[Mpls] NRP Phase II Community Follow up meeting - Reminder!
Residents of Near North and Willard Hay, Come and view the work plans created by your neighbors. Bring neighbors with you this is a 1.8 million meeting!! The committees have done a great job and food will be provided. Thursday, October 20, 2005 7pm -9pm Franklin Middle School 1501 Aldrich Avenue North side Minneapolis, MN 55411 Makeda Zulu-Gillespie Community Organizer Northside Residents Redevelopment Council 1313 Plymouth Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55411 612/277-1153 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] NRP nixes LNA $80,000 request - Other Sources Sought
Scott Moore wrote: snip What's all this I hear about a missing $80,000? Where did the money go? Seeing a dollar amount in red ink with a minus sign in front of it might be alarming. It has been stated in this forum a couple of times that the Changes in Fund Balance amount of -$82,023 did not come from NRP. Here's a quote from a letter by Michael Wilson, the CPA who audited the financial statements of LNA: http://www.mail-archive.com/mpls@mnforum.org/msg41124.html The LNA was engaged in activities that a major funding source, the Minneapolis NRP, chose not to fund. While these activities appeared to be consistent with the LNAs overall mission, they were not consistent with the NRP's contracts. Here's a quote from the letter posted by the list manager addressed to Wendy Pareene. It is a response to her letter of February 10, 2003: http://www.mail-archive.com/mpls@mnforum.org/msg41093.html As has been explained to you on several occasions, due to disagreements that arose in 2000 about the way that staff time should be accounted for and reimbursed, NRP declined to reimburse LNA for a sum of approximately $83,000. Some LNA staff worked some hours, put in some time and got paid but when LNA went to NRP, one of their funding sources, to cover this expense NRP said no? That's what appears to have happened. Staff time may be accounted for in a budget under operations or supportive services. Since the money LNA was hoping to get from NRP did not come it had to come from other sources. Mark Anderson replies: I've been an accountant in the private sector for twenty-five years, and I was Treasurer at the Bancroft Neighborhood Association for three years. I have a pretty good feel for what the books should look like on the detail level. I gotta believe that Wendy Wilde received more information as a member of the executive committee than has been provided on the Mpls Issues List. But if the information provided here is representative of the usual reaction to her request to know what's going on, then she has a right to be angry. Maybe the financial management of LNA is out of control. The letter from the outside auditor was worthless. I hope he provided a more detailed accounting of what happened to the Board, or he should be fired. It's been stated several times that LNA spent this money and then NRP decided not to cover these expenses. That's all well and good, but it's not an explanation. The question is why didn't NRP reimburse LNA for the expenses? NRP does cover the normal administrative costs of running a neighborhood office. What was so extravagant about these costs that NRP wouldn't pay them? Maybe there are perfectly reasonable explanations for it, but it certainly does bear explaining what happened. $82,000 is a lot of money. I sometimes felt a bit irresponsible for agreeing to $25 expenditures that NRP wouldn't cover. $82,000 should be explained in great detail to anyone who asks. When I was Treasurer of BNA, I always felt that every penny spent was public information. I explained the financial events to the Board in our monthly meetings in as much detail as they asked for. I wasn't always clear about some of the complicated goings on, but I was willing to take as long as it took to make them understand the financial status of the neighborhood. And I would do the same for anyone who lived in the neighborhood. I don't live in Lyndale Neighborhood, so I don't feel owed an explanation on what happened, but I do feel some sympathy for Wendy. I agree that one needs to take the volunteer labor into account when judging how a neighborhood is run. At BNA, we certainly made plenty of mistakes, and we never had time to run the association as well as we'd have liked to. But that is no excuse for not having complete financial transparency. The whole reason Wendy brought this up was to torpedo Scott Persons' council hopes. I don't know if that is reasonable. Even if LNA was somewhat dysfunctional financially and Scott was the president some of the time, I don't think you can put all the blame on one person (pun intended). Scott Moore continued: So if NRP didn't give LNA this money, how did LNA cover this staff time? $457,351 fiscal 02 revenue -$428,357 fiscal 02 expenses $ 28,994 fiscal 02 excess $209,954 fund balance at beginning of year 02 -$156,925 fund balance at the end of year 02 $ 53,029 difference +$ 28,994 fiscal 02 excess $ 82,023 Mark Anderson replies: What kind of explanation is this? It explains nothing. All it says is LNA had extra money in 02 so it could pay off the deficit from an earlier year. The question is where did the funding come from? I can't imagine a funding source like McKnight or Otto Bremer agreeing to pay off the $82,000 just to cover LNA's deficit. What funding source paid off the $82,000, since NRP wouldn't do so? I'm not accusing LNA of any
[Mpls] NRP Staff Time
Chris Johnson writes: If the money is spent, but not reimbursed, as the writers freely admit, then where did the cash come from? Which account or other purpose was raided to spend it? It's not like someone lost a pocketful of change and it was covered from petty cash. $83,000 is a lot of money. LNA wrote it off -- but all that means is hay had an unrecovered loss. They still LOST $83,000 somehow. How? That's what Ms. Pareene seems to be asking. And that's what many of us would like to know, too. I assume you have read the letter from the auditor that makes it clearer, but the money came from payroll, and whatever account is associated with. For whatever reason (I don't understand well, not being on LNA), it was not reimbursed by NRP. Say whatever you want about why that happened, but where the money went is abundantly clear. I'd also like to know why some neighborhood associations spent tens of thousands of dollars of NRP money on staff time and related expenses (e.g. telephones at $8,000) and others spent nearly zero on staff, making do with almost all volunteer efforts. That difference really does add ammunition to the critics of NRP who say that political hacks just abuse NRP as yet another way to belly up to the public trough. As a devoted NRP volunteer, I take a good deal of offense from this. The Lyndale volunteers are amazing, and LNA's accomplishments are nationally recognized. But does Mr. Johnson truly think that all of LNA's accomplishments can be achieved by volunteers? There aren't enough free man-hours in the entire neighborhood, I'd wager. NRP is about improving our neighborhoods, and in many neighborhoods, that requires being active and making opportunities happen. Volunteers do not have the time or wherewithal. --Jeff Rosenberg Live East Isles School Cedar-Riverside Secretary, Cedar-Riverside NRP Steering Committee 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP nixes LNA $80,000 request - Other Sources Sought
So how much do the board members of LNA get paid? Oh, they're volunteers. Wouldn't it be crazy to put the responsibility of a $400,000+ budget in the hands of a board president, a single person, working nights and weekends without pay? Anyone who has served or is serving on the LNA Board of Directors knows that there's 12 seats on the board and 4 seats on the executive committee. Projects submitted by community residents in search of funding must first submit a project plan to the appropriate committee then to the board meeting and then to the general membership meeting. So, if the neighborhood association wants to pay their water bill, they have to go through each of these three steps to seek approval? How does anything get done? Please direct your attention to the job description for the Executive Director of the Lyndale Neighborhood Association: http://www.lyndale.org/lna/jobs/lnajob.html Now look at item number two under responsibilities. Responsibilities: 2. Executive Administration * Financial management, including developing and monitoring the annual budget * Support Steering Committee's monthly meetings and the neighborhood's General Membership meetings * Ensure that organization fulfills its legal fiduciary duties and contract administration The Executive Director, the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee work together in appropriate capacities to ensure that the day to day and long term business of LNA is handled appropriately. I understand that the LNA is a nationally recognized neighborhood organization that provides many community events and services. Where does it get the money to do those things? Please refer back to the job description for the Executive Director, item number four. 4 Fundraise * Secure resources necessary to meet neighborhood and organizational goals, including grant writing * Direct fundraising for organization, including building and maintaining relationships with funders and looking for creative partnerships to achieve joint goals. That sounds like a lot of work. Writing grants, building relationships with funders. Can't LNA just get all of its money from NRP? The McKnight Foundation http://www.mcknight.org/grantsprograms/grantee_results.aspx?desc_keyword=page=4prog_area_1=Region%20and%20Communities The Otto Bremer Foundation http://fdncenter.org/grantmaker/bremer/pr_gr01_09.html Community Foundation Silicon Valley http://www.cfsv.org/enewsletter2/vol22_2.html These and many other foundations have contributed money to the Lyndale Neighborhood Association for operations, youth programs, and supportive services among other things. What's all this I hear about a missing $80,000? Where did the money go? Seeing a dollar amount in red ink with a minus sign in front of it might be alarming. It has been stated in this forum a couple of times that the Changes in Fund Balance amount of -$82,023 did not come from NRP. Here's a quote from a letter by Michael Wilson, the CPA who audited the financial statements of LNA: http://www.mail-archive.com/mpls@mnforum.org/msg41124.html The LNA was engaged in activities that a major funding source, the Minneapolis NRP, chose not to fund. While these activities appeared to be consistent with the LNAs overall mission, they were not consistent with the NRP's contracts. Here's a quote from the letter posted by the list manager addressed to Wendy Pareene. It is a response to her letter of February 10, 2003: http://www.mail-archive.com/mpls@mnforum.org/msg41093.html As has been explained to you on several occasions, due to disagreements that arose in 2000 about the way that staff time should be accounted for and reimbursed, NRP declined to reimburse LNA for a sum of approximately $83,000. Some LNA staff worked some hours, put in some time and got paid but when LNA went to NRP, one of their funding sources, to cover this expense NRP said no? That's what appears to have happened. Staff time may be accounted for in a budget under operations or supportive services. Since the money LNA was hoping to get from NRP did not come it had to come from other sources. So if NRP didn't give LNA this money, how did LNA cover this staff time? $457,351 fiscal 02 revenue -$428,357 fiscal 02 expenses $ 28,994 fiscal 02 excess $209,954 fund balance at beginning of year 02 -$156,925 fund balance at the end of year 02 $ 53,029 difference +$ 28,994 fiscal 02 excess $ 82,023 According to information provided in this forum, LNA was hoping for money to pay its staff. They didn't get it from NRP as previously planned so they had to get it from somewhere else. That's a change in fund balance. In fiscal 02 there were three paid positions at LNA totaling $122,519 for salary, benefits and payroll taxes. These are people putting in long hours to make the Lyndale community a better, safer, more beautiful and
[Mpls] NRP Policy Board Actions of June 2005
I encourage Minneapolis residents and neighborhood organizations to review the June 27, 2005 actions taken by the Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) Policy Board. Phase II plans were approved for Jordan and Hale Page Diamond Lake as was a major plan modification for Northeast Park. The Policy Board established a new procedure for processing, review and approval of neighborhood action plans in place of the former Management Review Team process. This reform should make the neighborhoods' process for Phase II plan review and approval more effective and less contentious than in recent years. A task force was established from the Policy Board membership to study future funding and continuation of the program. As most folks know or will soon realize, the Five Year NRP Business Plan prepared in 2004 as part of the overall city budget process alerted people to the fact that the independent NRP office closes it doors after the end of 2008. In my individual capacity, I personally urge Minneapolis voters to ask Mayoral, City Council, Park and Library boards candidates specifically what is their plan relative to funding and continuation of the NRP. There will be some information forthcoming to neighborhoods from Mr. Miller pertaining to annually-revised projections of Common Project revenues draft prepared by the Development Finance Division, which subject the Policy Board will take up at its July 25, 2005 meeting. Other Policy Board actions are available at the NRP web site: http://www.nrp.org/R2/AboutNRP/PB/PBAgenda2005/PBA20050627.html Jeffrey L. Strand, Protection Neighborhoods Representative 2005 Shingle Creek 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP meeting
Neighborhood Revitalization Program Phase II Planning Meeting Tuesday March 29, 2005 7-9 pm Lincoln Elementary 2131 12th Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55411 612-668-2800 Come and help prioritize strategies to better Near North and Willard Hay neighborhoods Please reserve your spot by March 21, 2005 at 612-335-5924 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Makeda Zulu-Gillespie Community Organizer Northside Residents Redevelopment Council 1313 Plymouth Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55411 612/277-1153 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] NRP
The 13th Ward used to have Republican leanings until the Republican Party leaped into the ultra conservative cesspool back in the mid 80's. Bill Dean was the last republican legislator from this ward (1980) and Charlee Hoyt that last republican council member. Neither could be endorsed by current republican party. The 13th ward will support moderate Republicans like Arne Carlson and does elect independents like Steve Minn and Barret Lane to city council. There was quite a solid, effective group of Republican moderates in the 13th ward that at least made elections interesting if not victorious but almost all have dropped out of the party. To suggest that we in the 13th ward are ripe for becoming a republican city . . . well, them's fighting words!! Jim Bernstein Fulton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Resist America Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 6:33 AM To: mplsforum Subject: [Mpls] NRP Not much changs here. It seems that Victoria Heller, the North Oaks critic who loves to hate everything any Minneapolis ruling body does is still using faulty logic and gross generalizations to steer away from any authentic solutions to problems that never strike her in any way but in the bank account. To call NRP a colossal failure when the problems don't really affect her personal quality of life is gratuitous. To ignore the fault of state government and her personal political party is also a bit disingenuos. Victoria, just sell, and leave us to work on our own issues without your second-guessing. I now know how Iraqis and Palestinians feel. India had a Quit India Now movement. I hereby inaugurate a Quit Minneapolis Now. And don't try to partition the 13th Ward into a separate Republican city,e either. I wouldnt be at all surprised to see state Republicans do such a thing! Oy! Jim Mork Cooper __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.5 - Release Date: 1/26/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.5 - Release Date: 1/26/2005 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP
Not much changs here. It seems that Victoria Heller, the North Oaks critic who loves to hate everything any Minneapolis ruling body does is still using faulty logic and gross generalizations to steer away from any authentic solutions to problems that never strike her in any way but in the bank account. To call NRP a colossal failure when the problems don't really affect her personal quality of life is gratuitous. To ignore the fault of state government and her personal political party is also a bit disingenuos. Victoria, just sell, and leave us to work on our own issues without your second-guessing. I now know how Iraqis and Palestinians feel. India had a Quit India Now movement. I hereby inaugurate a Quit Minneapolis Now. And don't try to partition the 13th Ward into a separate Republican city,e either. I wouldnt be at all surprised to see state Republicans do such a thing! Oy! Jim Mork Cooper __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP - Accounting
Michael Atherton said: If we assume 70 neighborhoods spent NRP dollars over ten years and did so in a way that keep them just under the $50,000 threshold for a full audit But... He misses the point that the audits done when less that $50,000 was spent in one year are NOT a euphemism for no audit at all. What's done is clearly designed to ensure that money isn't being wasted by misadventure or intent. And auditors being what they are, they always have recommendations to tighten up accounting procedures even when they were there only the year before. Ask the treasurer of any neighborhood group. I'm sure that they would all say that all audits serve there purpose to ensure that public money isn't being mis-spent. 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] NRP - NO PERSONAL ATTACKS
Folks, I won't tolerate such direct communications involving another member. If you need to address another member, send it to them off-list. Personal attacks are simply not tolerated here. You must speak to issues and not people. And please, don't respond in kind. David Brauer List manager Not much changs here. It seems that Victoria Heller, the North Oaks critic who loves to hate everything any Minneapolis ruling body does is still using faulty logic and gross generalizations to steer away from any authentic solutions to problems that never strike her in any way but in the bank account. To call NRP a colossal failure when the problems don't really affect her personal quality of life is gratuitous. To ignore the fault of state government and her personal political party is also a bit disingenuos. Victoria, just sell, and leave us to work on our own issues without your second-guessing. I now know how Iraqis and Palestinians feel. India had a Quit India Now movement. I hereby inaugurate a Quit Minneapolis Now. And don't try to partition the 13th Ward into a separate Republican city,e either. I wouldnt be at all surprised to see state Republicans do such a thing! Oy! Jim Mork Cooper __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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:mpls@mnforum.org 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP
Jim Mork (Resist America) writes: I hereby inaugurate a Quit Minneapolis Now. And don't try to partition the 13th Ward into a separate Republican city,e either. I wouldnt be at all surprised to see state Republicans do such a thing! Lee responds: Jim did not attend the most recent meeting where it was decided to make the 7th ward a Republican utopia, a land of milk and honey. We could not resist the sirens song of the vast majority of business and high end residential property in the city encompassed by the 7th. Although we did have lengthy debate on the name for the new utopia. Debated were Timville, Normville, Georgeville, and Pattyville. I will keep the list posted as this mission of mercy unfolds. Lee R. Eklund Victory PS: What is Resist America and what are they resisting? 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] NRP - Accounting
Just to add a little clarity to this discussion: The NRP funds flow through a variety of sources. The first requirement by law is that NRP funds flow through a governmental jurisdiction. CPED is the contract manager (CM) for housing and commercial development projects. Hennepin County is the CM for social service programs. The School Board is the CM for school related projects. The Park Board is the CM for Park related projects. The Library Board is the CM for library projects. There are a variety of city departments that serve as contract managers for NRP projects. The nature of the project determines the department that will manage the contract. These jurisdictions may sub-contract these funds to other agencies. For example, the vast majority of neighborhoods have housing loan and grant programs available to their residents. In this instance, the NRP funds flow through CPED and then to a housing administrator like the Center for Energy and the Environment, Greater Metropolitan Housing Corp, Project for Pride in Living or a variety of local banking institutions. The above listed administrators process loan applications from borrowers, allocate the loan funds and service the loan pool. In the case of Center for Energy and Environment, they also have other funding sources to use in matching the NRP dollars for neighborhoods. Currently, CEE has leveraged about $4 dollars from other sources to every $1 of NRP funds. I am not sure of the leveraging ability of the other housing administrators. My neighborhoods mainly work with CEE. The funds flowing directly to a neighborhood association are for the most part intended for administrative purposes to defray the cost of working with neighborhood stakeholders to implement the NRP projects. NRP funds also flow through neighborhoods for organizing functions such as block club organizing, restorative justice programs, etc. Some neighborhood organizations are highly developed and also engage in direct service provision for youth programs or arts programs. There are very few neighborhoods engaging in this type of direct program delivery. In Phase II there will be very little funding available for any programs other than housing. So, while a neighborhood may be allocated $2 million dollars of NRP funds, the reality is that only a very small portion of those funds actually flow through the neighborhood association directly. Barb Lickness Whittier NRP Staff 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 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP
NRP is an independent agency from the city. It is a joint powers agreement formed by the State, County, City, School Board, Library Board and Park Board. The program is legislated by state law and regulated by the NRP Policy Board whose membership is elected on an annual basis. I would be surprised if the NRP operating budget wasn't contained in the full city budget but it may not be. It is however available to the public through a request to NRP Director Bob Miller. The neighborhood allocations of NRP funds are available at www.nrp.org. By the way, NRP represents 1% of the total city budget. Seems like NRP has been given the lions share of analysis and discussion regarding it's worthiness. Perhaps a discussion about how the other 99% is being spent might be productive. Barb Lickness Whittier NRP Staff 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 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP, as larger budget topic?
Barb Lickness Said: By the way, NRP represents 1% of the total city budget. Seems like NRP has been given the lions share of analysis and discussion regarding it's worthiness. Perhaps a discussion about how the other 99% is being spent might be productive. Read a book once that suggests just that and I think fits the topic, a small sample for you. Excerpts from The Price of Government: The first step is to turn the budget process on its head, so that it starts with the results we demand and the price we are willing to pay rather than the programs we have and the costs they incur. The second is to build the budget by deciding to buy only those programs that deliver the results we want and leave the rest behind. Then we must cut government down to its most effective size and shape, through strategic reviews, consolidation, and rightsizing; use competition to squeeze more value out of every tax dollar; make every program, organization, and employee accountable for results; use technology to empower customers and save money; and reform how government works on the inside (its management systems and bureaucratic rules) to improve its performance on the outside. THE PRICE OF GOVERNMENT Getting the Results We Need in an Age of Permanent Fiscal Crisis by David Osborne and Peter Hutchinson Brian Hanf Crystal 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] NRP, as larger budget topic?
