part of the people who sponsored this bill. This was the first law listed in a march of statutory extractions that might even be humorous if we were living in a less tense time. I hope that as in 1993, in addition to flamingos with power tools, republican allies and conservative democrats will be at the ready to help defeat this, or at least not let it pass. Karen Clark and Scott Dibble must not be made to do all the heavy lifting. Amy Draeger Audubon Park _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] Minneapolis schools may not be targeted by Pawlentycuts
David Brauer writes.. "I don't know all the other ins and outs, but the Senate DFLers hung tough and Pawlenty did not disproportionately cut city schools. So congrats to the Senators." Failure of the Senators to reach an agreement on their elected duty is something to be congratulated It's embarrassing that they can't do their jobs! What good are they if they can reach an agreement on solving this budget crisis. I guess they are very good at letting other people make the big decisions. Steve Sumner Ward 1 TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] RE: Section 8 Issues
Mr. Luce points out that if a section 8 tenant is "evicted" for damage to property, they are removed from the section 8 program, which hopefully is now true. It was not that way in the 1990's. But here is the real problem. They are only removed from the section 8 program by "an eviction for damages". In the real world of landlording, we do not see the extent of all the damages until the tenant moves out. In 32 years with over 5000 tenants, I have only evicted 3 tenants for damages to the property. The threshold to evict for damages is very high in Hennepin County! Steve Meldahl Jordan (work) - Original Message - From: "Gregory D. Luce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 12:24 AM Subject: [Mpls] RE: Section 8 Issues > Here's the law: > > A public housing authority (in this case the Minneapolis Public Housing > Authority) must terminate a tenant from the section 8 program if that tenant > is evicted for a serious lease violation. Damaging a property to the extent > that Mr. Meldahl alleges would amount to a serious lease violation, and the > MPHA has no discretion to allow that tenant to remain in the > program--federal law mandates that it must terminate the voucher. > > It is also law--and good sense--that the general public cannot obtain data > about persons who receive public assistance (which includes Section 8), > especially since those that do are often maligned or stigmatized based > solely on the fact that they receive such assistance. So the fact that MPHA > would not release individual data on a Section 8 recipient is perfectly and > understandably legal-- indeed it is compelled by law. > > Ultimately, a previous landlord would not know if a tenant was terminated > from the voucher program. But, having represented or advised tenants in > termination proceedings, I can tell you first hand that it happens. > > Am I saying tenants do not damage rental property? No. Am I reiterating > that Section 8 tenants are no different than other tenants? Yep. > > Gregory Luce > St. Paul > > Steve Meldahl wrote: > > > Mr. Luce appears to be new to the game. The fact is this - if a > > section 8 tenant wrecks a house or apartment, they do not lose their > > voucher in Minnesota. In fact I brought this fact to the attention of > > Representative Ramstad and Senator Grams in December 1997. They > > referred me to Jerry Benoit, one of the heads of HUD in Washington DC > > and on 12-19-97, and he told me that it was up to each state > > individually if they would allow these destructive tenants to remain in > > the section 8 program. Our liberal state decided that it was ok to > > leave them in the program. I also received a letter from Thomas Feeney, > Coordinator for HUD in > Minnesota on 12-16-97 that states, " Minneapolis Public Housing has > elected not to release participant (tenant) information." In other > words, they can remain in the program and we do not have to tell you or > anyone! > > > > > > TEMPORARY REMINDER: > 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. > 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. > > > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] sec 8
I am no expert on homelessness -- I hope my comments are constructive. As a private real estate investor, I do have a lot of experience in housing. It surprises me that landlords are often seen as the problem and not the solution. As one poster said, 95% of the landlords are good citizens. Some posters recommend we continue building new units. This will not solve the homelessness problem we already have 1000s of vacancies and homeless families. I worry that increased vacancies might push some landlords to accept any tenant just to pay the bills. This would be costly to many neighborhoods in Minneapolis. I hope our government leaders are aware of the damage an oversupply of housing has on their neighborhoods. Many posters have portrayed section 8 recipients as bad. Certainly I have had my share of bad section 8 tenants. It hurts because a judgment against them is seldom paid. However, I have rented to many excellent section 8 tenants and still do. It is all in the persons history. Screen everyone. I agree with Mr. Meldahls assertion that a problem is lack of good paying jobs. I was at the Minnesota Multi-housing Association conference in Downtown Mpls about a year ago. Mayor Kelly told a story about how an employer friend of his was frustrated because none of his employees could afford housing. One attendee interrupted Mayor Kelly with why doesnt he pay them more? Mayor Kelly appeared surprised by the response. Housing affordability has two sides to the equation. I hope our homeless advocates will increase their focus on creating good jobs, increasing vouchers (section 8, wilder Roof, etc) and helping tenants with behavioral problems. I believe this will help more than increasing our housing oversupply. This paragraph sums up my agenda in this thread. Finally, some people have asked personal questions of me. Quick answers: I am not a politician. 188 of 190 of my apartments are in Mpls and St. Paul. The majority of my apartments are near Eat Street in Mpls and in East St. Paul. I currently have 15, 3 & 4 bedroom units, but have had up to 42 at one time. Check out www.cullenhomes.com for more info. My comment of turning around problem properties drew some criticism. I know buildings dont cause problems. Residents, and landlords that dont deal with problem residents, do. The location I referred to was 1 of 32 problem properties featured in the Chronic Problem Properties in St. Paul written by Marcia Moermond. The location is no longer a problem. I appreciate your time. I hope I have made my point and will go away for a while. Regards, Bill. Hopkins Landlord. TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] RE: Section 8 housing