Barbara Lickness: You go right ahead and turn the NRP program on it's head and examine each and every inch of it. You find me a government program that has accomplished more than NRP has in terms of leveraging additional investment and in redirecting impoverished inner city neighborhoods by stabilizing the housing stock and I will gladly find a way to get it implemented. Me: I'm not sure how to take your response, but I was agreeing with you. You said to look at the other 99% of the budget. Seems to me that the NRP program has a lot of people that think it is good and is a value to the community. Brian J Hanf Crystal -Original Message- From: Barbara Lickness [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 1:35 PM To: Brian Hanf Subject: Re: [Mpls] NRP, as larger budget topic? Well Brian I have used my two posts for the day. You go right ahead and turn the NRP program on it's head and examine each and every inch of it. You find me a government program that has accomplished more than NRP has in terms of leveraging additional investment and in redirecting impoverished inner city neighborhoods by stabilizing the housing stock and I will gladly find a way to get it implemented. I can say with all certainty that you will not be able to find another program with the proven successes NRP has had and the transparency under which we operate. We have been examined by some of the finest institutions in the world. Call Harvard and get their report. Brian J Hanf Crystal 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] NRP - Accounting
Michael Atherton wrote: If I understand this correctly, then contractors who receive less than $50,000 a year do not receive full audits, THEN what is the dollar amount of funds that have been released without full audits in Phase I? If the NRP has tight accounting procedures then this figure should be readily available. Since Ms. Lickness hasn't gotten around to answering this question, I've calculated the maximum. If we assume 70 neighborhoods spent NRP dollars over ten years and did so in a way that keep them just under the $50,000 threshold for a full audit, that means there could have been 35 million dollars spent by NRP contractors who were not fully audited. I'm sure that the actual figure is much smaller, but it should give you pause, even if the unaudited figure was only $2,000,000. Keep in mind that the NRP at the neighborhood is run by those who show up without benefit of background checks and no public visibility (to speak of). Michael Atherton Prospect Park 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP
If people want to see how the NRP money was spent you can go to www.nrp.org and print a report for yourself. Click on the globe in the bottom right and create a report. Every dime of NRP funds that have been allocated, contracted and expended by neighborhoods is available on-line at any time. In addition, the State Auditors office has audited qualifying neighborhood associations every year for the past several years. Their reports are available in the central NRP office for any neighborhood you are concerned about. Barb Lickness Whittier 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 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP - Atherton wrong
Mike said Fact: There are several different types of audits. The type of audit required of NRP contractors only checks that required documentation exists, it doesn't confirm the accuracy of that documentation. The NRP orders full audits of contractors only when there serious doubts. Me: Mike is wrong. There are two types of audits. Those neighborhoods receiving less than $50,000 a year are audited for financial compliance. In other words, do they follow standard accounting practices. Do they keep a general ledger? Do they have financial policies and procedures? Do they balance their checking account? etc. All other neighborhoods have full audits by the state auditors office. They look at everything down to the smallest detail and they most definately confirm the accuracy of that documentation. Most neighborhoods have full audits. Barb Lickness Whittier 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 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] NRP - Accounting
Barbara Lickness wrote: Mike is wrong. There are two types of audits. Those neighborhoods receiving less than $50,000 a year are audited for financial compliance. In other words, do they follow standard accounting practices. Do they keep a general ledger? Do they have financial policies and procedures? Do they balance their checking account? etc. All other neighborhoods have full audits by the state auditors office. They look at everything down to the smallest detail and they most definately confirm the accuracy of that documentation. Most neighborhoods have full audits. Very interesting. So, I believe that my neighborhood association received $2M+ in NRP funds, but they did not receive full audits in every year of the program. So just when are full audits required? Are full audits required in every year in which funds greater than $50,000 are released? Will Ms. Lickness please identify the years that PPERRIA received full audits? Also, as I recall Enron was fully audited, what other safeguards does the NRP provide over-and-above those done at Enron? Case in point, PPERRIA released $500,000+ to a private housing developer without a formal bidding procedure. How is the NRP confident that this procedure was done fairly? If I understand this correctly, then contractors who receive less than $50,000 a year do not receive full audits, THEN what is the dollar amount of funds that have been released without full audits in Phase I? If the NRP has tight accounting procedures then this figure should be readily available. Thanks. Michael Atherton Prospect Park 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP - Accounting
Michael Atherton asked: So, I believe that my neighborhood association received $2M+ in NRP funds, but they did not receive full audits in every year of the program. In answer: I was President of PPERRIA for three years during which we were expending much of the NRP-1 funds. Barbara Lickness is correct on her statement regarding auditing. On those years in which we spent more than $50,000 of NRP money, we had a full audit every year. It's only in subsequent years when spending of NRP-1 funds fell under the threshold did we get only the limited audit. (Which, by the way, is not much less work for our treasurer and finance vice-chair as the full audit. So don't minimize the limited audit.) I believe that copies of all PPERRIA audits are available for examination by anyone with the official corporate records at Pratt School. Steve Cross Prospect Park 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP Policy Board Audit for calendar year 2003
As a Policy Board member, I was pleased to receive a Memorandum dated January 19, 2005 from NRP Director Robert Miller certifying that the Office of the State Auditor has again issued an unqualified opinion on the Policy Board's financial statements. According to Mr. Miller's Memo, This means that the financial statements are in conformance with applicable accounting standards and present fairly, in all material aspects, the financial position of the Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Policy Board as of December 31, 2003. All Policy Board members and alternates were directly mailed the audit document from Patricia Anderson, State Auditor. Jeffrey L. Strand, 2005 NRP Protection Neighborhood Representative Shingle Creek resident, Ward 4 Responding to a post from Ms. Heller, David Brauer posted a response on the Subject: RE: [Mpls] Politicking and the NRP...Wake up and smell the deficits! I hope the charge below won't overly distract the list. There's no evidence presented. There's also no indication that audit information - from NRP or other government bodies - is unavailable. There are many legitimate policy differences for us to discuss. But the frequent criminalizing of policy differences distracts from a valuable and constructive discussion. David Brauer Kingfield -Original Message- How many Republicans got a taste of the $200+ million NRP pie? If all of that money was sucked up by local Democrats, Minneapolis has committed a huge violation of Constitutional law: Using public money to fund a political party! Let's have an audit. Let's find out where all of that money went. As a taxpayer, I want to see the cancelled checks. I want NAMES. 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP taken over by City? part 1
Seward is the first neighborhood to go through the NRP Phase 2 approval process. We go before the NRP policy board Monday Oct. 25, 4:30 at the Hennepin County Govt. Center C-2350. We have gone before the management review team two times and have been recommended for approval. It is really disconcerting that in this process, The CPED review of our plan did not reflect an understanding of the NRP policy process, understanding how neighborhood groups work and are a benefit to the city, or an understanding of the unified housing policy that is at the center of this issue. (4.14,4.15.4.16 were excluded) Read Scott Russell's recent and informative article about how the city wants to control NRP dollars and decision making. _http://www.skywaynews.net/articles/2004/10/19/news/news14.txt_ (http://www.skywaynews.net/articles/2004/10/19/news/news14.txt) city leaders say they will be more forceful this time around. Deputy Mayor David Fey said the city has had the authority to review and shape NRP plans but hasn't used it. It is not new that the city has that authority, he said. It is new that they [city leaders] have been explicit about their intention to review plans with city goals in mind. As the Seward Neighborhood Group President, and as an individual who cares about city housing issues, I support the unified housing plan, but what is going on here is shift of control of NRP dollars from the NRP Policy Board to the City council and city staff. I see that as a real detriment to the quality of citizen participation and the ability of neighborhood groups to survive. I have seen the great benefits of neighborhood planning in Seward. I do think there is something very special about organized neighborhoods that is of great benefit to the city and many individuals. Thanks, Scott VreelandSeward For the full Seward plan and CPED comments _http://www.nrp.org/R2/AboutNRP/PB/PBAgenda2004/StaffReps/SR20041025_41.pdf_ (http://www.nrp.org/R2/AboutNRP/PB/PBAgenda2004/StaffReps/SR20041025_41.pdf) REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] NRP taken over by City?
Scott Vreeland of Seward wrote: snip City leaders say they will be more forceful this time around. Deputy Mayor David Fey said the city has had the authority to review and shape NRP plans But, they haven't used it. It is not new that the city has that authority, he said. It is new that they [city leaders] have been explicit about their intention to review plans with city goals in mind. snip For the full Seward plan and CPED comments _http://www.nrp.org/R2/AboutNRP/PB/PBAgenda2004/StaffReps/SR20041025_41. pdf_ (http://www.nrp.org/R2/AboutNRP/PB/PBAgenda2004/StaffReps/SR20041025_41. pdf) Roberta Englund Writes: The full post from Scott is valuable and should be read. The snip above is of special interest to me because it exemplifies what appears to be at the core of the problem in the NRP vs. CPED struggle. If residents of Minneapolis truly believe that they elect Council Members to represent their view of the city and its processes, and if those Council Members understand that, and the power of their constituents, the question of the role of NRP or CPED would not be an issue. Simply put, the root of these concerns is who, is working for whom. The Mayor, Council Members and subsequently the department heads that are elected or appointed are employees. Nothing more! If there is no room for compromise between the goals of CPED, declared or not, and the purpose and function of NRP then all of the rhetoric is useless. The only solution to preserve the good work of the neighborhoods and the appropriate function of CPED, and thus the continued development, revitalization and preservation of Minneapolis will be the ballot box in November of 2005 and the termination of those presumed city leaders who seem to believe that some city agencies are endowed with the power to direct through ordination. Roberta Englund (Personally) Folwell REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP taken over by city? part 2
NRP Phase 2 We are in this all together and my criticism of the CPED Review about Seward NRP planning is really an attempt to prevent bad planning without neighborhood involvement. Communities are more than housing projects. Part 2 The CPED review of the Seward Neighborhood Phase 2 plan was not based on any current NRP policy or the council action about unified housing policy presentation. It is so odd to go through years of planning that has rules and guidelines to get to the end point where CPED makes up a review process that has not been approved by any public body. (4.14 is one guideline inexplicably excluded from comments.) Our improvement plans for our housing stock fall in this guideline.(4.15 and 4.16 were also excluded) 4.14 Minneapolis will maintain the quality and unique character of the city's housing stock, thus maintaining the character of the vast majority of residential blocks in the city. 4.15 Minneapolis will carefully identify project sites where housing redevelopment and/or housing revitalization are the appropriate responses to neighborhood conditions and market demand. 4.16 Minneapolis will work closely with _Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP)_ (http://www.nrp.org/) planning and implementation to ensure that NRP plans are consistent with the City's Housing Policy. The other problem and warning to neighborhoods is the CPED reference to duplication of services. This also seems to be a strategy to take away neighborhood control and was repeated for several areas of our review. Seward has laid out a plan of what we want to do- the CPED response was If efforts are available from existing public or non profit providers, staff questions using scarce resources for these purposes. If we can use an existing resource that has money or time or if the wheel has already been invented by someone else, fine let's make a connection and use those resources. But the fact that there are other providers that have some similar services doesn't mean those services meet the needs that we are trying to address in our Phase 2 plan or that they are available. There is also a false assumption that because there are services out there, that neighborhoods shouldn't fund more of the same. What if it is exactly what is needed? Are we already doing too good a job of citizenship training or finding jobs for our new immigrants? For example: In our Phase 2 plan we want to work on a job training program for African immigrants using classrooms we have in the Seward Towers using our connections with African immigrant board members and staff and neighborhood immigrant organizations. CPED wants us to send them somewhere else. The logic of this makes no sense to me. The biggest duplication of services argument is a plan to pull the plug on NRP and eliminate all this messy neighborhood empowerment. Thanks, Scott VreelandSeward I want to be clear. I work with great staff people at CPED, some even part of the MRT review committee. My criticisms are specifically directed at this planning process and its content. For the Unified housing policy _http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/cped/affordable_housing_resolution.asp_ (http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/cped/affordable_housing_resolution.asp) REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP on Saturday Morning
On Saturday morning, October 9th at 11:00 am, there will be a dedication of the new Webber Park Playground, 44th and Dupont Avenue North. This event will celebrate the installation of the newest and most innovative Tot Lot in Minneapolis. The equipment, imported from Germany, provides an exceptional play experience and Webber is the only park in Minneapolis that offers this experience for neighborhood children, and any who choose to visit! Project costs were $375,000 dollars. $125,000 of that cost was provided by the Webber-Camden Neighborhood Organization (WCNO). Trust us, this renovation would not have happened without NRP dollars and a neighborhood partnership with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board! Just so you know the project came in on time and at budget. The Saturday event will, of course, include speeches by electeds and neighborhood organization leaders. Speeches will short however, because the best party anywhere on October 9th will include lunch, the worlds best Sloppy Joes and Dilly Bars, accompanied by a full program of entertainment to celebrate children and play! Reservations are NOT required. Roberta Englund Webber-Camden Neighborhood Organization REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP under siege by CPED
Fred Markus: I have long advocated to the mayor and others that having so many individual staff operations at the NRP neighborhood level has become fiscally unsustainable... Vicky adds: You are correct Fred, but it's worse than you think. Minneapolis is up to its eyeballs in debt and doesn't have a pit to poss in. The NRP has already squandered over $200 million and the City Council has no choice but to apply a tourniquet to the money hemorrhage. There are no conspiracies - you're simply broke. Jim Graham: Development should ALWAYS be driven by residents, or it will be driven over and around them. Formulate a vision of where you want your community to go and bring the talents and wisdom of your own people to achieve that vision. Vicky adds: Along with talent and wisdom, they need to bring their own money too. There's nothing wrong with having a vision - in fact, neighborhood séances might be fun. Just remember to confine your visions to publicly owned property. Since individuals don't have the power of eminent domain, it's a waste of time to have visions about other people's private property. George Sherman had a vision about owning my property, and with the help of the City, he almost got it. I hope Minneapolis residents have learned that such schemes are expensive legal no no's. It's time to face the facts -- visionaries need to get real jobs. Become taxpayers instead of taxtakers and everyone will be better off. Vicky Heller North Oaks and Cedar-Riverside REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP Policy Board Meeting Agenda for May 17, 2004
The agenda and accompanying staff reports for the May 17, 2004 NRP Policy Board Meeting have been published. You can find them on the NRP's Web site at: http://www.nrp.org/R2/AboutNRP/PB/PBAgenda2004/PBA20040517.html Comments on any of the items are welcomed on or off list. If you would like to receive e-mail updates when NRP Policy Board Meeting agendas and agenda action summaries have been published, please subscribe to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Cam Gordon Seward Neighborhood, Minneapolis, Ward 2 SD 59 (612) 296-0579, 339-2452 REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP/ Police dollars, Grass roots from the Top down
I and other list members attended the third precinct meeting about how to
write neighborhood action plans for requests from the NRP Million dollar Police
fund.
I see some good things happening out of this but I just can't help noting how
truly odd this process is.
I don't know which is the best metaphor - Alice in wonderland, Superman's
Bizarro World, or the Emperors new clothes. I was thinking maybe Superman's
Bizarro world where everything is the same but different was the most apt analogy,
but I think the Emperor's new clothes is best.
Basically the NRP, Police, and neighborhood folks spent the evening talking
about our preferences of the Emperor's outfit.
Wizard wanted just the Hat (fix up Chicago and Lake)
Barb Lickness wanted the outfit to fit tighter (fit the NRP strategies)
Bob Miller gave a speech about the extra pair of Pants that could come with
the outfit (how two neighborhoods could get $ 50,000 more by working together,
{but changing the hours that equal those dollars won't occur})
I asked about when the emperor gets dressed (basically we are making
decisions about something that has already in place)
The woman next to Wizard asked how do we judge how good the fabric is? ( who
decides the quality of the outfit?)
But this whole time we all see and know that everyone else sees that the
emperor is wearing no clothes.
By the time we write an action plan with an April first deadline, all the
decisions will be made. We have three sets of bureaucracies playing this out like
it is somewhat real, but it isn't.
I think it is great that we are working with the Third Precinct to set
priorities and work together and there will be good things that come out of this,
but this process is very strange.
Thanks,
Scott Vreeland Seward, Third Precinct sector 4
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] NRP/ Police dollars, Grass roots from the Top down
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I and other list members attended the third precinct meeting about how to
write neighborhood action plans for requests from the NRP Million dollar Police
fund.
I see some good things happening out of this but I just can't help noting how
truly odd this process is.
I don't know which is the best metaphor - Alice in wonderland, Superman's
Bizarro World, or the Emperors new clothes. I was thinking maybe Superman's
Bizarro world where everything is the same but different was the most apt analogy,
but I think the Emperor's new clothes is best.
Basically the NRP, Police, and neighborhood folks spent the evening talking
about our preferences of the Emperor's outfit.
Wizard wanted just the Hat (fix up Chicago and Lake)
WM: Jeez, Scott, that was a throw away line. Besides which, it's too far
ahead of the curve to make a full court press successful at Lake and
Chicago.
Barb Lickness wanted the outfit to fit tighter (fit the NRP strategies)
Bob Miller gave a speech about the extra pair of Pants that could come with
the outfit (how two neighborhoods could get $ 50,000 more by working together,
{but changing the hours that equal those dollars won't occur})
I asked about when the emperor gets dressed (basically we are making
decisions about something that has already in place)
The woman next to Wizard asked how do we judge how good the fabric is? ( who
decides the quality of the outfit?)But this whole time we all see and know that everyone else sees that the emperor is wearing no clothes.
By the time we write an action plan with an April first deadline, all the
decisions will be made. We have three sets of bureaucracies playing this out like
it is somewhat real, but it isn't.
I think it is great that we are working with the Third Precinct to set
priorities and work together and there will be good things that come out of this,
but this process is very strange.
WM: The process is all encompassing, but it still only amounts to four
FTE officers in the streets for the entire 3rd precinct from May 1st
until the end of this year. That's what 1/5th of a million means. Not
much. My area, (Lake St and surrounds from Chicago to the freeway) could
easily use all four 24/7/365 until the Sears site is up and running
smoothly and beyond. Face it, the Inspector/Commander of the 3rd
Precinct said it was a way not to have to lay off 4 more officers in the
3rd, the biggest precinct in the city.
The mayor has committed the NRP cardinal sin, using NRP money to replace
monies lost due to politics. He managed to make his case to the NRP
Policy Board. That case appears to have included that any police
activities used by the 4FTE must be tied to an NRP goal and strategy,
though Bob Miller said, I think, that he's willing to be squishy on
strategy.
At the same time, I'm grateful for the additional officers and if this
summer is anything like last summer, I'll be more than grateful for any
help we can beg, borrow, or steal. The fire bombing of Tykoon Records
pushed me over the line.
WizardMarks, Central
___
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP Policy Board Meeting Actions for February 23, 2004 (fwd)
fyi Forwarded Message begins here The Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) Policy BoardÝactions forÝFebruary 23, 2004 have been published. You can findÝthe marked agenda on the NRP's Web site at: http://www.nrp.org/R2/AboutNRP/PB/PBAgenda2004/PBA20040223.html ÝÝ If you know of other people who would like to receive e-mail updates when NRP Policy Board Meeting agendas and agenda action summaries have been published, please have them subscribe to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cam Gordon Seward Neighborhood, Minneapolis, Ward 2 SD 59 (612) 296-0579, 339-2452 REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP news
Could you please forward the following link to the Minneapolis Issues List: http://www.nrp.org/R2/News/NewsArch/2003/20031121.html The link will take people to the NRP Web site where they can obtain information regarding the results of last night's NRP Policy Board Neighborhood Representative election. Thanks for your help! _ Brett Feldman Communications Specialist Minneapolis NRP 105 Fifth Avenue South #425 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Ph: (612) 673-5158 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.nrp.org REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP Policy Bd meeting 11/17
The Neighborhood Revitalization Policy Board meets next Monday Monday, November 17 4:30 - 6:30 pm Hennepin County Government Center Conference Room C-2300 These meetings are open to the public. Please feel welcome and encouraged to attend. I am expecting to see three things (among others) on the NRP Policy Board Agenda on Monday that may interest some of you. 1) One thing concerns getting more diversity on the NRP Policy Board. I would appreciate any and all feedback regarding this idea. See details below. 2) The board will likely be setting up a committee to reexamine Phase II in light of funding reductions. We will be looking at adjusting funding allocations for Phase II based on projected reductions. My intention is to work with other Board Members to make sure that Phase II funding allocations are set soon and will be done in a fair and balanced manner. 3) I am also working to get policy Board agendas and meeting summaries distributed in a timely and effective way to all who are interested -- my suggestion I am hoping the board will take up Monday is to use City's current electronic system. Here is (a lot) more information on the diversity issue: As an NRP Policy Board Member / Neighborhood Representative I am trying to get the Board to create a task force in order to develop options about how to seat a person or persons representing communities of color and a person or persons representing renters or non-homeowners. The way the Board is structured we have three types of members: 1) elected officials representing various governmental bodies, 2) elected Neighborhood representatives and 3) Community Interest members The community interest members are executive directors or presiding officers from designated groups with a city-wide interest and include business (the Chamber of Commerce,) philanthropic and charitable interests (The Minneapolis Foundation and the United Way,) and labor (Central Labor Office.) The Bylaws also call for someone from a city-wide organization representing communities of color. This seat is now designated for john powell, formerly of the Institute on Race and Poverty, but he has attended no meetings all year and has taken a new job (some months ago) out of the state and the Institute is still looking for his replacement. I am suggesting that the Board should act now to set up a task force to determine how best to replace him with a new member (or more than one) and that we should also add a seat ( or seats) for the director or presiding officer from a city wide organization representing renters. When I first brought this proposal forward, to my surprise, there appeared to be a great deal of resistance. At the September meeting I offered the following resolution to create a task force to recommend options for including more diversity on the Board; specifically for a person or people representing communities of color and a person or people representing renters. It was tabled, but will be on our November agenda. ===Diversity Task Force Proposal=== Where as: Part of the NRP Policy Board's purpose is to ensure an open process and promote citizen participation in all aspects of the program. Where as: The Policy Board bylaws call for community interests to be represented on the board including someone representing communities of color. Where as: The Policy Board has had no person present at any Board meetings representing communities of color for at least the past ten months and the designated person no longer lives or works in Minnesota. Where as: Consistent and enduring concerns about NRP and the participation and inclusion of renters and people of color have been raised throughout Phase I of NRP and during discussions of Phase II. Where as: Including the perspectives of a person or persons representing communities of color and residents who do not own homes will likely promote better participation of these groups throughout NRP, will serve as an example to neighborhood groups, and will offer this and future Policy Boards valuable, and currently absent, perspectives on the important issues and decisions that will come in the future. Therefore be it resolved that the NRP Policy Board establish a task force, open to any and all interested Board members and alternates, to bring to the Board at its next meeting recommendations or options of how to include one or more person representing communities of color and one or more person representing renters/non-homeowners on the Policy Board. == Please contact me if you have any questions, interest or concerns about this, or anything relating to the Policy Board and NRP. In peace and cooperation, Cam Gordon NRP Policy Board Revitalization Neighborhood Representative (612) 296-0579, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cam Gordon Seward Neighborhood, Minneapolis, Ward 2 SD 59 (612) 296-0579, 339-2452 REMINDERS: 1. Think
[Mpls] NRP Update Highlights September '03
From: Cam Gordon, NRP Policy Board Neighborhood Rep. As a Neighborhood Representative, I offer the following about what is happening at the Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) Policy Board. Since my last report in July we have had two Board meetings and a great deal has happened. I am particularly interested in any feedback regarding I and IV I. Revised NRP Ordinance and Reduced Allocations II. Policy Board Approves Policing Set Aside III. Two Mayoral Proposals IV. Diversity Task Force Proposal V. Special Attention on Cedar Riverside Called For VI. Other Actions that might be of interest VII. Upcoming Workshops I. Revised NRP Ordinance May Mean Reductions in Neighborhood, Affordable Housing and Commercial Corridor Allocations In August the City Council revised the city's Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) ordinance and defined a base funding source for Phase II (2001-2009). I (and many others) lobbied and testified in favor of the ordinance and see these revisions as the best option to secure a future for NRP. It is projected that $58 million in Common Project revenues will be available to the NRP through 2009. This is significantly less than the $180 million originally anticipated for Phase II. Of the $89 million for Phase II ($31 million provided in 2001 and 2002 and $58 million projected for 2003-2009), $21 million are already committed to the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund ($16 million), the Commercial Corridor Reserve Fund ($4 million) and the NRP Community Policing Initiative ($1 million). The reduced Phase II funds will mean that neighborhood allocations will need to be reduced and that, in order to preserve more discretionary funds for neighborhoods, there will be pressure to reduce the Affordable Housing and Commercial Corridor set aside funds. II. Policy Board Approves $I Million Set Aside for Community Policing Partly in order to help build City Council support for future funding of NRP, as well as to address public safety concerns, the Policy Board voted in August to dedicate $1 million to community oriented public safety activities to be expended by December 2004. The final resolution that had been considered and modified over the span of several months also included provisions that police administration work with NRP and precinct advisory committees to develop a plan for spending these funds as approved in neighborhood action plans. Both concerns expressed by neighborhood organizations and a clarifying opinion issued by the NRP's legal counsel resulted in a change to the proposal that makes individual NRP Neighborhood Action Plans the driving force behind all funds transferred to the Police through the initiative. According to the resolution, community policing funds can be used for such things as: CCP/SAFE staffing, bike patrols, foot patrols and community-based and directed police presence across the city. I supported this version of the proposal, with some reluctance, in large part because of the new focus on neighborhood approval through action plans. III. Mayor Proposes Using CDBG Funds and Coordinating more with CLIC in 2004 The Mayor presented two noteworthy proposals to the Policy Board in August. First, he proposed that 1/2 of the Mayor's allocation, ($1.2 million targeted to Social Services) of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds go through the NRP Policy Board for spending recommendations. The NRP policy board would work with the Empowerment Zone Board and the Youth Coordinating Board to identify uses of these funds. This was discussed and approved, along with a draft process, at the September meeting. Second, he proposed forming a working relationship between the NRP Policy Board and the City's CLIC committee. (Capital Long range Investment Committee). Better communication and coordination between NRP and this citizen advisory committee as well as other departments is something I strongly support. IV. Diversity Task Force Proposal At the September meeting I offered the following resolution to create a task force to recommend options for including more diversity on the Board: specifically for people representing communities of color and renters. It was tabled but will be on our October agenda. Where as: - Part of the NRP Policy Board's purpose is to ensure an open process and promote citizen participation in all aspects of the program. - The Policy Board bylaws call for community interests to be represented on the board including someone representing communities of color. - We have had no person present at any Board meetings representing communities of color for at least the past ten months and the designated person no longer lives or works in Minnesota. - Consistent and enduring concerns about NRP and the participation and inclusion of renters and people of color have been raised throughout Phase I of NRP and during discussions of Phase II. - Including the perspectives of a
[Mpls] NRP Training
Are the scholarships below really an effective expenditure of NRP funds? The course description says that students will learn conflict resolution. What good is this to an organization that refuses to recognize the rights of residents and whose grievance policies are nothing more than internal reviews? Requiring the signature of Board Chair of the approved neighborhood organization really keeps this in-house as well. Michael Atherton Prospect Park -Original Message- From: NRP Training [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:05 PM Subject: Applications still being accepted for Community Leadership Institute Applications for the Community Leadership Institute at the University of St. Thomas in Downtown Minneapolis are still being accepted. Currently there are as many as ten openings for the Fall, 2003 semester, which starts September 18, 2003. For more information and an application, please call Margie Siegel at (651) 962-4291 or Robert Thompson at (612) 673-5149. NRP will provide a scholarship for 80% ($1,000)of the $1,250 tuition. To receive the NRP Scholarship, you will first need to show support from your neighborhood by having your application signed by the Board Chair of the approved neighborhood organization (see http://www.nrp.org/R2/Neighborhoods/Orgs/Organizations.html or call 673-5149). After you have the neighborhood signature, mail, fax, or bring your application to the NRP for the signature of the appropriate neighborhood specialist at NRP. Your neighborhood organization may choose to pay any remaining tuition. If you have already attended previous sessions of the Community Leadership Institute, there are still openings for Semester 2 (previously called Level 2). QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE What is the Community Leadership Institute? The Community Leadership Institute is a two-semester course at the University of St. Thomas sponsored by NRP and the Metropolitan Alliance of Community Centers (MACC). Each semester is comprised of 12 classes, one night a week. The curriculum is designed to develop and improve community leadership skills. When are the classes? Level 1 of the Institute begins Thursday, September 18, 2003 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. and continues for 12 Thursday night sessions through December 11. Level 2 of the Institute, which is open to those who have completed Level 1, begins Tuesday, September 16, 2003 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m., and continues for 12 Tuesday night sessions through December 9, 2003. There are no classes the week of Thanksgiving. Where will the classes be held? Classes will be held at the University of St. Thomas campus in downtown Minneapolis, located at 1000 LaSalle Avenue. What will I learn in the Community Leadership Institute? Topics covered in Level 1 include identifying and building on community assets, project management, and resolving conflict. Topics covered in Level 2 include strategic relationships, and outcomes and evaluation. Do I need previous college experience to apply? No. Any one with any level of education may apply and be accepted. What you do need is a commitment to neighborhood work, and to sharing what you learn with others. How much does it cost? Registration for one semester costs $1,250. If you complete both levels within 12 months, the tuition for both is $2,400 total. For approved candidates, the NRP will provide a scholarship of $1,000 for one semester, or $1,920 if you enroll in Level 2 directly after completing Level 1. Instructors will provide all materials, so there will be minimal cost for supplies and materials. How do I receive a Scholarship from NRP? To receive the NRP Scholarship, you will first need to show support from your neighborhood by having your application signed by the Board Chair of the approved neighborhood organization (see http://www.nrp.org/R2/Neighborhoods/Orgs/Organizations.html or call 673-5149). After you have the neighborhood signature, mail, fax, or bring your application to the NRP for the signature of the appropriate neighborhood specialist at NRP. How can I get additional financial support for attending the Community Leadership Institute? Your neighborhood organization may sponsor some or all of your remaining expenses. Tuition expense for the Community Leadership Institute is an eligible expense for your neighborhood¹s NRP admin funds. Your neighborhood may also use neighborhood Citizen Participation funds to cover the costs of the institute. Call NRP at (612) 673-5149 for further information on what is required. You may also call St. Thomas (651-962-4291) to see if they have additional grants or scholarship programs to assist you. CONTACT INFORMATION: Margie Siegel (Center for Nonprofit Management, University of St. Thomas) (651) 962-4291 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Thompson (NRP) (612) 673-5149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- NRP Crown Roller Mill #425 105 Fifth Ave. S Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 673-5140
Re: [Mpls] NRP Community Leadership Institute
Anyone who wants to attend the Community Leadership Institute offered by St. Thomas University can do so WITHOUT the signature of the neighborhood association board chair. That is not a required element of the St. Thomas application process. However, if the applicant wishes to recieve the scholarship offered by NRP for the course, we ask the board chair to sign the scholarship application. We do so in an attempt to make a connection between the existing neighborhood board members and a potentially budding community activist. It is the hope of NRP that the graduates of the CLI will become involved in their neighborhood association and NRP and city related activities. Both Robert Lilligren and Natalie Johnson Lee were successful graduates of the Community Leadership Institute. Council aide Andrea Jenkins and one other council aide whose name escapes me right now also were successful graduates of the institute. I have quite a few people in my various assigned neighborhoods that have attended the institute. I have watched them develop stronger leadership skills and are tremendous assets to the neighborhoods they volunteer in. While I haven't personally participated in the classes, based on the results I have seen personally, I highly recommend it. If you know anyone who is a budding community activist and could benefit from skill building in this area, feel free to let them know about this fabulous opportunity. Next week is the deadline for applications to the CLI. NRP has scholarships available for those interested. You can contact Robert Thompson at 673-5149 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get an application form. Barb Lickness Whittier NRP Staff = 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] NRP Community Leadership Institute
But it's still functions of the city/county/state shilling for wealthy St. Thomas. WizardMarks, Central Barbara Lickness wrote: Anyone who wants to attend the Community Leadership Institute offered by St. Thomas University can do so WITHOUT the signature of the neighborhood association board chair. That is not a required element of the St. Thomas application process. However, if the applicant wishes to recieve the scholarship offered by NRP for the course, we ask the board chair to sign the scholarship application. We do so in an attempt to make a connection between the existing neighborhood board members and a potentially budding community activist. It is the hope of NRP that the graduates of the CLI will become involved in their neighborhood association and NRP and city related activities. Both Robert Lilligren and Natalie Johnson Lee were successful graduates of the Community Leadership Institute. Council aide Andrea Jenkins and one other council aide whose name escapes me right now also were successful graduates of the institute. I have quite a few people in my various assigned neighborhoods that have attended the institute. I have watched them develop stronger leadership skills and are tremendous assets to the neighborhoods they volunteer in. While I haven't personally participated in the classes, based on the results I have seen personally, I highly recommend it. If you know anyone who is a budding community activist and could benefit from skill building in this area, feel free to let them know about this fabulous opportunity. Next week is the deadline for applications to the CLI. NRP has scholarships available for those interested. You can contact Robert Thompson at 673-5149 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get an application form. Barb Lickness Whittier NRP Staff = 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] NRP Policy Board Election Information
NRP Policy Board Election Set for November 20 - Candidate Filing Materials Now Online The process for the election of neighborhood representatives and alternates for seats on the 2004 NRP Policy Board began on August 20. If you would like to file as a candidate, please download the necessary filing forms which are now available on the NRP web site at: http://www.nrp.org/R2/News/NewsArch/2003/20030825.html. Filing forms are also available at neighborhood organization offices, Minneapolis Public Libraries, the NRP office, the Minneapolis City Clerk's Office, Room 304 in City Hall and at the League of Women Voters (LWV) of Minneapolis office. As in past elections, the LWV will be assisting in all aspects of the election process. Filing forms must be received by the LWV office no later than noon on Friday, September 19, 2003. What is the NRP Policy Board? The NRP Policy Board is the governing body of the NRP. Its members provide overall direction to the Program and are responsible for the review and approval of Neighborhood Action Plans. Neighborhood residents hold four of the 19 seats on the Board and serve for a one-year term. Policy Board meetings are typically held on the third Monday of each month from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at the Hennepin County Government Center. Who is eligible to run for a seat on the Board? Candidates seeking a term on the Policy Board must be a resident of the appropriate neighborhood category (i.e. protection, revitalization, redirection) for a minimum of 30 days prior to the election and be at least 21 years old when their term of office begins in January, 2004. A neighborhood representative and alternate will be elected for each of the three neighborhood categories (protection, revitalization, redirection). An at-large representative and alternate will also be elected. Candidate forums and election proceedings set for: Thursday, November 20, 2003 Each Minneapolis neighborhood organization will select an elector and alternate to vote on behalf of the neighborhood. Information on this process is being sent to each neighborhood organization. A Voter's Guide listing the candidates and their responses to several questions will also be prepared by the LWV and distributed in late October. Election proceedings, including candidate forums, will be held from 6:45 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. on Thursday, November 20, 2003 at the Crown Roller Mill Building, 105 Fifth Ave S. For more information on the election, call the LWV office at 612-333-6319 or Carsten Slostad at 612-673-5150. The candidate forums and election proceedings are open to the public. For more information on the election, call the LWV at 612-333-6319 or Carsten Slostad of the NRP at 612-673-5150. Barb Lickness NRP Staff = 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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] *NRP Public Hearing 8/4 1:30pm City Council - VERY IMPORTANT*]
I received the following letter and think it is very important to pass along. To save NRP we need to have as many people as possible notify their City Council Member, and if possible attend the August 4th 1:30PM City Council meeting. The compromise amended Lane Resolution will help to do that. Council Member Lane is to be commended and thanked for working with the Neighborhood Representatives and their fellow supporters on the NRP Policy Board to accomplish this. -- Dear Members of the community; I wanted to give you an update about current movement on the NRP Phase II front. In a nutshell, on March 21st, Council Member Barret Lane proposed amendments to the City Ordinance regarding NRP in order to address issues of NRP Phase II structure and funding. After several information gathering endeavors over the past few months, including setting up a task force to gather community input on NRP and working with the City finance department to determine potential funding sources, Council Member Lane has proposed further amendments to NRP that suggest a City funding source for Phase II. Council Member Lane presented his proposal to the NRP Policy Board on July 21st, at which time they voted on, and passed, a compromise resolution (detailed below). There is a VERY IMPORTANT joint public hearing of the City's Community Development and Ways and Means Committees on Monday, August 4th at 1:30pm at City Hall. At this meeting, the Neighborhood Revitalization Program, the proposed Lane ordinance and its amendments will be discussed. NRP Policy Board Chair Diane Hofstede has stated that I strongly believe that we are on the home stretch in terms of resolving NRP Phase II issues. The City Council will vote on the ordinance on Friday, August 22nd. Input at the Public Hearing on the 4th is critical to the advancement of NRP. I am writing to suggest that if you have time and are willing, you could do 2 things to support the continuation of NRP: 1. Attend the meeting on the 4th of August (if you would like to carpool, please meet at the LCC office at 1:00PM) and/or 2. Contact the Mayor (673-2100) and/or your Council Member and let them know your opinion about the NRP resolution and related issues (Sandy Colvin Roy - 673-2212; Gary Schiff - 673-2209; Dean Zimmerman - 673-2206; Robert Lillegrin 673-2208; you get the idea 673-22- then your ward number) For more information about Barret Lane's ordinance, visit the Ward 13 website at www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/ward13 and click on City Issues in the left hand column. For more information about lots of other NRP-related stuff, go to NENA's website at www.nokomiseast.org and click on the NRP link in the upper right hand corner. Please call your Neighborhood Organization if you have comments or questions regarding this matter. Hope to see SEE YOU ON THE 4TH. NRP / Neighborhoods Update: 7/21 NRP Policy Board Resolution July 23, 2003 NRP Policy Board meeting, 7/21/03 Resolution on NRP and Future Funding Whereas, the residents of Minneapolis and the volunteers from Neighborhood Organizations have contributed more than a million hours of volunteer service through the Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) to make this city a better place to live, work, learn and play; Whereas, volunteers have become more connected to city government through their involvement with their Neighborhood Organization; Whereas, the Teamworks evaluation of NRP praised the program and found statistically significant evidence that NRP has improved the housing stock of the city, increased home ownership rates and fostered inter-governmental collaboration; Whereas, citizens of this city believe that NRP has greatly contributed to the quality of life in the city and allowed residents to directly participate in decisions that affect them; Whereas, the revisions to Chapter 419 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances proposed by Council Member Barret Lane update the legal framework for continuing the Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP); Whereas, the Analysis of Proposed NRP Ordinance presented by Patrick Born on June 4, 2003, defines the Common Project revenues available for funding NRP through 2009; Whereas,
[Mpls] NRP Board seeks $11 million annually
Dip into city's federal funds, policy board members say... Council president Ostrow says that's doubtful. http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4000354.html David Brauer List manager TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) 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] NRP Board seeks $11 million annually
We actually did more than this in our recommendations. The Policy Board spent a great deal of time yesterday discussion the future of NRP and approved several recommendations for the Council. These were strongly supported with only three members abstaining (Ostrow, Fey and Mullory). I supported them as well. I beleive that, if acted upon, they represent a compromise that will allow the neighbrohdoods to continue to amek and implement plans with community developemnt dollars and allow the City to have funds to perform its more centralized community develop projects. I do have mny doubts about the Council accepting them in totality, but I think they represent a strong, yet cooperative, stance on the part of the Pilcy Board. As an aside to Lisa M. and concerns about Common Project adminstration costs we did discuss shifting the administration to City finance staff to free up some additional dollars for NRP and asked for a full accounting of costs to see if we couldnt save some money there. I don't have the full text of the resolution, but here is the jist of the seven major points we approved: 1. We supported the Lane amendments as a way to recolve the competing claims on the Common Projhect revenues; 2. We are asking the City to Commit to using all of the Common Project revenues as projected in Finance Officer Born's Common Project review of 6/4/03 for NRP; 3. We recommend using Community Development Block Grant (CDGB) funds for CDGB eligible neighborhood plan expenditures to supplement the Common Project revenues committed annually to NRP; 4. 5. Maintain an independent NRP Joint Powers Policy Board with an independent NRP staff; 6. We basically agreed to Lane's proposal to ÒAdvanceÓ $3 million annually of the Brookfield repayment for City Council/MCDA discretionary economic development projects by waiving any claim to Brookfield proceeeds over $20,000 in 2009 7. We clarified that any interest earning on any unexpended NRp appropriated funds in addition to the Common Project funds in #1 goes to NRp. More was discussed during the productive session. UNfortunately I need to run, but I wanted to make sure folks we care about this got the info as soon as possible. Cam Gordon Seward Neighborhood, Minneapolis, Ward 2 SD 59 (612) 332-6210, 296-0579, 339-2452 TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) 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 Policy Board releases community opinion survey results...