As a fairly new property manager in training (of a subsidized property with 3 different programs of subsidy), I will share my understanding of Section 8 vouchers, and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong but; 'Status with reference to receiving public assistance' is one of the protected classes of fair housing laws. I believe that all landlords are required to accept a renter with a voucher if all the following conditions are met: 1) the voucher covers the cost of that landlords scheduled rent 2) all applicants meet the consistent and enforced screening criteria set forth by the landlord for ALL applicants 3) the applicants have completed all and any other conditions set forth by HUD, MHFA, the local housing authority, as well as the landlord/manager. It would be discrimination to deny a voucher holder who meets all conditions, and believe me, there are a million tenant advocates who would love to explain this to you. IMHO, I believe that the reason you might see more voucher holders renting at an older property is that the properties rent is in the range of the voucher amount. The newer, more luxurious communities may have rents that exceed the amount of vouchers, and this may or may not be 'planned' by the management. Also, in regards to amount of service calls, I feel that the gentleman who speculated that Sec 8 renters increase the amount of service calls is mistaken. There could be many factors, each and every building has a very unique personality, poor maitenance history, 'quick-fixes' and band-aids, different mechanical equipment could all contribute to increased requirements of service. I will say that I feel that Sec 8 renters DO HAVE a broader knowledge of their rights and have no qualms about asking for attention. (Squeaky wheel gets the grease) Renting to Sec 8 voucher holders is very 'secure' if it is approached and handled properly. It is guaranteed payment, and it can be a good negogiating tool for the manager, i.e. if there is a problem with the tenants conduct, the thought of eviction is more scary to the renter because it could mean loss of all Sec 8 privleges forever. With proper screening done on all renters prior to acceptance, a community can be a healthy, pleasant one with market and assisted renters. To the landlord who raised the rent because the tenant wasn't paying their 30%, why did he not take action against a deliquent renter as he would with a market rate renter? That just seems like poor management to me. (Take more from the tax payers pocket because he was too lazy to take proper actions?) - Megan Goodmundson Shelter Corporation sheltercorp.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Sec 8
Pamela Taylor wrote: I also had a Section 8 inspector look over a duplex I wanted to rent on the northside on Plymouth Avenue. The inspector gave it a passing exam and the contract was drawn up and signed. When I moved in, some things that were concealed to me when I looked at it were then revealed. They were some basic things that I had been lied to about, and things that had the inspector done his job, would never have passed. When I complained and put it in writing, I got them to do another inspection because of the INCOMPETENCE in which the first inspector did his job. He was so cocky he even admitted knowing about these things. God works in mysterious yet wonderous ways. That Inspector was FIRED. [GDL] As in all aspects of life, there are good inspectors and bad inspectors. Good landlords and bad landlords. Good tenants and bad tenants. Pam Taylor hits upon an issue that I and other tenant advocates have long struggled with. Section 8 has its own housing inspectors, separate from the city's inspection division (hey--a budget idea--merge Section 8 inspectors into the regular inspectors!). The Housing Quality Standards (HQS) are very minimal standards, and the practicality of how it plays out is significant. Tenant moves in, like Pam Taylor, after house passes HQS. Tenant realizes that there are fundamental flaws and needed repairs in the unit. Tenant complains, advocate may or may not become involved, and landlord responds "but I just passed HQS." In some cases, that is given additional spin by the landlord as "I just passed a thorough government inspection with flying colors." Tenant's complaints minimized and discounted and, in any dispute before a court, housing court referee or judge (who never visits the property) has the only apparently indifferent account of the property: a flawed HQS inspection. Thus, in my experience, Section 8 HQS inspections are far less credible to me than general City of Minneapolis inspections, and that's unfortunate. To be fair, there is immense pressure on Section 8 inspectors to pass a house for HQS because of the need to get the house into the program and rented out to a tenant, who may desperately need it and who may be calling Section 8 every day to find out if the house is now available (add to that the advocate wanting to know the same thing). That pressure comes from landlords and tenants alike, as neither want to hear that a house apparently ready for move in is not yet up to snuff. Thus, items are often overlooked or passed over that obviously need attention. Gregory Luce St. Paul TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] Some Landlords to Cheap to pay for hauling......