It appears most residents who took time to attend the several public meetings and to complete the survey in person, online, or by mail strongly support continuation of the Minneapolis NRP. Jeff Strand Shingle Creek From the NRP web site: http://www.nrp.org/R2/News/NewsArch/2003/Opinionsurvey.pdf NRP Releases Community Opinion Survey Results The NRP Policy Board has released the results of a community opinion survey that coincided with a series of five community meetings aimed at obtaining input from the public regarding immediate and long-term funding, governance and staff support for the NRP in the face of mounting city budget constraints. Three hundred and thirty four people attended the meetings; 210 ballots were submitted. The survey was also posted on the NRP Web site, with links from the City of Minneapolis' and Minneapolis Community Development Agency's Web sites; 153 ballots were submitted online. An additional 98 ballots were submitted by mail. The downloadable file below contains the cumulative responses to the survey questions as well as a breakdown of responses received at the meetings, through the mail and from the NRP Web site. Attached to this report is a compilation of the written comments that were submitted at the meetings on the survey form. You will need a copy of Acrobat Reader to view the survey results. Download the NRP community opinion survey results (119K) TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) 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] NRP Policing Set Aside vote coming Monday
On Monday, June 30, the Neighborhood Revitalization Program Policy Board will vote on Council Member Ostrow's proposal to allocate $1 million of its Phase II funds to a reserve fund for community oriented public safety activities. I am probably going to vote against this but I would appreciate any and all feedback or discussion. On the list. Cam, I hope that you will reconsider your vote and vote to support the measure. NRP is about improving the quality of life in our neighborhoods. With the massive cuts that have happened to our public safety the quality of life is in jeapardy. I know that restoring efforts to CCP/SAFE and other crime fighting entities will help to restore a feeling of safety that I know has already started to erode in my neighborhood of Central. By restoring funding to departments like CCP/SAFE not only is an element of safety restored but there is also the community building aspect that they help to foster. Karen Forbes Central Neighborhood TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) 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 Policing Set Aside vote coming Monday
--- Karen Forbes wrote: NRP is about improving the quality of life in our neighborhoods. [TB] I'd always thought NRP was centered around maintaining/improving the quality of the housing stock which is why over half of the money is required to be spent on housing/housing related items. Quality of life is much more than police or public safety services that the proposed set aside is for. We have a difficult enough time trying to comply with the housing requirement, partly because the good folks at City Hall want to direct money to places they don't have other funds for (many of which are good programs). I'd like to see NRP money be spent on improving and maintaining the quality of our housing stock and not be mandated toward other areas. If this is truely a neighborhood impowerment program, we shouldn't be mandating money away from the focus of the laws that set up the program. Terrell Brown Loring Park terrell at terrellbrown dot org __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) 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 Policing Set Aside vote coming Monday
On Monday, June 30, the Neighborhood Revitalization Program Policy Board will vote on Council Member Ostrow's proposal to allocate $1 million of its Phase II funds to a reserve fund for community oriented public safety activities. So far the feedback from neighborhood groups has been mixed --- some strongly in favor, some cautiously in favor, some strongly opposed, some cautiously opposed. Many have not expressed any opinion. I am probably going to vote against this but I would appreciate any and all feedback or discussion. On the list. Here are some details about the proposal: Any funds that NRP provides for community oriented public safety services would be over and above the level that the City funds after the budget reductions are implemented. The funds can only be used for community oriented public safety initiatives that are over and above the level of general City public safety services that will result after the budget reductions from the reduced level of local government aid occurs. Funds could be provided for community oriented public safety initiatives. These include, but are not limited to, the following types of services: CCP/SAFE teams, bike patrols, foot patrols, fire prevention activities, public safety personnel in the public schools, and community-based prosecution activities such as restorative justice and community-based prosecutors. Certain activities would be excluded. These include, but are not limited to, the following: administrative support services, overtime, buyback and homeland security activities. This is a one-time allocation and will be made available for use in 2003, after the neighborhood comment period is concluded and the NRP Policy Board takes final action on this proposal. Policy Board consideration is scheduled for the June Policy Board meeting. The dollars for this fund will come from the NRP Programs Phase II resources. This will mean a reduction of $1 million in the total that will be made available to neighborhoods. The impact on neighborhood dollars will depend on the amount of resources finally set aside for NRP. The fund would be managed by the City's Finance and Budget Office on behalf of NRP. Expenditures from the fund would be recommended by the police, fire, and public works departments and would be approved by the Finance and Budget Office. The Finance and Budget Office would provide periodic reports to the NRP staff and Policy Board on the uses of the funds and a final report when all of the funds in the reserve have been expended. Please feel free to contact me by email or phone or go ahead and send your thoughts to the list. Thanks in advance for any time an attention you can give this matter. In peace and cooperation, Cam Cam Gordon Seward Neighborhood, Minneapolis, Ward 2 SD 59 (612) 332-6210, 296-0579, 339-2452 TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) 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 Limerick
NRP needs money we know, Say our Mayor and Council with woe, But there's a zinger, Our TIF's in a wringer So it's back to the budget we go! Vicky Heller, North Oaks TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) 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] NRP Limerick
NRP has empowered the people. Power shouldnt stay up in the steeple. It makes citizens feel their decisions are real. Mes hopin the council will keeple. Barb Lickness Whittier"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!? Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
[Mpls] NRP: $65 million over 7 years
That's a best-case estimate from City Councilmember Barret Lane about what can be generated for the final phase of the program. Nearly a third of that money comes in the final year, 2009. Comments? Steve Brandt's story is at: http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3921976.html David Brauer List manager TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) 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
List member Ann Berget noticed the head on my article in the paper this morning: Funding shrinks for neighborhoods Does anyone out there know if psychiatry is an allowable NRP expense? Steve Brandt Star Tribune TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) 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] NRP
Steve Brandt wrote: List member Ann Berget noticed the head on my article in the paper this morning: Funding shrinks for neighborhoods Does anyone out there know if psychiatry is an allowable NRP expense? If there is you might want to check for other unconscious influences. For instance the use of the phrase, ...the city has estimated how much it can expect for its prime neighborhood program if the money isn't RAIDED for competing priorities. Why not, if the money isn't USED for competing priorities, or if the money isn't ALLOCATED for competing priorities, or if the money isn't APPROPRIATED for competing priorities. Of course this is not the first Star Tribune news story that should have appeared in the opinion section. You might also consider labeling reductions as prime cuts given that you describe the NRP as the prime neighborhood program. Michael Atherton Prospect Park TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) 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] NRP
List member Barb Lickness probably knows the authoritative answer, but it's my belief that anything not specifically outlawed by NRP statutes is in fact allowed, even shrinks, if that's what the neighborhood residents want. Dunno about meds, though. That could be an ongoing and operating expense, something often declined by the Policy Board. (Who writes those heads, anyway?) Ann Berget Kingfield
[Mpls] NRP
Here is an alternative to the way Steve Brandt wrote the NRP article.. The NRP intended to raid the general fund of $400 million over 20 years. Neighborhood activists have already spent $200 million. Since Minneapolis abused Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and found itself with skyrocketing debts, the legislature clipped its wings. In 2003, Minneapolis expects to collect $61 million in TIF revenue and expects to pay $122 million in bond interest (debt service.) Therefore, funding the NRP will have to come out of the $61 million shortfall. For this reason, some people estimate the funding available to the NRP over the next ten years to be zero. Vicky Heller, North Oaks TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) 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] NRP
Yes as long as the county was the contract administrator for the activity. Barb Lickness Whittier"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!? Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
Re: [Mpls] NRP Community meetings
RE: a proposed change to the City Ordinance that established the NRP will be discussed. Ann Berget asked: What City Ordinance is that? NRP was not established by a city ordinance, but rather it was enabled by state legislation and then activated by a joint-powers agreement of city, county, schools, parks and library. Perhaps established was the wrong word, but following the state legislation (Minn. Stat. 469.1831 - known as the NRP Law) the city passed an NRP Ordinance (Mpls. Code Ord. 419.10 et seq.) to guide its activities under the NRP law, fill in specifics about how the City would implement the law etc. As an aside, folks should know that every dollar spent on NRP does require City Council approval. At this time Council Member Lane (Ward 13) is proposing some changes to that ordinance. To help do so the Policy Board and the City are trying to determine all the finacial resources and obligation connected to NRP and the Common Project. Common Project refers to a number of 1980s development projects that involved tax increment bonds and provided the initial funding for NRP. There are quite a few pages posted on Council Member Lanes website. It takes a bit of digging, but if you go to the City site at www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us you can get there. My interpretation is that he is proposing a significantly scaled down and more restricted NRP with no provisions for going beyond 2009. I myself would greatly appreciate some clarification on the major changes he is proposing and hope that those will be available before, and at, the community meetings. I hope this helps. In peace and cooperation, Cam Cam Gordon Seward Neighborhood, Minneapolis, Ward 2 SD 59 (612) 332-6210, 296-0579, 339-2452 TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) 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] NRP Community meetings
In a message dated 6/4/03 7:03:58 AM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: a proposed change to the City Ordinance that established the NRP will be discussed. What "City Ordinance" is that? NRP was not established by a city ordinance, but rather it was enabled by state legislation and then activated by a joint-powers agreement of city, county, schools, parks and library. Ann Berget Kingfield
[Mpls] NRP Community meetings
I want to make sure that folks are aware of a series of important meetings that are coming up regarding the future of NRP. I am not sure if all this information has made it to the list yet. I hope we get a great turn out. Here is the press release: (meeting dates, times and locations below) = Community meetings will give Minneapolis residents an opportunity to have a say in NRP's future The NRP Policy Board will present several options addressing the NRP's immediate and long-term future during a series of five community meetings beginning Monday, June 9 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at St. Mary's Greek Orthodox Church, 3450 Irving Ave. S. The community meetings represent the culmination of more than seven months of work that began with a joint NRP Policy Board/City of Minneapolis staff work group charged with developing options and making recommendations that specifically address long-term funding, governance and staff support for the NRP in the face of mounting city budget constraints. The options and recommendations forwarded by the work group and a proposed change to the City Ordinance that established the NRP will be discussed. Residents will be asked to complete a survey that will help guide the NRP Policy Board, the Minneapolis City Council and Mayor R.T. Rybak as they determine where the NRP fits into the Five-Year Financial Direction recently approved by the City Council. The Five-Year Financial Direction identifies sources for funding development activities in the city including the NRP. These are the resources from which NRP funds would be drawn. The NRP was created in 1990 by city officials and community leaders as a response to growing concerns about the declining condition of Minneapolis neighborhoods. The program was originally established as a 20-year, $20 million per year program. Legislative reform of the tax system in 2001 dramatically reduced the funding source that has historically supported the NRP. Minneapolis residents are encouraged to participate in these meetings so their perspective on how the NRP should operate in the future can be submitted to the NRP Policy Board, the Minneapolis City Council and Mayor Rybak. Individuals will also be able to provide feedback through a web-based survey that will be available on the NRP Web site beginning June 9. The meetings: Monday, June 9 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. St. Mary's Greek Orthodox Church 3450 Irving Ave. S. Tuesday, June 10 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Folwell Community Center 1615 Dowling Ave. N. Wednesday, June 11 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Logan Community Center 690 13th Ave. NE Monday, June 16 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Andersen School 2726 12th Ave. S. (use main entrance on Andersen Lane) Tuesday, June 17 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Our Redeemer Lutheran Church 4000 28th Ave. S. Forwarded Message ends here Cam Gordon Seward Neighborhood, Minneapolis, Ward 2 SD 59 (612) 332-6210, 296-0579, 339-2452 Forwarded Message ends here Cam Gordon Seward Neighborhood, Minneapolis, Ward 2 SD 59 (612) 332-6210, 296-0579, 339-2452 TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) 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 Allocations
Thanks to Barb Lickness, I've done some browsing in the online NRP site. And it is most interesting. Raises some questions. I was, for example, somewhat stunned to find the Philips allocation at 44 percent. As opposed to Prospect Park which was at 40 percent. Prospect Park I can sort of understand. Where would they SPEND more money on housing? But I would think Philips would be more like Jordan where 97 percent is allocated to housing (recalling that renovation of housing is as much about housing as building NEW housing). Longfellow, where I reside is at 50 percent, with the rest of the percentages seeming reasonable. Cedar-Riverside, it says, puts ALL its NRP money in economic development. Kinda strange. Is their business district that rundown? And none of their houses in need of rehab? Of course, with the U acting as an octopus to tear down housing for more buildings, maybe renovation is a side-issue down there. Anyway, it is quite interesting how the different neighborhoods come at revitalization in such different ways. One thing seems certain, with housing consuming anything from 0 percent to 97 percent, the percentage of one neighborhood is pretty meaningless. Jim Mork Cooper Neighborhood Longfellow Community Minneapolis--A Great Self-Renewing Town, My Home __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) 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
FW: RE: [Mpls] NRP vote; Shame of a Council
On 3/23 Michael Hohmann, Mpls, wrote: I don't appreciate all this blatent promotion of Edward's book, which I assume you wrote, on the mnforum. On the same day I received an Email similar to other queries I have received requesting more information about it. Actually, I took the information about the local NAACP branch from Chapter 14 of Ron Edwards' book. As one person said to me, relative to this: Getting whites in this city to understand anything but continuing segregationist policies is nearly impossible. People have been surprized at White involvement, and I've been asked who is doing the organizing, that the ideas scared them and did I have names? But before I address that, which I will below, I need to address Michael's legitimate concern. I appreciate Michael's concern. But I am more concerned about what others person have written. Michael can always hit the delete button when he sees my name (and I won't be offended) and the problem disappears. Others have no delete button to remove the segregation they are forced to live under. Therefore, I would rather err on the side of helping the discussion help those living segregated and scared about the power implications, even if it means Michael has to exercise his delete button each time. This will seem like splitting a hair, but in my mind what I am really promoting is the understanding of Minneapolis that Ron brings to the total understanding, which, from my experience living there and research conducted since, I believe is accurate. I also believe it is important to not cease in attempting to bring knowledge and understanding to bridge the differences so that common ground for just and fair solutions can be found to enable just and fair solutions. Ron has been brave and open enough to provide the history and understanding. He has also taken it to the next level by identifying the common ground Black and White can stand on together, and he has laid out ways to act on that common ground to enable just and fair solutions to providing equal access and equal opportunity for everyone (note I did not say equal results). I refer to the book because (1) it makes it easier to reduce the length of my posts (an art I am still trying to learn) and (2) to point out that Ron's book is like a mini-library of information, history, contemporary happenings, and positive suggestions that would benefit Minneapolis. Whether you buy it or get it at the library or read a friend's copy is not the issue. The important thing is to read it. It is the Minneapolis Story seen through Ron's eyes. It is a 40 year testimonial that helps to explain a great deal about Minneapolis. I am honored that he asked me to help him organize it for printing and find an editor to edit the manuscript. I have long held, and continue to hold, that society, in terms of both its people and its economics, will fare far better without segregation and racism. Ron's telling the story of Minneapolis is important to helping us understand this so we can consider the resolutions he suggests be considered. As to the who question raised, I would start first with the NAACP leadership, obviously, and then, as suggested by the City Pages article I referenced in my post, with the Hubert Humphrey Center. I didn't use the City Pages article URL last time. I do so now: http://www.citypages.com/databank/20/954/article7354.asp Click on the URL and read the article. The Article is in City Pages Volume 20, Issue #854 of 3/17/99. On their web site the hook question is: What are a bunch of white politicians doing mixed up in the NAACP election squabble? The subheading on the article is as follows: Political machinations, intrigue, and good old-fashioned mudslinging: A look behind the scenes of the Minneapolis NAACP election scandal. But Whites couldn't do it unless the Blacks conspired with them to do so. The cover story then lists four pictures. On top of the pictures it says Black Like Us. Below the Black Like Us line are four faces, and underneath the four faces are these names: Dee Long, Phyllis Kahn, Don Fraser, and Arvonne Fraser. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Mpls] NRP vote; Shame of a Council
Steve Brandt is correct in his article about the Black and minority community welcoming a plan to create affordable home-ownership. I sometimes believe the politicians and developers look at Black people, and Native people, as a permanent underclass to be exploited as renters and with poverty programs but never to be sustainably helped. Helping to keep poor people poor is NOT helping poor people The road to success for most new immigrant groups is no secret. It has been and is by acquiring homeownership, and then business ownership. The pseudo-liberals give lip service to empowering people but they join with the good old boy conservatives to remove that chance. It is also no secret why Black people and Native people represent so small a per-capita homeownership rate. They have been systematically and institutionally prevented from equal access to homeownership. Their roles have been defined as Renter and poor person, and how dare someone try to disturb that status quo? How dare the neighborhood representatives on the NRP Policy Board try to empower some poor people? The eight Council Members and the Mayor should feel shame today for their elitism. But probably they just feel smug because they slapped those darn poor people and neighborhoods back down where they belong. Heck, before you knew what was happening you might have had poor minority people buying houses out where they live. While this explains why the elite three voted the way they did, what about the CM's such as Zimmerman and Samuels. What political payoff caused those supposed neighborhood people to desert their neighborhoods? Was it no more than joining those elite three because they feared losing control of that money to the neighborhoods and poor people? Those two and a few others have some explaining to do. Of course they are probably too important to explain their motives to the neighborhoods that elected them. While pretending to be uxorious of the neighborhoods, could they in reality have joined the condescending elite their actions seem to indicate. I always thought Peter McLaughlin was too valuable at Hennepin County, and we did not want him to change jobs. After that vote maybe we should look again. Perhaps it is time to start recruiting a whole new batch of political candidates. Perhaps ones who actually support the neighborhood people rather than just making campaign promises. Mark Stenglein is another politician who voted to support neighborhoods and poor people. He and Peter McLaughlin are politicians who put wise housing decisions and planning ahead of the political fluff and developer cronies that some present City politicians favor. Hope to see many of you at the Capital at noon. Jim Graham, Ventura Village Things that matter most should never be at the mercy of things, which matter least. - Johann von Goethe 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] NRP vote; Shame of a Council
Jim Graham raises the point that is a huge contention among liberals and Blacks: that despite the rhetoric, they have and continue to take those actions that keep, as James Baldwin put it, the Black in his place. Liberals are split between those who continue this pattern because of the racist conclusion of the liberal Kerner Commission Report of 1968 Blacks couldn't make it on their own, those who fight this, and those who still straddle that fence. The book The Bell Curve, in 1998, idiotically concluded Blacks can't make it on their own because they have the least intelligence. With these perspectives, it is no wonder that those who think this way (either from the liberal or conservative side) vote for what attempts to keep Blacks on their inner city plantations. Those who have gotten out, gotten educated, gotten professional roles, etc. and so forth, are to be commended for doing so despite having to overcome obstacles Whites don't have to hurdle. Let's work to remove these barriers, not continue to put them up. This is the theme of Ron Edward's book: the persistent denying of equal access and equal opportunity to Blacks in the areas of education, housing, jobs, politics, government, etc., often at the hands of Blacks in positions where it is advantageous to act against the Black community. Ron clearly notes the progress in these areas but also is clear where the barriers are still kept in place. But Ron also lays out a plan for bringing the different perspectives to the table to resolve this. His Interludes of history help us remember the bad that has been done, his suggestions for the future help us to think of the good that can be done. The question for every community is the same: in 25 years, will those looking back see the bad continued or the good installed. Ron's YESes and NOs are as good a definition of what is good (the YESes) and the bad (the NOs) as we will find. I commend them to all of you. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gemgram Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 6:53 AM To: Steve Brandt; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: [Mpls] NRP vote; Shame of a Council Steve Brandt is correct in his article about the Black and minority community welcoming a plan to create affordable home-ownership. I sometimes believe the politicians and developers look at Black people, and Native people, as a permanent underclass to be exploited as renters and with poverty programs but never to be sustainably helped. Helping to keep poor people poor is NOT helping poor people The road to success for most new immigrant groups is no secret. It has been and is by acquiring homeownership, and then business ownership. The pseudo-liberals give lip service to empowering people but they join with the good old boy conservatives to remove that chance. It is also no secret why Black people and Native people represent so small a per-capita homeownership rate. They have been systematically and institutionally prevented from equal access to homeownership. Their roles have been defined as Renter and poor person, and how dare someone try to disturb that status quo? How dare the neighborhood representatives on the NRP Policy Board try to empower some poor people? The eight Council Members and the Mayor should feel shame today for their elitism. But probably they just feel smug because they slapped those darn poor people and neighborhoods back down where they belong. Heck, before you knew what was happening you might have had poor minority people buying houses out where they live. While this explains why the elite three voted the way they did, what about the CM's such as Zimmerman and Samuels. What political payoff caused those supposed neighborhood people to desert their neighborhoods? Was it no more than joining those elite three because they feared losing control of that money to the neighborhoods and poor people? Those two and a few others have some explaining to do. Of course they are probably too important to explain their motives to the neighborhoods that elected them. While pretending to be uxorious of the neighborhoods, could they in reality have joined the condescending elite their actions seem to indicate. I always thought Peter McLaughlin was too valuable at Hennepin County, and we did not want him to change jobs. After that vote maybe we should look again. Perhaps it is time to start recruiting a whole new batch of political candidates. Perhaps ones who actually support the neighborhood people rather than just making campaign promises. Mark Stenglein is another politician who voted to support neighborhoods and poor people. He and Peter McLaughlin are politicians who put wise housing decisions and planning ahead of the political fluff and developer cronies that some present City politicians favor. Hope to see many of you at the Capital at noon. Jim Graham, Ventura Village Things that matter most should never
RE: [Mpls] NRP vote; Shame of a Council
Jim Graham raises the seeming paradox regarding liberals and Blacks: that despite the do good rhetoric, they have and continue to take the do bad actions that keep, as James Baldwin put it, the Black in his place. Liberals are split between (1) those who continue this pattern because they accept the racist conclusion of the liberal Kerner Commission Report of 1968: Blacks can't make it on their own because they aren't like other immigrants, and thus, to do good, the government has to take care of them, (2) those who fight this, including Ron Edwards, and (3) those who still straddle that fence, which means keeping the status quo, i.e., #1. The book The Bell Curve, in 1998, also concluded Blacks can't make it on their own, but gave as the reason that they don't have the intelligence to do so, and concluded as the liberals that the government has to take care of them. With these perspectives, it is no wonder that both liberals or conservatives unite to keep Blacks in their place on the inner city plantation (as Ron discusses in his book). Those Blacks who have gotten out, gotten educated, gotten professional roles, etc. and so forth, are to be commended for doing so despite having to overcome obstacles Whites don't have to hurdle. Let's work to remove these barriers, not continue to leave them in place. This is the theme of Ron Edward's book: the persistent denying of equal access and equal opportunity to inner city Blacks in the areas of education, housing, jobs, politics, government, etc., often at the hands of Blacks in positions where it is advantageous to act against the Black Community, because they know Blacks can't make it on their own and thus should rely on government. Ron clearly notes the progress in these areas but also is clear where the barriers are still kept in place. But Ron also lays out a plan for bringing the different perspectives to the table to resolve this. His Interludes of history help us remember the bad that has been done, his suggestions for the future help us to think of the good that can be done. The question for every community is the same: in 25 years, will those looking back see the bad continued or the good installed, or relieved to see that the status quo held, that the Blacks were kept in their place? Ron's YESes and NOs are as good a definition of what is good (the YESes) and bad (the NOs), as we will find (in Chapters 5 and 17). I commend them to everyone. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gemgram Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 6:53 AM To: Steve Brandt; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: [Mpls] NRP vote; Shame of a Council Steve Brandt is correct in his article about the Black and minority community welcoming a plan to create affordable home-ownership. I sometimes believe the politicians and developers look at Black people, and Native people, as a permanent underclass to be exploited as renters and with poverty programs but never to be sustainably helped. Helping to keep poor people poor is NOT helping poor people The road to success for most new immigrant groups is no secret. It has been and is by acquiring homeownership, and then business ownership. The pseudo-liberals give lip service to empowering people but they join with the good old boy conservatives to remove that chance. It is also no secret why Black people and Native people represent so small a per-capita homeownership rate. They have been systematically and institutionally prevented from equal access to homeownership. Their roles have been defined as Renter and poor person, and how dare someone try to disturb that status quo? How dare the neighborhood representatives on the NRP Policy Board try to empower some poor people? The eight Council Members and the Mayor should feel shame today for their elitism. But probably they just feel smug because they slapped those darn poor people and neighborhoods back down where they belong. Heck, before you knew what was happening you might have had poor minority people buying houses out where they live. While this explains why the elite three voted the way they did, what about the CM's such as Zimmerman and Samuels. What political payoff caused those supposed neighborhood people to desert their neighborhoods? Was it no more than joining those elite three because they feared losing control of that money to the neighborhoods and poor people? Those two and a few others have some explaining to do. Of course they are probably too important to explain their motives to the neighborhoods that elected them. While pretending to be uxorious of the neighborhoods, could they in reality have joined the condescending elite their actions seem to indicate. I always thought Peter McLaughlin was too valuable at Hennepin County, and we did not want him to change jobs. After that vote maybe we should look again. Perhaps it is time to start recruiting a whole new batch of political candidates
RE: [Mpls] NRP Housing Issue
Does anyone else question the nature of Peter McLaughlin's support for this mortgage insurance proposal? I look at it this way: it's yet another subsidy for Wells Fargo Mortgage! There are many private and federal programs for mortgage insurance. It is odd that just as the I-35 W Access Project is making dozens of properties ineligible for FHA financing (proximity to freeways, noise levels, etc), McLaughlin comes out with a program that makes them eligible for Wells Fargo financing, on the taxpayers' dime. Tom WellingUptown--- On Fri 03/14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:From: [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16: 17:06 -0600Subject: [Mpls] NRP Housing IssueGreetings,I have been involved in the production of low-income housing for over 25years. As much as anyone, I understand the need for low-income housing andshare the passion for production of new units. The recent proposal beforethe NRP Policy Board to create a mortgage insurance program caused quite afuror. Concerns centered on two issues: is this a wise use of scarcelow-income housing resources; and was the process by which this proposalwas considered legitimate. Let me try to put this proposal in context andaddress some of the issues and questions.The concept of creating affordable home ownership opportunities is, in mymind, a complement to the production of new affordable rental units. Amongthe potential benefits of a home ownership component are: it is often lessexpensive per unit/family than rental property; it has the potential tohelp stabilize ne ighborhoods with low ownership rates; it often opens upaffordable rental units as families move into home ownership; it offersfamilies a way to break out of poverty by owning real estate thatappreciates over time; it may elicit significant private sectorinvolvement; and because it is a revolving fund, the initial investment isself-perpetuating.The actual benefits of a program depend upon the details. During the PolicyBoard discussion, I made several specific requests regarding the programdesign, including solicitation of bank participation to eliminate the needfor NRP or MCDA to administer the program; estimated costs per unit; stepsrequired to create a revolving fund to allow these funds to be reused formortgages for other low income people once the need for mortgage insuranceis gone for the initial participants.I viewed this as a preliminary vote of approval by the Policy Board. Theresolution specifies that th e funds will only be distributed after approvalof guidelines for the program. Thus, the understanding, based on thedebate, was that those guidelines would come back and would includetargeting of the funds by both income and neighborhood. Again, based onthe discussion, it is my expectation that the funds would be tightlytargeted to low-income people and neighborhoods with low rates of homeownership.The second question relates to the process by which this decision wasreached. This was an action of the Policy Board, the very same Policy Boardthat originally set aside the $4 million and established the basis for itsuse. Proposing changes in the intended use of those funds is clearlywithin the province of the Policy Board. The City must approve or modifyany such change, a rare occurrence in the history of NRP, but thatauthority resides with the Council and the Mayor. The fact thatNeighborhood Reps offered the amendment s eems very much in keeping with therole of neighborhoods in the NRP process and is precisely why it is soimportant to have Neighborhood Reps on the Board.The mortgage insurance proposal was meant to change the programmatic use ofa portion of the housing funds, clearly the province of the Board. Asdiscussed at the meeting, it used a portion of the money set aside on analternative approach to dealing with the housing needs of low-incomeindividuals and families. Because of this difference, it didn't fit withinthe existing process and criteria of the fund. Thus, the Board exercisedits authority to change the strategy for use of some of the funds. Thisisn't a violation of any process; it was the Board (and the NeighborhoodReps) exercising their rightful authority.Finally, if the guidelines mandated in the February resolution are notsatisfactory, the decision can be reversed. If less than $2 million isneeded, the sum c an be reduced. The resolution was a way to focus people'sattention on an alternative way of addressing the housing needs oflow-income people in Minneapolis and potentially strengtheningneighborhoods with low rates of home ownership. The proposal obviously didnot contain sufficient details to implement immediately. The resolutionprovided for that by calling for guidelines to come back to the PolicyBoard.I've been active in affordable housing for over 25 years. Low-incomeownership, with the enhanced control and stability it provides, has been agoal since my days at PRG helping produce limited equity coops. I votedfor this proposal
Re: [Mpls] NRP Housing Issue
the nature of Peter McLaughlin's support for this mortgage insurance proposal? I look at it this way: it's yet another subsidy for Wells Fargo Mortgage! There are many private and federal programs for mortgage insurance. It is odd that just as the I-35 W Access Project is making dozens of properties ineligible for FHA financing (proximity to freeways, noise levels, etc), McLaughlin comes out with a program that makes them eligible for Wells Fargo financing, on the taxpayers' dime. Tom Welling Uptown --- On Fri 03/14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: From: [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16: 17:06 -0600 Subject: [Mpls] NRP Housing Issue Greetings, I have been involved in the production of low-income housing for over 25 years. As much as anyone, I understand the need for low-income housing and share the passion for production of new units. The recent proposal before the NRP Policy Board to create a mortgage insurance program caused quite a furor. Concerns centered on two issues: is this a wise use of scarce low-income housing resources; and was the process by which this proposal was considered legitimate. Let me try to put this proposal in context and address some of the issues and questions. The concept of creating affordable home ownership opportunities is, in my mind, a complement to the production of new affordable rental units. Among the potential benefits of a home ownership component are: it is often less expensive per unit/family than rental property; it has the potential to help stabilize ne ighborhoods with low ownership rates; it often opens up affordable rental units as families move into home ownership; it offers families a way to break out of poverty by owning real estate that appreciates over time; it may elicit significant private sector involvement; and because it is a revolving fund, the initial investment is self-perpetuating. The actual benefits of a program depend upon the details. During the Policy Board discussion, I made several specific requests regarding the program design, including solicitation of bank participation to eliminate the need for NRP or MCDA to administer the program; estimated costs per unit; steps required to create a revolving fund to allow these funds to be reused for mortgages for other low income people once the need for mortgage insurance is gone for the initial participants. I viewed this as a preliminary vote of approval by the Policy Board. The resolution specifies that th e funds will only be distributed after approval of guidelines for the program. Thus, the understanding, based on the debate, was that those guidelines would come back and would include targeting of the funds by both income and neighborhood. Again, based on the discussion, it is my expectation that the funds would be tightly targeted to low-income people and neighborhoods with low rates of home ownership. The second question relates to the process by which this decision was reached. This was an action of the Policy Board, the very same Policy Board that originally set aside the $4 million and established the basis for its use. Proposing changes in the intended use of those funds is clearly within the province of the Policy Board. The City must approve or modify any such change, a rare occurrence in the history of NRP, but that authority resides with the Council and the Mayor. The fact that Neighborhood Reps offered the amendment s eems very much in keeping with the role of neighborhoods in the NRP process and is precisely why it is so important to have Neighborhood Reps on the Board. The mortgage insurance proposal was meant to change the programmatic use of a portion of the housing funds, clearly the province of the Board. As discussed at the meeting, it used a portion of the money set aside on an alternative approach to dealing with the housing needs of low-income individuals and families. Because of this difference, it didn't fit within the existing process and criteria of the fund. Thus, the Board exercised its authority to change the strategy for use of some of the funds. This isn't a violation of any process; it was the Board (and the Neighborhood Reps) exercising their rightful authority. Finally, if the guidelines mandated in the February resolution are not satisfactory, the decision can be reversed. If less than $2 million is needed, the sum c an be reduced. The resolution was a way to focus people's attention on an alternative way of addressing the housing needs of low-income people in Minneapolis and potentially strengthening neighborhoods with low rates of home ownership. The proposal obviously did not contain sufficient details to implement immediately. The resolution provided for that by calling for guidelines to come back to the Policy Board. I've been active in affordable housing for over 25 years. Low-income ownership, with the enhanced control and stability it provides, has been a goal since my days at PRG helping produce limited equ
RE: [Mpls] NRP Housing Issue
You have missed the purpose of this program. While I cannot speak for Commissioner McLaughlin, the recommended program is not mortgage insurance. In fact, one of the benefits of the new program is that the guarantee helps borrowers avoid having to pay mortgage insurance. MI can add a lot to the monthly payment. The guarantee helps eliminate it. The program also allows the borrower to qualify for a lower interest rate because they Loan to Value Ratio is at 80%. Secondly, while Wells Fargo Mortgage may be a participating lender in this program, they are far from the only participant. Any mortgage lender across the United States can participate in this program if they so choose. I have received calls from at least 3 lenders expressing interest in the program. There is no foul afoot here on this program. The program is designed to help more families get into homes with lower monthly payments. The guarantee is intended to incent lenders to give mortgages to people that might not normally qualify. A large number of the people helped by a program of this nature will be lower income minority families that have been denied the opportunity to become homeowners before. Barb Lickness NRP Staff = 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! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.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
[Mpls] NRP Home Ownership Assistance Proposal
Re: The NRP affordable Housing Home Ownership Assistance Proposal Sorry for the long post I almost never write so I took the liberty. I am speaking as the Redirection Neighborhoods Rep, a position I take seriously as do the others who worked on this proposal. We have tried hard to talk to folks and to know what the issues are for the people and the setting we were elected to represent. These are my reflections alone. We reps dont get paid for our work and have little political power. Perhaps that gives at least some moral weight to our perspectives when voiced. We gain nothing for ourselves. Re: The NRP affordable Housing Home Ownership Assistance Proposal presented to the NRP policy board Monday of last week: I think this may be the first proposal ever presented to the policy board by the group of Neighborhood NRP reps. This may be the first group of neighborhood reps who tried to craft a proposal themselves so directly attentive to the needs they hear in the neighborhoods. To be greeted for this with misrepresentation, claims of rule violation and lack of accountability, and beyond this, threats to the organizations very existence is cause for alarm regarding the attitude or agenda of those making these remarks. We have tried to be accountable and give priority to the needs and hopes of those we represent. It is puzzling who those who have rallied against this proposal in this way are accountable to. Apologies if the proposal presentation was abrupt, but it would not be the first time timing was compelled by other things, foremost was that the NRP Affordable Housing RFP needed to go out very soon and this required immediate presentation if guidelines were to be drawn and appropriate review and assessment were to occur to see if the proposal should be a part of that and in what way. Many have no idea why this draft proposal which was not final and was clearly presented as a work in progress should have been misrepresented and attacked as a final document and money grab. Money grab for whom? Power for whom? Its just an effort to help some people efficiently and at low cost. Furthermore, it is well within the parameters of the policy board to come up with new and cost-saving strategies. Many very level-headed policy board members voted for it. Peter McLaughlin and Mark Stenglein are not inconsiderable intelligences or nose snubbers. In addition, the original NRP Affordable Housing Reserve Fund was just such an proposal itself. I believe some of our recent and loudest critics even voted on it. Also, lest anyone completely miss it, a mortgage guarantee program for low income home buyers frees up an affordable apartment for every buy. It does so at a tenth the price of new construction and much more quickly. For every one unit of new construction we can obtain 10 units of home ownership, making available 10 existing affordable rental units. Instead of 100 units of new construction we could substitute 1000 units of home ownership freeing up 1000 affordable apartments. In case anyone failed to notice, this is one kind of affordable housing program and one that gets a major bang for the buck. In addition, it responds to a justice issue, namely the lack of home ownership among many persons of color who have been among the loudest voices for this sort of program. For sure no one wants to completely replace new construction, but we would still have 12 million for that (including the trust fund money), as well as much that is just being built and about to come on line. It has been really disconcerting to experience seasoned political people and public officials fall into near hysteria over a simple offer by well-meaning and intelligent neighborhood residents to answer the mayors and the governors call for creativity and out-of-the-box thinking to save money. Equally disturbing is that misinformation should be coming from people who were actually at this meeting and heard the long intelligent discussion that proceeded the passage of this proposal and so should know better. Words like disbelief, thumbing their nose and firestorm contribute lots of heat and very little light. Threats about what will happen to the NRP policy board are certainly uncalled for regarding a well-discussed and earnestly reflected upon vote by the board members, all of whom are individuals who care deeply for their city and their neighbors. (Since when does following democratic procedures suggest we should get rid of the organization, the NRP Policy Board, which followed them because we disagree with the vote? In what countries do things like that happen? Many of us have lost votes on the policy board. We never suggested that this justifies throwing out the organization.) This kind of shrill response helps nothing. I think we all long for and the people of Minneapolis are entitled to a public dialogue of civility, respect, generosity, honesty and open-mindedness such as the one that, contrary to some recent
Re: [Mpls] NRP and city affordable housing fund. Some questions?
Okay, Jim, I apologize for saying you were being inconsistent, and I take back my request that you explain yourself. I find NRP finances endlessly confusing. But I still find it distasteful that you would impugn the motives of those you disagree with. Mark Anderson Bancroft - Original Message - From: Barbara Lickness [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Anderson Turpin [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [Mpls] NRP and city affordable housing fund. Some questions? Just to clarify here. The NRP affordable housing fund were funds pulled out of the proposed Phase II NRP funding pool to a centralized decision-making process during the time Sharon Sayles Belton was the mayor. That policy was intended to dedicate $4 million a year to affordable housing for a period of 4 years and $1 million a year for commercial corridor development. That decision was made without a neighborhood comment and review period. The approval process for allocation of these funds does require endorsement from the neighborhood where the proposed development is to occur. However, the final decision of which projects are funded are decided by a committee set-up for that purpose that is comprised of city department staff and some neighborhood folks. The current proposal would remove $2 million from the pool set aside for affordable housing development proposals for 2003 and earmark it for use with the affordable housing mortgage guarantee program. These funds were never earmarked for neighborhood NRP plans. Barb Lickness Whittier NRP Staff = 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! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.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] NRP and city affordable housing fund. Some questions?
Jim Graham wrote: This was an example of Neighborhood representatives joining with elected Hennepin County Officials to create a program to give people SUSTAINABLE AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP. It complies with the very heart of NRP. It uses a small amount of public money to leverage over 20 times that amount for a redevelopment opportunity. It is a Neighborhood Initiative that stabilizes Neighborhoods and Communities, and it gives economic opportunity to poor people who would not have that opportunity otherwise. It creates affordable housing! It IS the very essence of what NRP was designed to do. The real question should be what motivates those who object? We really need to look closely at those people and determine their reasoning and their future believability. They certainly DO NOT represent either poor people's interests or neighborhoods. Exactly whom do they represent? Mark Anderson response: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Jim Graham has written paragraph after paragraph (after paragraph) about NRP and neighborhood empowerment and how the neighborhoods can do a much better job than the city spending money, and on and on. Now he's decided that this centralized spending program (which seems to be at the expense of NRP money going to the neighborhoods?) is the greatest thing since sliced bread. What's the difference? Why it's on Jim Graham's agenda, so of course it makes sense! Jim Graham and a couple of other neighborhood folks were there to represent all the poor people in Minneapolis, so anyone against it must have some other hidden agenda, right? You know Jim, I haven't even decided if I agree with the proposal or not, but your sudden turnaround in supporting NRP city-wide initiatives sure smells to me. I think you should explain yourself here. Mark Anderson Bancroft 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] NRP and city affordable housing fund. Some questions?
Just to clarify here. The NRP affordable housing fund were funds pulled out of the proposed Phase II NRP funding pool to a centralized decision-making process during the time Sharon Sayles Belton was the mayor. That policy was intended to dedicate $4 million a year to affordable housing for a period of 4 years and $1 million a year for commercial corridor development. That decision was made without a neighborhood comment and review period. The approval process for allocation of these funds does require endorsement from the neighborhood where the proposed development is to occur. However, the final decision of which projects are funded are decided by a committee set-up for that purpose that is comprised of city department staff and some neighborhood folks. The current proposal would remove $2 million from the pool set aside for affordable housing development proposals for 2003 and earmark it for use with the affordable housing mortgage guarantee program. These funds were never earmarked for neighborhood NRP plans. Barb Lickness Whittier NRP Staff = 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! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.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] NRP and city affordable housing fund. Some questions?