Re: illegal dumping: Get the license number and give it to your City Council member.. a picture would also be nice. MHohmann Linden Hills > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > V.L. Freeman > Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 6:33 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Mpls] Some Landlords to Cheap to pay for hauling.. > snip > I'd like to know, is there a law or city ordinance against dumping your > waste onto someone else's property? Here lately more so in the 5th ward, > landlord owners have continue to dump rubbish from their rental > units onto > someone else's property. > snip > One was asked what he was doing, leaving trash and > furniture in the back of these homes. He said they were dropping of some > stuff that needed to be pick up by the city. snip > Thanks! > > Vanessa Freeman > Hawthorne snip TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] too cheap to haul
Yah, it's been that way for a long time. If you have major work in a building which requires a container box, its ok at first but give it a month -time enough for area to notice the box- and they start dumping there as if it was a county dump. I redid a fire damaged building once at 25th and Chicago and towards the end, I had to just take the box out early and quit on it as it really was being used as a free dump. On smaller scale, most people are respecting and don't do it but I had one neighbor once who continually put junk -discard tires, tree branches, etc. on my yard. There should be some place to refer these kind of problems as it really is purposeful bad conduct. It would be a good function of the local police precinct office, and just the possibility of somebody getting caught at it -or even questioned-likely would greatly diminish the problem. James Jacobsen // Whittier TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Mpls Police Chief receives award for crime prevention andcommunity relations
Minneapolis police chief receives award from FBI David Chanen Star Tribune Published Feb. 8, 2003 With his top police officials gathered around Friday, Minneapolis Police Chief Robert Olson received the FBI Director's Community Leadership Award for his crime prevention initiatives and relations with the community. http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3641186.html Shawn Lewis, Field Neighborhood -- ___ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Meet Singles http://corp.mail.com/lavalife TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Some Landlords to Cheap to pay for hauling......
Greeting's List, and Happy Saturday! (Comment: Not all rental property owners do this, but there are a few that do. This post is about the ones that are to cheap to handle their own trash and leftover furniture, or kitchen appliances removal.) I'd like to know, is there a law or city ordinance against dumping your waste onto someone else's property? Here lately more so in the 5th ward, landlord owners have continue to dump rubbish from their rental units onto someone else's property. In one weeks time a renter told me about three drop offs' that she has seen, and plenty more is delivered when she was not watching.She tells me this is becoming the norm. One was asked what he was doing, leaving trash and furniture in the back of these homes. He said they were dropping of some stuff that needed to be pick up by the city. Not only at this particular house, but the one behind her, on the side of her, and down the alley from her. When she kindly ask them to remove their rubbish, they became completely upset and asked her why. Does anyone on the list or lurking about have an ideal of where one could report such blatant disrespect and obviously to cheap to haul away their own junk. Please e-mail me. Thanks! Vanessa Freeman Hawthorne _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] HF341- the real "enterprise zones" act
By now a lot of folks have gotten about 10 e-mails about the republicans bill, HF341, to remove gays from the protection of the Human Rights Act. This bill should really in the sake of truth in legislating be retitled the "Minneapolis and St.Paul economic development act of 2003". Minneapolis was one of the first cities in the nation to protect gays from discrimination with an ordinance in 1974, which was amended to close a loophole in 1975. Minneapolis then became a magnet for gays, with many buying homes and putting down roots. These gay citizens helped stabilize Minneapolis during the Reagan recession of the 1980s, helping the city survive that crisis in far better shape than most central cities. Minnesota made Minneapolis' protections statewide in 1993. Suddenly it was safe in the suburbs, and many gay people moved there as well as outstate. In fact, greater Minnesota is becoming the retirement choice of an increasing number of gays. This bill was written by the type of anti Minneapolis republicans who probably lay awake nights thinking up new ways to get even with the central cities. Little do they realize that their bill will cause a migration of gays back to the protections of Minneapolis and St.Paul, where their rights are still protected in law and quite beyond repeal. I can see it already, as thousands of gays fill up every vacancy in Minnepolis and St.Paul. Denied housing, freaked out by pink flamingos and dykes with power tools, The gangs flee to Maple Grove, Winona, and Lakeville... From Hawthorne, where pink flamingos are welcome, Dyna Sluyter TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