We appear too busy fighting over the solution and the process to step back and remind ourselves what the problem is. For years, we have all believed that the Affordable housing crisis is caused by a lack of housing. However, this assumption has proven false over the past 12+ months. We are currently in the untenable situation of having many homeless folk and having an increasing vacancy rate in our rental housing stock. Rental properties have seen vacancies climb from 2.5% to 6.6% and the predictions are that it will get worst. This dramatic increase in vacancies is forcing the rental industry to offer aggressive incentives to attract residents and (in some cases) a lowering of criteria to fill up vacant units. Can we rightfully argue that government funds should still be allocated to building more housing? Shouldn't we instead be asking why we are unable to fill the existing housing stock with families that need housing? I believe the affordable Housing crisis is not an availability problem, but rather an affordable problem. There are many ways to fill the gap in housing costs and this program appears to be an excellent example of one way. I personally applaud Mr. Graham and his associates for proposing up to date solutions. This solution is all the better because it is targeted at homeownership and not rentals. I encourage all of us to look at other possibilities for filling the housing affordability gap. Some possibilities are: 1.) More programs like the one Mr. Graham is pushing that makes it easier for low income folk to buy existing homes. 2.) Asking why we don't have readily available gap funding for rental housing (ala section 8 and wilder roof programs). 3.) Asking who and how can people live on $7.00/hour? 4.) Asking if homeless folk have enough support to help them overcome addictions and historical behavior problems that keep them out of housing? 5.) Asking if the city of Minneapolis has policies that discourage home ownership for low income folk? Can we keep a lid on property taxes for lower cost housing? Why does the city of Minneapolis have their own licensing division for contractors (Thereby limiting suppliers)? Etc... We readily provide food stamps for those that cannot afford food. We build homes for those that cannot afford homes. Why not readily provide rent/mortgage stamps for those that cannot afford homes and buy more cows for those that cannot afford milk? I hope this post is beneficial to you. Regards, Bill Cullen. I live in Hopkins, but own a business in Uptown. 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 city affordable housing fund. One answer....
Bill Cullen wrote: 3.) Asking who and how can people live on $7.00/hour? Vicky applies a pencil: I calculated the Net Take Home Pay, after taxes, assuming a 40 hour work week, for a single person with no dependents. People with children would receive approximately 25% more because of the earned income tax credit. $6.15 per hour, $198.18 per week, $10,305.36 per year. $8.25 per hour, $258.75 per week, $13,455.00 per year. $10.00 per hour, $308.40 per week, $16,036.80 per year. $12.50 per hour, $380.75 per week, $19,799.00 per year. At the minimum wage of $6.15 per hour, two people could afford, without subsidy, a nice apartment for around $600 per month, $7,200 per year out of total take home pay of $20,610.72. When young and/or broke, people share expenses to make ends meet. It should be noted that HUD claims the AMI (area median income) in Minneapolis is $53,700 for a single person. This allows affordable housing developers to charge high rents, and rent to people who don't need subsidies at all. 60% AMI = $32,220 per year. 50% AMI = $26,850. Arithmetic by, Vicky Heller Cedar-Riverside and North Oaks 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] NRP and city affordable housing fund
Two questions for Jim G. and Cam G. concerning this (because you were there) and then a comment: 1. Were the NPR Policy Board by-laws regarding process for this type of proposal violated in the way this came to a vote? No matter how you feel about the idea, if it was rammed through without due legal process, then it's wrong. 2. Was there indeed, as was reported in the original post, no income requirement in this proposal for people to qualify? This would be bad. I bought my house with CRA assistance through 1st Bank and it was great. It was very much the way Jim G. makes this proposal sound. But there were strict income requirements. A comment on Keith's post on 'packing' and others I have read over the years: It interests me that 'packing' is only brought up when people who traditionally may not participate in NRP or neighbrohood group activities show up. When neighborhood groups start to organize and are populated by those who will eventually decide what goes to whom and how, that isn't for some reason, considered 'packing'. I think that if the by-laws allow, and folks have a short term interest for the sake of their community and neighborhood, then showing up when appropriate for those reasons is perfectly appropriate. It may tick off the folks who show up every month, participate in every lottery and grant program, and are used to making all the decisions about who gets what and how, but that's what grassroots democracy is about. It's like any public meeting. You bring your supporters, make your case and do whatever you can legally do to get it through. The constituants at that mosque appeared to have played by the rules and won fair and square. There's nothing wrong with that. Eric Oines North Minneapolis When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always. ~ Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948), Agitator _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* 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
Re: [Mpls] NRP and city affordable housing fund. Some questions?
I believe this was just the method that was used to originally create the set aside monies. I believe Gretchen Nichols might have even been involved in that process. Gretchen possibly has forgotten that fact? Or perhaps her intent was for the money to be used for something other than helping poor people? The NRP Policy Board by-laws were not violated. Peter McLaughlin is if not the Father of NRP is certainly its Midwife, and he certainly would not have allowed a raid on NRP Affordable Housing funding. Instead Peter was one of the proposals supporters. To say Peter McLaughlin, with his record, did not have the interests of poor people in mind is to border on the ridiculous. Gretchen Nichols and the Mayor need to really reconsider their positions before attacking Peter McLaughlin on either affordable housing, concern for poor people, or knowledge of NRP. They simply do not have the credentials Peter has, in any of these areas! This was an example of Neighborhood representatives joining with elected Hennepin County Officials to create a program to give people SUSTAINABLE AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP. It complies with the very heart of NRP. It uses a small amount of public money to leverage over 20 times that amount for a redevelopment opportunity. It is a Neighborhood Initiative that stabilizes Neighborhoods and Communities, and it gives economic opportunity to poor people who would not have that opportunity otherwise. It creates affordable housing! It IS the very essence of what NRP was designed to do. The real question should be what motivates those who object? We really need to look closely at those people and determine their reasoning and their future believability. They certainly DO NOT represent either poor people's interests or neighborhoods. Exactly whom do they represent? The proposal was to create such a program specifically for poor people as affordable housing. Of course there will be income guidelines! The criticism leveled has come from those with other interests than the welfare of poor people. They have come from people with interests and commitments to developers and political cronies. Just before reading Eric's post I was on the phone with someone who makes over twenty-five thousand dollars a year for a family of three but can not afford a house. A working person who pays for rent, but can not get the 10% down payment or qualify without some program like the one the NRP Policy Board passed. He called because a Mortgage Company had suggested he call me about such a program. Why, I have no idea, unless someone from that company reads the MPLS Issues or saw it in the paper. I told him to call a couple of City Council Members and ask them if they will help him and his young family buy their own home. We probably need other folks calling their CM's to urge them to help working poor people have the opportunity. An associated question but slightly off of the subject: What neighborhood interest or issue does the Center for the Neighborhoods actually represent? This is not meant as a mean spirited question. It is a question that I was asked by someone reading the Issue's. If the organization opposes Neighborhoods in most cases, what neighborhoods are they at the Center for? Perhaps Cam Gordon or one of the Seward Neighborhood people, where it is located, could answer this question? Thanks, Jim Graham There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies, revolution into minds, or poor people into homes. - Toe 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] NRP and city affordable housing fund
First let me note that as a new NRP Policy Board Rep (Revitalization) I greatly appreciate the NRP discussion(s) on this list. I believe that they will play a positive role in the future of NRP. I was the lone neighborhood representative voting against the resolution to set aside 2 million dollars (of the 4 million set aside for affordable housing in 2003) to establish a mortgage insurance program. I did so not so much on the merits of the program but on principle and because I did not think an appropriate process was followed. Let me explain. I believe that the NRP was established, in part, to foster neighborhood-based planning and the development of neighborhood-based solutions to the concerns and problems found in those neighborhoods. NRP is based on neighborhood empowerment and making spending decisions is key to this. It is not the Board's appropriate role, in my opinion, to decide how to spend funds by establishing specific programs on its own that it may think are best for the neighborhoods. It is the role of the Policy Board to be guardians of fair, open and democratic processes that lead to neighborhood decisions that are in keeping with the goals and objectives of the NRP. This mortgage insurance proposal, however worthy it may be, was never reviewed or considered by a single neighborhood group. Monday was, in fact, the first time I (and most other Board Members I suspect) ever saw the proposal. No time or effort was given to gather community input or support. Particularly when funds are tight and future funding is in question it seems especially important that we work to keep as much funds and as much funding control as possible at the neighborhood level. The resolution passed on Monday (if it goes on to meet with City Council approval) pulls 1/2 of all the money set aside to fund neighborhood-based affordable housing proposals in 2003 off the table even before the request for proposals has even been submitted. This program, initiated and introduced by a Policy Board Member ( however good intentioned he is,) never went through any kind of review or scoring in any kind of fair and competitive selection process. Certainly creative ways to help folks purchase homes who want to buy them, but may have difficulty doing so, need to be found, established and administered. I just have my doubts that that is the appropriate role of NRP, especially at this time, under these circumstances. I do plan to post more in the days to come, but as a closing to this message I just want to let folks know that I am concerned more generally. I want to send a work of caution. In my two meetings of the Policy Board and many discussions about NRP over the past few months, the divisions and tensions are undeniable. I think that they are also, at times, detrimental. I am convinced that the only way we are going to find our way through the current crisis for NRP and the future of neighborhood-driven planning is by working togethernot by digging in our heals, picking a side and working against one another. There are teams and factions forming or formed -- the neighborhoods, the City Council, The Policy Board, as well as neighborhood critics of NRP. By and large all of us want to do the right thing and make this a better City and by and large what we think and have to say has merit. We need to listen to and understand eachother. For my part I am going to do my best to be open minded, to listen, be respectful, be serious, be clear and strong about my views and vision, communicate these as best I can and work hard together with all to find the best solutions possible. Stay tuned... in peace and cooperation, Cam Gordon NRP Policy Board Revitalization Neighborhood Representative p.s. Please feel free to email or call me at (612) 296-0579 with comments or questions anytime. Cam Gordon Seward Neighborhood, Minneapolis, Ward 2 SD 59 (612) 332-6210, 296-0579, 339-2452 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] NRP and city affordable housing fund
The City Council and Mayor need to realize that the Rental Housing Shortage is over. The Affordable Housing Shortage is NOT. The rental vacancy rate is presently 6.7 % and expected to reach 10% this year. Giving $60,000 subsidies to build an affordable rental unit is not meant to help the poor. It is meant to help large developers and profiteering non-profits. The very best way to help the poor is to make them un-poor. The easiest way to do that is to stabilize their housing needs and give them a means to acquire some capital. I know no better way than to own your own home. I wish neighborhood people would post on this issue. It would help to make the program a reality. Politicians need to know there are more than a few people who support them when they do good things, and know that people see when they attempt to not do good thoughtful work. The County people did good work on this. The City elected officials, from their strident opposition, had clearly made commitments of those funds that had nothing to do with what was good for poor people needing affordable housing. The City officials and Gretchen Nichols made it sound like it was a sudden action and not supported by the Neighborhoods. This idea is not new; the NRP neighborhoods have been working on it for several years. It was an essential part of planning in Ventura Village and other neighborhoods. It was brought forward by the neighborhood representatives and then supported by the County representatives. The idea is over 50 years old and the original idea, after WWII, created more housing and brought more poor people into the middle-class than anything in the history of the United States. Richfield, St. Louis Park, Columbia Heights, Robinsdale and the other first ring suburbs were built by and for that very purpose. Half the houses in those suburbs were built with the GI Bill loan program. South Minneapolis, out towards the Airport and Richfield was also filled with modest houses built or acquired using that same GI Bill. They supplied affordable housing to a population that had never been able to own their own home. Sure it benefited some who came from families of means, but the people who really took advantage were the returning GI's whose families had never had the opportunity before. I came from a sharecropper's tarpaper shack, but bought my duplex using the program after being in the service. That duplex and the income from it allowed me to go to college and then to Graduate School. It gave me a stable place to live and the income from the other unit paid for the bills. That is probably why I get a little passionate about the idea. It is not social theory for me, it is observed and experienced reality. Cam is wrong about the process followed. The set aside program was created by that same NRP Policy Board. It was absolutely proper for that same Policy Board to decide how the second year of the fund would be applied to, as Cam says, fund neighborhood-based affordable housing proposals in 2003. Cam this was a Neighborhood based housing proposal. Cam you were the only neighborhood person voting against it. I agree you should have been brought up to speed on it before the vote, but it certainly has been out in the neighborhoods for some time. The north side neighborhoods of Jordan, Hawthorne, and others had a large meeting about the disposition of their lots; this is a logical extension of that effort as well as other neighborhood initiatives. I had absolutely nothing to do with bringing this proposal to the Policy Board, but I can assure you I have been having discussions with Mortgage Bankers about setting up such a fund with NRP dollars for some time. Others have also. It is not something new; it is an idea whose time has come. The neighborhoods have worked hard to create affordable rental housing. The short-term solution is being addressed. Now it is time to address the other part of the equation. Affordable home ownership. Cam you are correct about the divisiveness that has been interjected into th e process of NRP and housing. NRP is being attacked for doing the very thing it was originally created to do. It was created to allow for neighborhood control of redevelopment efforts in that neighborhood. It was created to empower neighborhoods to use neighborhood-based solutions to neighborhood-defined problems. The divisiveness has come because it began to work too well. Politicians and developers saw NRP as a pot of money they could play with for their own benefit. Now they resent that neighborhoods have been empowered enough to make decisions that might not agree with the politician's Plans. It will be interesting to see how the City Council addresses this important issue in the next few weeks. Just as it will be interesting to see who and what lines up to oppose the Affordable Home Ownership program. I predict that the hypocrisy will be absolutely dripping as a few politicians and non-profiteers line up to
[Mpls] NRP Policy Board Action
NRP Policy Board Action I served as a neighborhoods representative on the NRP Policy Board in 2001 and 2002. I did not attend the February 24 Policy Board meeting, but found it very interesting to note how differently two respected persons (Gretchen and Jim) attending the same meeting reacted to the actions taken. I look forward to reading more from Policy Board members, such as Cameron Gordon's post. Folks may recall the dialogue at the time of the March 2002 release of $3.994 million from the NRP AHRF that included much concern over high per unit subsidy costs in some of the projects. Remember some list member coined the term non-profiteers as I recall. I tend to agree with Jim Graham's analysis of this latest matter. While serving as vice chair on the Policy Board last year I had endeavored unsuccessfully to build a consensus to lay the groundwork for orderly release of an amount of AHRF monies to get into the pipeline in 2003 commensurate with the reduced annual NRP funding levels. For the record, here is a link to the November 18, 2002 Policy Board meeting minutes showing the details of the resolution adopted that dealt with reserve funds for affordable housing and commercial corridors: http://www.nrp.org/r2/AboutNRP/PB/PBMinutes2002/PBM20021118.pdf To assist those who wish to research the details, the general guidelines document for Affordable Housing/Commercial Corridor Reserve Fund was approved by the Policy Board on 7/24/2000. The program criteria for Affordable Housing Reserve Funds were approved by the Policy Board on 12/18/2000 (for the 2001 RFP process that was frozen, then unfrozen and funds released in 2002). As adopted in the 11/18/2002 resolution, the matter of the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund was scheduled for consideration by the Policy Board after 2/15/2003. Thus, the argument seems kind of soft that this topic was dropped on the city representatives who sit on the Policy Board (and who sat on the Policy Board last year). True, the process ordinarily would call for review of funding proposals by the Management Review Team (MRT) of the NRP. While I have been a very small $ contributor to Center for Neighborhoods, I think it is worthy of note that C4N's fundraising letter dated 12/10/2002 contained the following, Planning for Growth-Envisioning Change In 2002 the City of Minneapolis has embarked on a journey to reconfigure community development and the relationship between city and neighborhood planning. To help demonstrate models for how it could work better, the Center for Neighborhoods joins forces with the Minneapolis Mayor's office in 2003 to launch a citywide campaign that focuses on major corridors to plan for how we will absorb the population growth projected for the city. The question is no longer if---it's how. And in that same C4N letter a quote from Mayor R. T. Rybak, Minneapolis, The most powerful assets great cities have are strong, engaged neighborhoods, especially at times like these when resources are limited. The Center for Neighborhoods know better than anyone how to harness that citizen energy to build communities far stronger than anything government can do alone. So I was not surprised to read Ms. Nicholl's harsh criticism of the NRP Policy Board Action to support home ownership opportunities coming from C4N when clearly Mayor Rybak and C4N are so closely aligned. One can fairly argue that the Mayor ought to have worked with the Policy Board colleagues on the commercial corridor proposal, especially in light of the reserve program established for that purpose. I agree with Cameron Gordon, from my firsthand experience, that the tensions on the Policy Board the past year have been tremendous and are a detriment to the functioning of the board. I hope the public officials on the Policy Board can achieve more consensus, but this is going to require some compromise from all sides including advocates for affordable housing. Home ownership is not a dirty word after all, rather it historically is a big piece of the American dream that this latest action may serve to extend to more people of modest incomes... Jeffrey L. Strand Shingle Creek === Gretchen Nicholls, Center for Neighborhoods, 612-339-3480 submitted through the list manager: Message: 4 From: List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 06:57:55 -0600 Subject: [Mpls] NRP and city affordable housing fund Forwarded with permission of the author. - David Brauer, list manager I sat in disbelief Monday night as the NRP Policy Board voted 6 - 3 to=20 approve a request to reassign $2 million of the $4 million dedicated to=20 affordable housing to a mortgage insurance program that was handed out = and=20 introduced at the meeting. The fact that it was considered and APPROVED was an affront to the =I simply couldn't believe it. Six people, none of them city officials,=20 authorized the transfer
Re: [Mpls] NRP and city affordable housing fund
Cam Gordon sez: (snip) I believe that the NRP was established, in part, to foster neighborhood-based planning and the development of neighborhood-based solutions to the concerns and problems found in those neighborhoods. NRP is based on neighborhood empowerment and making spending decisions is key to this. It is not the Board's appropriate role, in my opinion, to decide how to spend funds by establishing specific programs on its own that it may think are best for the neighborhoods. This is exactly correct from what I understood NRP to be when I chaired the NRP Steering Committee in Seward. I also remember speaking to the City Council about these very issues when the Council tried to usurp neighborhood control several years ago. This is power-mongering on the part of the Policy Board, plain and simple. It is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated by the citizens of Minneapolis. I, for one, can't even believe this happened. MJ Mueller Seward 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 _ Add photos to your messages 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] NRP and city affordable housing fund/Pop-Fly
In a message dated 2/27/03 2:17:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (Re:Sole vote against funding 'pop-up' proposal) I did so not so much on the merits of the program but on principle and because I did not think an appropriate process was followed. Let me explain. Keith says; I agree with your principles, on process, in this matter. It does seem, though, that your post IS ...much on the merits, The arguments made by Jim G. and others garner my support on the merit. I went to The List Archive, to remind concerned individuals of another NRP gathering that through a bunch of money into a sack. And without a lot of 'due diligence' Keith Reitman NearNorth From The Archive 3/03: A few years ago, I attended an NRP gathering to vote on funding some proposals. I felt that packing of the voting audience enabled the funding of a project to build a new Kitchen/training facility at our local Mosque. Was this people of like mind doing there civic duty and showing up at a neighborhood meeting; or getting all the people of a church to show up one evening and bring home the municipal bacon? By the way there was no handout available with drawings, projected costs, cooking skills class offerings, or who would qualify for access, nor anything else that I could examine. Simply...give us 1 or 2 hundred thousand...we do good stuff...motion carried...meeting adjourned. There were two or three other 'projects' that got cash, too. Keith Reitman NearNorth 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: Small correction[Mpls] NRP and city affordable housing fund/Pop-Fly
In a message dated 2/27/03 6:34:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, PennBroKeith writes: I went to The List Archive, to remind concerned individuals of another NRP gathering that ***threw*** a bunch of money into a sack. And without a lot of ' due diligence' Keith Reitman NearNorth 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] NRP and city affordable housing fund/Pop-Fly
And people say the MCDA is rogue. Jill Harmon Cleveland From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Mpls] NRP and city affordable housing fund/Pop-Fly Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:34:12 EST In a message dated 2/27/03 2:17:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (Re:Sole vote against funding 'pop-up' proposal) I did so not so much on the merits of the program but on principle and because I did not think an appropriate process was followed. Let me explain. Keith says; I agree with your principles, on process, in this matter. It does seem, though, that your post IS ...much on the merits, The arguments made by Jim G. and others garner my support on the merit. I went to The List Archive, to remind concerned individuals of another NRP gathering that through a bunch of money into a sack. And without a lot of 'due diligence' Keith Reitman NearNorth From The Archive 3/03: A few years ago, I attended an NRP gathering to vote on funding some proposals. I felt that packing of the voting audience enabled the funding of a project to build a new Kitchen/training facility at our local Mosque. Was this people of like mind doing there civic duty and showing up at a neighborhood meeting; or getting all the people of a church to show up one evening and bring home the municipal bacon? By the way there was no handout available with drawings, projected costs, cooking skills class offerings, or who would qualify for access, nor anything else that I could examine. Simply...give us 1 or 2 hundred thousand...we do good stuff...motion carried...meeting adjourned. There were two or three other 'projects' that got cash, too. Keith Reitman NearNorth 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 _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 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] NRP and city affordable housing fund
Forwarded with permission of the author. - David Brauer, list manager Greetings! I sat in disbelief Monday night as the NRP Policy Board voted 6 - 3 to approve a request to reassign $2 million of the $4 million dedicated to affordable housing to a mortgage insurance program that was handed out and introduced at the meeting. The intent to provide a fund for home ownership assistance, the proposal: A. Did NOT adhere to the criteria established for the affordable housing reserve fund. B. Was NOT submitted through the designated process established for requests to the fund, and had not been reviewed by any committee to determine feasibility or merit. C. Was presented by a neighborhood representative sitting on the policy board - in violation of the procedures established for proposals for the fund. D. Did NOT specify that funds would be used for families with incomes at or below 50% MMI (targeted to low income), or would be targeted to specific sections of the city. E. Did NOT respond to the purpose and intent of the fund which was to create new affordable housing units. and F. Seemed oblivious to the City's discussions on whether they will remain in the business of providing mortgage assistance as a city service. The fact that it was considered and APPROVED was an affront to the policies and proceedures of the program, and an indication that NRP is accountable to no one. Both the Mayor and Council President voted against it, along with one neighborhood rep. Those in favor included both County Commissioners (Stenglein and McLaughlin), three neighborhood reps, and the union representative. I simply couldn't believe it. Six people, none of them city officials, authorized the transfer of $2 million of city funds to a proposal that was seen for the first time that evening. No thought given to whether it aligned with city goals or how it compared to other private sector financing mechanisms. The Mayor even urged the board to first revisit the affordable housing fund criteria, make changes if needed, and permit other proposals to compete for the funds. And Ostrow drew attention to the divergence from the intent of the fund. To no avail. With the drop of a hat $2 million that was dedicated for affordable housing was redesignated for home ownership purposes. Almost thumbing their nose at the City, in one fell swoop the Policy Board refused to play by any rules - even their own. Do we still need to wonder what will happen to the NRP Policy Board? Yours, Gretchen Nicholls Center for Neighborhoods 612-339-3480 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] NRP and city affordable housing fund
Can someone please elaborate on what this mortgage insurance program does? While the description from Ms. Nicholls is concerning, I don't have enough information to declare this move bad. If this program eliminates the cost of mortgage insurance (which applies to only those that cannot put 20% down) then we are closer to making housing affordable. Further, mortgage insurance is targeted towards owner-occupants. I hope we see more information on this program before we declare it bad. Regards, Bill Cullen I live in Hopkins, but own a business in Uptown. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of List Manager Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 6:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Mpls] NRP and city affordable housing fund Forwarded with permission of the author. - David Brauer, list manager Greetings! I sat in disbelief Monday night as the NRP Policy Board voted 6 - 3 to approve a request to reassign $2 million of the $4 million dedicated to affordable housing to a mortgage insurance program that was handed out and introduced at the meeting. The intent to provide a fund for home ownership assistance, the proposal: A. Did NOT adhere to the criteria established for the affordable housing reserve fund. B. Was NOT submitted through the designated process established for requests to the fund, and had not been reviewed by any committee to determine feasibility or merit. C. Was presented by a neighborhood representative sitting on the policy board - in violation of the procedures established for proposals for the fund. D. Did NOT specify that funds would be used for families with incomes at or below 50% MMI (targeted to low income), or would be targeted to specific sections of the city. E. Did NOT respond to the purpose and intent of the fund which was to create new affordable housing units. and F. Seemed oblivious to the City's discussions on whether they will remain in the business of providing mortgage assistance as a city service. The fact that it was considered and APPROVED was an affront to the policies and proceedures of the program, and an indication that NRP is accountable to no one. Both the Mayor and Council President voted against it, along with one neighborhood rep. Those in favor included both County Commissioners (Stenglein and McLaughlin), three neighborhood reps, and the union representative. I simply couldn't believe it. Six people, none of them city officials, authorized the transfer of $2 million of city funds to a proposal that was seen for the first time that evening. No thought given to whether it aligned with city goals or how it compared to other private sector financing mechanisms. The Mayor even urged the board to first revisit the affordable housing fund criteria, make changes if needed, and permit other proposals to compete for the funds. And Ostrow drew attention to the divergence from the intent of the fund. To no avail. With the drop of a hat $2 million that was dedicated for affordable housing was redesignated for home ownership purposes. Almost thumbing their nose at the City, in one fell swoop the Policy Board refused to play by any rules - even their own. Do we still need to wonder what will happen to the NRP Policy Board? Yours, Gretchen Nicholls Center for Neighborhoods 612-339-3480 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] NRP and city affordable housing fund
So can someone tell us names of the NRP reps who voted for this raid of the housing funds? They need to be contacted about the displeasure of many as to their actions. Voting on a $2mill proposal on the same night it is presented leaves a lot to be desired. Annie Young East Phillips At 06:57 AM 2/26/03 -0600, List Manager wrote: Forwarded with permission of the author. - David Brauer, list manager Greetings! I sat in disbelief Monday night as the NRP Policy Board voted 6 - 3 to approve a request to reassign $2 million of the $4 million dedicated to affordable housing to a mortgage insurance program that was handed out and introduced at the meeting. The intent to provide a fund for home ownership assistance, the proposal: A. Did NOT adhere to the criteria established for the affordable housing reserve fund. B. Was NOT submitted through the designated process established for requests to the fund, and had not been reviewed by any committee to determine feasibility or merit. C. Was presented by a neighborhood representative sitting on the policy board - in violation of the procedures established for proposals for the fund. D. Did NOT specify that funds would be used for families with incomes at or below 50% MMI (targeted to low income), or would be targeted to specific sections of the city. E. Did NOT respond to the purpose and intent of the fund which was to create new affordable housing units. and F. Seemed oblivious to the City's discussions on whether they will remain in the business of providing mortgage assistance as a city service. The fact that it was considered and APPROVED was an affront to the policies and proceedures of the program, and an indication that NRP is accountable to no one. Both the Mayor and Council President voted against it, along with one neighborhood rep. Those in favor included both County Commissioners (Stenglein and McLaughlin), three neighborhood reps, and the union representative. I simply couldn't believe it. Six people, none of them city officials, authorized the transfer of $2 million of city funds to a proposal that was seen for the first time that evening. No thought given to whether it aligned with city goals or how it compared to other private sector financing mechanisms. The Mayor even urged the board to first revisit the affordable housing fund criteria, make changes if needed, and permit other proposals to compete for the funds. And Ostrow drew attention to the divergence from the intent of the fund. To no avail. With the drop of a hat $2 million that was dedicated for affordable housing was redesignated for home ownership purposes. Almost thumbing their nose at the City, in one fell swoop the Policy Board refused to play by any rules - even their own. Do we still need to wonder what will happen to the NRP Policy Board? Yours, Gretchen Nicholls Center for Neighborhoods 612-339-3480 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] NRP and city affordable housing fund
The resolution is not yet online or available in electronic form. The text of the resolution follows a page and a half of findings, all of which attempt to make out a case for an program described as the renters to owners initiative. There are no details of the mortgage insurance program (this is essentially what is being proposed) and no discussion about whether this duplicates existing city or MCDA programs that may help in writing down downpayments and other forms of assistance to first-time homebuyers. The text of the actual resolution (absent the findings) is: BE IT RESOLVED: that the NRP staff and Director, in conjunction with local lenders, banks, mortgage insurance companies and realtor organizations, develop guidelines and procedures to be approved by the NRP Policy Board for a pilot program to implement a renters to owners initiative. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that the NRP shall set aside $2,000,000 (two million dollars) of the 2002 $4,000,000 (four million dollars) affordable housing reserves to fund this new initiative. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that these funds shall be made available only after approval of the program guidelines by the Policy Board and the transfer of the 2003 NRP allocation of $11,000,000 from the City to the NRP program fund. This is, in my mind, a half-baked or even unbaked program and more of a power play on the part of some to secure the NRP its own separate departmental status by creating its own mortgage assistance programs that will obviously compete with MCDA or other city programs. Is the goal laudable? Sure. But why the duplication of programs is beyond me, other than to see this as a political play rather than a legitimate concern for affordable housing, especially housing for those at the poorest end of the spectrum. The fact that $2,000,000 may be gone in a snap of six people (THREE of whom were neighborhood reps), without any prior discussions, debate, or notice, is not only disappointing but simply irresponsible. Fred Markus may be right to say that this irresponsible opportunism will be the death of more than just NRP. Gregory Luce St. Paul Bill Cullen wrote: Can someone please elaborate on what this mortgage insurance program does? While the description from Ms. Nicholls is concerning, I don't have enough information to declare this move bad. If this program eliminates the cost of mortgage insurance (which applies to only those that cannot put 20% down) then we are closer to making housing affordable. Further, mortgage insurance is targeted towards owner-occupants. I hope we see more information on this program before we declare it bad. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of List Manager Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 6:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Mpls] NRP and city affordable housing fund Forwarded with permission of the author. - David Brauer, list manager Greetings! I sat in disbelief Monday night as the NRP Policy Board voted 6 - 3 to approve a request to reassign $2 million of the $4 million dedicated to affordable housing to a mortgage insurance program that was handed out and introduced at the meeting. The intent to provide a fund for home ownership assistance, the proposal: A. Did NOT adhere to the criteria established for the affordable housing reserve fund. B. Was NOT submitted through the designated process established for requests to the fund, and had not been reviewed by any committee to determine feasibility or merit. C. Was presented by a neighborhood representative sitting on the policy board - in violation of the procedures established for proposals for the fund. D. Did NOT specify that funds would be used for families with incomes at or below 50% MMI (targeted to low income), or would be targeted to specific sections of the city. E. Did NOT respond to the purpose and intent of the fund which was to create new affordable housing units. and F. Seemed oblivious to the City's discussions on whether they will remain in the business of providing mortgage assistance as a city service. The fact that it was considered and APPROVED was an affront to the policies and proceedures of the program, and an indication that NRP is accountable to no one. Both the Mayor and Council President voted against it, along with one neighborhood rep. Those in favor included both County Commissioners (Stenglein and McLaughlin), three neighborhood reps, and the union representative. I simply couldn't believe it. Six people, none of them city officials, authorized the transfer of $2 million of city funds to a proposal that was seen for the first time that evening. No thought given to whether it aligned with city goals or how it compared to other private sector financing mechanisms. The Mayor even urged the board to first revisit the affordable housing fund criteria, make changes if needed, and permit other proposals to compete for the funds. And Ostrow drew
RE: [Mpls] NRP Raiding: Full Text
The following is the full text (from what I have in fax form) of the NRP Resolution adopted on February 25, 2003. If you would like it in PDF format, please e-mail me offlist. I'll let the weakness of some of the findings speak for themselves. Gregory Luce/Project 504 . Several recent publications have asserted that Minneapolis needs more affordable housing; . The time required to create affordable housing units using public dollars-from fund allocation to RFP to completion of construction-averages over two years and requires over $25,000 of public subsidy per unit. Further, the number of units being constructed does not seem sufficient to meet the expected level of demand; . For most Americans, the majority of their wealth is found in the value of their homes; . The Federal Reserve Bank has concluded that the affordable housing issue is one of absence of income and wealth rather than absence of units; . Home owners have been able to increase their wealth for several decades, while renters have paid higher and higher rents for their living quarters with no economic benefit; . There is a significant difference between the number of Caucasian homeowners and homeowners of color; . There are many affordable homes in the City of Minneapolis, but many of the renters in need of affordable units cannot purchase those homes due to lack of down payment and uneven (non-housing related) credit histories. These renters are disproportionately persons of color; . There is another way to meet the demand for affordable housing: turn renters into owners; . Lenders, however, have traditionally been unwilling to lend home purchase money to people without funds for down payments or with uneven credit histories; . Private mortgage insurance companies-who normally insure lenders against exposure of loan-to-values greater than 80%--are also unwilling to insure risky borrowers; . These lending guidelines, however, do not take into account highly localized, micro-markets such as the City of Minneapolis; . The NRP can, through a partnership with local lenders, banks, and other related institutions, circumvent this market limitation and create a new initiative-identified herein as renters to owners-to increase the number of affordable homeowners; . By setting aside a pool of money to act as a mortgage insurance fund, and by working with participating lenders, we may be able to help borrowers-who would otherwise occupy existing or upcoming affordable rental units-obtain 100% home mortgage financing, with no down payment; . These potential new homeowners would be drawn from a pool of those who would normally occupy new affordable rental units, thus freeing up those units for other qualifying households; . This initiative would help achieve the adopted City Goal of Fostering the development and preservation of a mix of quality housing types that is available, affordable, meets current needs, and promotes future growth while meeting the goal of many neighborhoods of increasing investment in single family homes; . This program will help address income and wealth generation and involves the federal government by using homeowner tax deductions to generate more net income for lower income populations while helping them build equity and wealth in real property; . The secondary and tertiary benefits of increased homeownership, especially in neighborhoods comprised significantly of rental units, are numerous, and include a reduction in transitional families (particularly in our schools), a gradual reduction of economic cost to local government (as equity, thus wealth, builds), a reduction in crime (since neighborhoods with greater homeownership experience lower crime rates), etc.; . Many of the families who would participate in this initiative might otherwise never have the opportunity to own a home of their own; . There is a very successful precedent to the proposed model: the housing benefit provided by the Federal government through the Veteran's Administration to World War II veterans. It provided the guarantee of, on average, the top twenty percent of a home's purchase price, and thus enabled lenders to give high loan-to-value mortgages to those who would not otherwise qualify; . This initiative represents a different approach for helping solve the affordable housing dilemma: investing in people instead of buildings; . This funding would be structured as an insurance pool of funds, and, except for normal administrative tasks, would be spent only if claims occur; . The fund will be revolved as owners achieve a 20% share in the equity of their property and the guarantee is no longer needed. To initiate this major effort, the following resolution is offered for adoption. BE IT RESOLVED: that the NRP staff and Director, in conjunction with local lenders, banks, mortgage insurance companies and realtor
[Mpls] NRP AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND GIVES POOR PEOPLE A CHANCE FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP
I also sat in disbelief when the NRP Policy Board approved the two million for the guaranteed loan program. I could not believe that the Board would be so wise that it would take such an action. Especially in the face of elected City officials who might have made commitments to political supporters. Commissioners Peter McLaughlin and Mark Stenglein are to be commended for their thoughtfulness, their wisdom, and for their resolute behavior to get the best for Minneapolis. These two political representatives put the interests of poor people in Minneapolis above politics as usual. In a nut shell the guaranteed loan program would do the following: 1) Two million dollars would be set-aside in a fund, which would be matched by other sources, (Fannie Mae, HUD, Federal Reserve, Banks and Mortgage Lenders, Foundations, and etc,) 2) This fund would guarantee the first 20% of a mortgage on an affordable homeowner situation. Guarantee first 30 thousand on a 150 thousand dollar house for someone who qualifies for affordable housing but does not presently qualify for a standard mortgage. Banks and Mortgage Lenders who have already indicated some interest are some of the foremost lenders in this area US Bank, Wells Fargo, and I believe City County Credit Union. 3) Such a guarantee would reduce the exposure of the lending institution so that they could make loans at 1/2 to 3/4 % below existing rates on a thirty-year mortgage and accept more marginal borrowers. Such a guarantee would also allow for little or no down payment. 4) Since it is not necessary to escrow the entire guarantee amount, 10% could be set aside for such a reserve. This means such a guaranteed loan program with 10 million dollars could guarantee up to 100 million dollars for mortgages and up to a total of 500 million dollars in affordable housing. Potentially such a guarantee program might produce up to 4000 affordable homeownership possibilities. 5) Such a program would start producing affordable housing immediately 6) There is a gain of two affordable units with each guaranteed loan made. (One for the affordable homeownership, and one for the rental unit freed when the buyer moves to their new home) Rationale: 1) In these tough economic times it is important to maximize the potential of the few resources we have. 2) It is important to give under represented poor people and people of color the opportunity to own their own home. 3) Such a program is sustainable because it does not expend resources it builds them. As the loans reached 20% of equity the funds could be dedicated to a new owner. 4) Such ownership stabilizes not only Impacted Areas, but stabilizes families and people's lives. 5) The average subsidy per unit of new affordable rental housing is now $60,000 dollars. Once it is spent it is gone forever. This program would cost 30,000 if every buyer defaulted. (The percentage of defaults for such programs has proven to be very low.) 6) Neighborhoods with large numbers of empty lots could immediately start filling those lots with new homeowners, and immediately start providing affordable housing to a population that has previously had no chance to compete for those homes. Comparison of cost to a person actually using the program for housing: 1) Two-bedroom rental apartment at affordable rates is $861.00 per month (30% of 50% of area median income, which the Mayor and Council defined as affordable housing). One bedroom apartment rental (under affordable housing guidelines) is $719.00 2) Three bedroom, $136,000 GMHCC built, new house payment on 30-year loan under program with no down payment is $730.00 plus insurance and taxes that would add approximately $100 per month. Payment on $125,000 home would be $671.00 per month $861.00 to rent a small two bedroom apartment - or - less to own your own new three or four bedroom house. Gee I wonder which choice most people would make. Where would our tax dollars be better spent? Spent on a fund that perpetually renews itself, (and needs no follow up funding), while affording poor people with homeownership opportunities? Or spent on a $60,000 subsidy per unit to keep a poor family at status quo - Poor? Poor people pay more for the rent on an apartment than many middle class people pay to own a home. A great deal of the net worth of a working family is tied up in their home. Yet our answers to housing problems have heretofore been to only allow them to rent rather than to own. I was not surprised that those who make their living off of poor people, and supposed CDC's, would not like the program. It was to be expected from those who have advocated keeping people in poverty. I am, however, surprised by Anne and Fred who have always been advocates for poor people. I must assume it is only because they have not been able to fully study the potential of such a program. Fred's suggestions about the use of the funds, I think, are right on the money. They should be included in such
[Mpls] NRP and Affordable Housing $
Dont all NRP Policy Board decisions regarding allocations of funds have to be approved by the City Council? I know that all of the neighborhood action plans had to be approved by both bodies before they took effect. Maura Brown Harrison image001.jpg
[Mpls] NRP Phase II
I know Prospect Park is the straw that stirs the drink, but I want to slowly back away from that dispute into a more generalized NRP discussion. Caveat: I know NRP Phase II is in jeopardy. I think there's a huge public policy question about this that I hadn't realized until Michael's recent posts (to give credit where credit is due). More on that in a sec. Thanks to Barb L. for noting the wealth of NRP info online. It is a great website; certainly nothing is happening in the dark. The ground rules for Phase II allocations are at: http://www.nrp.org/r2/AboutNRP/PhaseTwo/AllocatingFunds.html According to the rules, any neighborhood will be able to spend 100 percent of its Phase II allocation to housing (and the ever-popular housing-related services) immediately. That makes sense because the city must maximize Phase II housing spending to get to the 52.5 percent statute standard. The other end of this teeter-totter: Phase II non-housing funds are held back, based on a neighborhood's Phase I spending: * If your neighborhood spent 60 percent-plus on housing in Phase I, NRP will release up to 40 percent of the Phase II non-housing money you apportion; * If your 'hood's Phase I housing allocation was 40-60 percent, you can get up to 35 percent of Phase II non-housing money; * If you spent less than 40 percent of Phase I on housing, you get up to 30 percent of Phase II non-housing dough. NRP folks have made a fairly convincing case that the 52.5 percent housing standard is by the end of the program, not during it. But here's the curveball: what if Phase II funds are cut (as seem all but certain right now)? Wouldn't that mean the city would need every available dollar to get to 52.5 percent? Is it wise policy to let ANY neighborhood spend ANY Phase II non-housing money until NRP funding is set? Here's another weird angle: the MORE money that NRP spends on non-housing now, the MORE money city leaders MUST appropriate for Phase II. Why? Because catching up to the 52.5 percent standard means every non-housing dollar spent now will require $1.50 in Phase II housing spending. In other words, the best thing NRP boosters could do is NOT spend on housing now - to obligate more city spending. (Not alleging conspiracy here, just pointing out logical consequences.) An olive branch here: while Michael did use the word crime in his post on Prospect Park - and none yet exists, because the program isn't over - I think he is on the right track with his larger point: NRP hasn't met the 52.5 percent housing and housing-related requirement. Everyone knows Phase II funding is threatened. The responsible thing to do is set a 100 percent hold-back requirement for non-housing funds ASAP - at least for anything in Phase II. Comments? 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] NRP Phase II
I appreciate Steve Cross's explanations and interpretations and want to add my own for the handful of people likely left reading the thread and all its geeky lawyer (i.e., myself) mumbo jumbo. Let's talk bucks. Call them NRP Bucks, Nerpy Bucks if you will. Let's say we get 1 million Nerpy Bucks in a given year. Of those 1million Nerpy Bucks, where are they supposed to go? 150,000 of them go to the school district off the top. The city must fork over the 150,000 Nerpy Bucks within 15 days of receiving the money, and the city must inform the state education folks of the payment so that the state education folks can deduct 1/2 of the amount from state aid to the district. That is, for the 150,000 Nerpy Bucks the city provides to the schools, the state must deduct 75,000 from state aid. So, in essence, the schools receive a net 75,000 Nerpy Bucks. The disrict's Nerpy Bucks must, by law, be expended for additional education programs and services in accordance with the program. 75,000 Nerpy Bucks go to the county. 75,000 Nerpy Bucks go to social services, administered by the county That leaves us with 700,000 Nerpy Bucks to allocate to neighborhoods (though I'm not sure if NRP Administration takes some of the Nerpy Bucks). In any event, 75 percent of these remaining Nerpy Bucks must go to housing programs or related purposes. OK, that leaves us with the following: 525,000 Nerpy Bucks to housing programs and related purposes (the 52.5 percent we always talk about); and 175,000 Nerpy Bucks go for all other allowed purposes. So, of these 175,000 Nerpy Bucks, what can we spend it on? Here, I disagree with Steve Cross that the listed program purposes are all housing related. Rather, the specifically limited purposes include a number of other non-housing related items, including: *removing hazardous waste and pollution; *renovating, constructing, rehabilitating commercial and retail facilities; *eliminating blighting influences; *assisting in redevelopment of industrial properties; *rehabilitating or constructing community-based nonprofit and public facilities necessary to carry out the purpose of the program Does this list include construction of or addition to schools? Maybe, though it's stretching it and would take a broad reading of the last category of allowed expenditures. Admitting some ambiguity, I believe a sensible interpretation does not allow these expenditures--which is not to say they are bad expenditures, just not within the ambit of NRP's purposes, particularly when there is no current compliance with overall housing-related expenditures. Put it this way--the law is pretty clear about school expenditures because it is sensitive to the state portion of aid that already goes to schools. The school district's carrot of offering matching funds to NRP groups for investment in schools is a sly way to get around this, unless I'm missing something. You ask, what about the 75,000 Nerpy Bucks the school district receives? The district's Nerpy Bucks are limited solely to additional education programs and services in accordance with the program, and cannot be used to replace existing services. I'm not seeing anywhere the bricks and mortar issue of constructing schools or additions to schools. I agree with David Brauer and Steve Cross that the 52.5 percent is logically interpreted as city-wide (or, more accurately, program wide), and I also agree with David Brauer that neighborhoods who are poo pooing the percentage requirements are shortsighted and hedging on the future and on other neighborhoods. It thus oddly punishes those neighborhoods that are working well within the 52.5 percent or more, as those neighborhoods carry the bigger burden of bringing the program up to the required percentage. I agree with David Brauer and with Michael Atherton that allocations of non-housing expenditures should be frozen so that it is better assured that the state mandate is met. Michael goes one step futher and says that NRP, as it is now implemented, is illegally siphoning housing dollars to purposes not allowed under the statute. I tend to agree, but I'd put it more accurately to say that expenditures are being made that are not within the ambit of the law-- the allowed expenditures contemplate non-housing purposes, but on a more limited basis to 'blighted properties' or 'commercial facilities' or remediation of pollution or other hazards. To me, that gets to the essence of revitalization. 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] NRP Phase II
Gregory D. Luce wrote: I agree with David Brauer and Steve Cross that the 52.5 percent is logically interpreted as city-wide (or, more accurately, program wide), and I also agree with David Brauer that neighborhoods who are poo pooing the percentage requirements are shortsighted and hedging on the future and on other neighborhoods. It thus oddly punishes those neighborhoods that are working well within the 52.5 percent or more, as those neighborhoods carry the bigger burden of bringing the program up to the required percentage. WM: In one sense it can be interpreted as punishing, but it was true for the nine redirection neighborhoods that housing issues were paramount and could not be addressed within the 52.5% target number. For some of them, there are still big housing issues to be dealt with--delayed maintenance, particularly among seniors; rental housing that needs assistance or encouragement or pressure, mostly for mom pop duplexes and triplexes I agree with David Brauer and with Michael Atherton that allocations of non-housing expenditures should be frozen so that it is better assured that the state mandate is met. WM: I don't think it should be frozen across the board, but selectively. For neighborhoods like mine, the second phase will be used mostly to continue the work in housing. But that little other money needs to go to initiatives which have proven their worth already, but are still not quite ready to fly alone. WizardMarks, Central 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
[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 non-housing, the law imposes no
[Mpls] NRP isn't so bad!
I don't believe political parties are the same type of non-profit or citizen participation programs that Barb is referring too. Tim, you are mixing apples and coconuts here. And how soon we forget the Rapson, Belton convention. But,admittedly, the longest ones tend to be the state conventions (of any party). And let's get down to some of the facts, folks ... this is really about power - the power of making decisions about the money to be spent in the neighborhoods. Over the years there have been councilmembers who have not really liked (putting it mildly) all the bother and dither of relating to the neighborhoods and citizens (the grassroots) meaning they wanted to make the financial decisions themselves. For most citizens NRP has been a very positive, empowering sort of thing - makes you feel connected to your neighborhood, to those who live, work and play there. That brings safety and security along with sharing the knowledge of what goes on in our government to the citizens - they like that. With the dollars tightening and tightening there are going to have to be lots of no's, no expansion, no new programs and get more efficient and better at what you do. It is not going to be pretty! And some people will never like the decisions that will have to be made. But I don't think anyone can deny that the NRP has engaged the citizens in caring even more about this City than one already does just by living here. Annie Young CODE PINK - East Phillips At 02:05 AM 2/6/03 -0600, Tim Bonham wrote: While I agree the meetings can be cumbersome, so can the political conventions that go on for 8 - 10 hours to endorse candidates. Talk about family unfriendly. Barb, you are exaggerating here. The longest DFL endorsing convention in the city council races was yours, in the 6th Ward. It convened at 10:30, and finished business at 3:37, for a length of 5 hours 7 minutes. Even the City Convention, with a multi-candidate mayoral endorsement and many other school board, library board, park board, board of estimate taxation candidates to endorse finished in just over 6 hours. It may have felt longer to you, but in reality no Minneapolis endorsing conventions have taken 8-10 hours. I want you to show me one other Minneapolis program or process that has been successful at engaging over 5,000+ citizens into the process in a sustainable way for over 10 years. Name one. Elections? They involve about 10 times that number of people, and have been held at least every 2 years for the last century or so here in Minneapolis. Tim Bonham, Ward 12, Standish-Ericsson Barb Lickness Whittier
Re: [Mpls] NRP isn't so bad! Even at its worst NRP is better than Politicians making decisions!
Anne Young is correct in her description of the problem with NRP. It is not a problem of citizen participation. It is a problem of who gets to make decisions about development and dollars. Neighborhoods sometimes decide that they wish to correct a blight problem and spend NRP funding to that solution. This may be in direct conflict with the plans of some politicians and their Developer Cronies. Anne is correct, NRP isn't so bad. If fact it is just the best investment Minneapolis has ever made. It put revolution into minds as well as houses over those heads. Those minds are going to make Minneapolis a better safer place for both babies and elders. NRP Neighborhoods are Lifecycle communities that value all people in them, and seek the best solutions for all their people. Something that seems to scare Down-Town interests who are so busy patting themselves on the back with their self-righteousness that they seem to not care about real people and real solutions in real communities. I have said in the past that NRP is not the perfect solution; you have some groups deciding to spend their allotment in ways some may find foolish. It is not the perfect solution, but like Democracy it just happens to be the best one we have right now. Decision-making is far easier and cleaner with an Emperor and his Court, unfortunately thought such decisions only serve the interest of that Emperor. We can go back to that more centralized system of politics and that more centralized system of deciding on revitalization needs. But not without a fight. Sure there is bickering about what direction to go with NRP dollars. It is usually fierce, because the parties care deeply about their community. It is the reason they give so much of their time. Anne Young and I, I am sure would agree about the depths of those fights. She and I have had some dozzies. The reason was that we both cared and had a commitment to our community and City, and were willing to fight for what we viewed as the best way! Those arguments, as frustrating and maddening as they often can be, are what is good about NRP; people end up sorting things out and choosing what is best for them and their communities. People make a lasting commitment and identification with their communities. It is not about just the money. The NRP money is the carrot that gets people to the meeting and involved. The important thing is the organizing around solving community problems. If the City of Minneapolis paid these people even minimum wages there would probably be more dollars than they get from NRP. It's the difference between vegetables bought at the Cub Market, and those you raise in your own garden. The Cub veggies will keep you alive, but which ones taste better and fulfill your actual desires and needs? Sure the hand grown variety take huge amounts of time and you may argue with your partner about the best way to fertilize and water them, but they are worth more and more valuable because of their quality. NRP projects are the same. Sure they take more time, but they build community; so they are far more valuable than just the dollars they bring. The neighborhoods that are most impacted by the attack on NRP are also those that are most impacted by the Cities development ambitions for zoning changes. They are also those neighborhoods that suffer from concentrations of poverty in higher minority communities. The reason the powers that be wish to attack NRP autonomy is that such Impacted Neighborhoods have been empowered to begin to fight the City's plans to continue this pattern of discrimination. Neighborhoods are of course fighting for decision-making autonomy and also to free themselves from such discrimination. It is little wonder that the City Council Members most interested in attacking NRP are also the ones who want such a concentration. Because of the organizing experience of NRP, Neighborhoods have started to organize for mutual defense and improvement. The Coalition of Impacted Neighborhoods will be hosting a City Wide meeting on February 20th to address such concentration issues. Concentration of poverty, concentration of Level Three Sex Offenders, concentration of crime, concentration of supportive housing, concentration of criminals on supervised probation. To see a flyer for the meeting and material on COIN go to, and look at, the site www.pnn.org/coin/index.htm I certainly hope those interested in the pattern of discrimination on Impacted Neighborhoods and the possible attack on NRP come to the meeting on February 20th at 6:30 PM. The meeting will be at the MCDA -NRP headquarters building - The Crown Roller Building. It will be for Impacted Neighborhoods and their friends. - Original Message - From: Annie Young To: Tim Bonham ; mpls-issues Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 6:16 PM Subject: [Mpls] NRP isn't so bad! I don't believe political parties are the same type of non-profit or citizen participation programs
Re: [Mpls] NRP isn't so bad!
Anne Young is correct in her description of the problem with NRP. It is not a problem of citizen participation. It is a problem of who gets to make decisions about development and dollars. Neighborhoods sometimes decide that they wish to correct a blight problem and spend NRP funding to that solution. This may be in direct conflict with the plans of some politicians and their Developer Cronies. I have said in the past that NRP is not the perfect solution; you have some groups deciding to spend their allotment in ways some may find foolish. It is not the perfect solution, but like Democracy it just happens to be the best one we have right now. Decision-making is far easier and cleaner with an Emperor and his Court, unfortunately thought such decisions only serve the interest of that Emperor. We can go back to that more centralized system of politics and that more centralized system of deciding on revitalization needs. But not without a fight. Sure there is bickering about what direction to go with NRP dollars. It is usually fierce, because the parties care deeply about their community. It is the reason they give so much of their time. Anne I am sure would agree about the depths of those fights. She and I have had some dozzies. The reason was that we both cared and had a commitment to our community and City, and were willing to fight for what we viewed as the best way! Those arguments are what are good about NRP; people end up sorting things out and choosing what is best for them and their communities. It is not about just the money. The NRP money is the carrot that gets people to the meeting and involved. The important thing is the organizing around solving community problems. If the City of Minneapolis paid these people even minimum wages there would probably be more dollars than they get from NRP. It's the difference between vegetables bought at the Cub Market and those you raise in your own garden. The Cub veggies will keep you alive but which ones taste better and fulfill your actual desires and needs. Sure the hand grown variety take huge amounts of time and you may argue with your partner about the best way to fertilize and water them but they are worth more and more valuable because of their quality. NRP projects are the same. Sure they take more time but they build community so they are far more valuable than just the dollars they bring. I had some consternation about Luce's seeming turn around about NRP. Luce had tried unsuccessfully to steer our NRP away from housing. Then I realized the direction he was going. Luce and 504 are possibly intending to access NRP housing dollars for his own organizations. The neighborhoods that are most impacted by the attack on NRP are also those that are most impacted by the Cities development ambitions for zoning changes. They are also those neighborhoods that suffer from concentrations of poverty in higher minority communities. The reason the powers that be wish to attack NRP autonomy is that such Impacted Neighborhoods have been empowered to begin to fight the City's plans to continue this pattern of discrimination. Neighborhoods are of course fighting for decision-making autonomy and also to free themselves from such discrimination. It is little wonder that the City Council Members most interested in attacking NRP are also the ones who want such a concentration. Because of the organizing experience of NRP, Neighborhoods have started to organize for mutual defense and improvement. The Coalition of Impacted Neighborhoods will be hosting a City Wide meeting on February 20th to address such concentration issues. Concentration of poverty, concentration of Level Three Sex Offenders, concentration of crime, concentration of supportive housing, concentration of criminals on supervised probation. To see a flyer for the meeting and material on COIN go to, and look at, the site www.pnn.org/coin/index.htm I was told it would be up by tomorrow. I certainly hope those interested in the pattern of discrimination on Impacted Neighborhoods and the possible attack on NRP come to the meeting on February 20th at 6:30 PM. The meeting will be at the MCDA -NRP headquarters building - The Crown Roller Building. It will be for Impacted Neighborhoods and their friends. Jim Graham, Ventura Village There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies and revolution into minds - Toe 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 Broad Participation
NRP Participation: Has anyone ever looked at whether renters generally have stable addresses. My guess is that most of them do not. The mechanics of renting encourage settling for something short of what you really want. You give your notice from an unsatisfactory place and then have a limited amount of time to replace the shelter with something else. It is sort of like getting married on a timetable. The resulting marriage wouldn't be great, and the resulting rental choice isn't either. Transience matters because there is a lot less commitment to a neighborhood. Plus, the renter doesn't have the financial stake in the vitality of the neighborhood. I say this as someone who only rented from 1965 to 1993. I know the tune. When it is your LANDLORD who stands to lose financially in a deteriorating neighborhood, you have a lot less incentive to prevent the deterioration. When my part of Windom Park deteriorated, I just moved to get away from the crime problems. That was an easier answer than getting involved in NRP. # Houses, schools, businesses, they are all part of the quality of a neighborhood. Rehabbing any of them fights neighborhood blight. In fact, schools are almost MORE important than houses since people with kids often want to know if there are good schools handy. I don't know how much NRP has spent, but what was the participation in buying Target Center or building the Target building on Nicollet Mall? Seems to me the complainers about NRP due to its participation levels ought to be REALLY infuriated about this corporate welfare. Who got to participate in that? -- 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] NRP Hypocrisy? There is Hypocracy, But Whose?
Jim Graham wrote: Barbara Lickness is absolutely correct. In fact Michael Atherton could not be more wrong, and if he had been active at any level with NRP he would know this. I have been active in the NRP, although not during plan development. I think that it's fair to say that at this point I know more about the NRP than all but a handful of people in my neighborhood. Which maybe one reason I am so opposed to it. The greatest criticism of NRP was that early in the process poor communities too often assigned too much of their money to non-housing related social programs. I would join in this criticism. I don't see any justification in the state statutes for spending NRP funds on such programs. If you understand so much about the NRP why don't you tell us what part of the statutes supports these allocations? Michael need not worry about Prospect Park's reallocation. As it is small compared to the reallocation to housing in the Phillips Neighborhoods and Ventura Village. $600,000 dollars maybe small in relation to other neighborhoods, but small is not the issue here; principle, accountability, and ethics are. You retitled this post as NRP Hypocrisy? There is Hypocrisy, But Whose? I claim that the NRP is being hypocritical because they have a set housing goal and it doesn't appear that they will ever meet it and it doesn't seem that they ever intended to. The NRP is being hypocritical because they seem to have ignored the mission established for them by the state legislature. That is my position, now please explain to me how I am being hypocritical, as your title asserts. 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] NRP Hypocrisy?
Barbara Lickness wrote: As the NRP staff person assigned to Prospect Park I would like to respond with the following: The 52.5% housing expenditure mandate is on the program over the 20 year period. NRP has NEVER required or dictated what each neighborhood spent individually on housing in Phase I of NRP. While some neighborhoods have spent nearly 80% on housing, others have not. Secondly, to say that poorer neighborhoods have not invested in things in their neighborhoods that go beyond housing is just plan flawed and untrue. My own neighborhood spent nearly $2M of it's $7.7M on the park and school complex. We also spent money on programming for the park and school and provided program funds for youth serving agencies in the neighborhood. We paid to build the bookmobile and Prospect Park kicked in some NRP funds for books. We did commercial loan funds for businesses and invested in a plan for Nicollet Ave. I never said that poorer neighborhoods did not expend NRP funds on items other than housing. I said that wealthier neighborhoods might be in a better position to allocate funds to community schools. What I do say is that expending funds on the types of activities you mention above does NOT adhere to the original state statues that created the NRP and that the NRP is neighborhood realization run amuck. To claim that the majority of funds did not need to be spent on housing in Phase I is disingenuous to say the least (especially given the fact that there might be no Phase II to speak of). Please identify which of the purposes stated in the statute below allows funds to be spent on remodeling a community center to create public school classrooms (a project that I believe be financed by the MPS budget or private donations). - 469.1831 Neighborhood revitalization program; first class city. Subd. 3. Purposes; qualifying costs. A neighborhood revitalization program may provide for expenditure of program money for the following purposes: (1) to eliminate blighting influences by acquiring and clearing or rehabilitating properties that the city finds have caused or will cause a decline in the value of properties in the area or will increase the probability that properties in the area will be allowed to physically deteriorate; (2) to assist in the development of industrial properties that provide employment opportunities paying a livable income to the residents of the neighborhood and that will not adversely affect the overall character of the neighborhood; (3) to acquire, develop, construct, physically maintain, rehabilitate, renovate, or replace neighborhood commercial and retail facilities necessary to maintain neighborhood vitality; (4) to eliminate health hazards through the removal of hazardous waste and pollution and return of land to productive use, if the responsible party is unavailable or unable to pay for the cost; (5) to rehabilitate existing housing and encourage homeownership; (6) to construct new housing, where appropriate; (7) to rehabilitate and construct new low-income, affordable rental housing; (8) to remove vacant and boarded up houses; and (9) to rehabilitate or construct community-based nonprofit and public facilities necessary to carry out the purpose of the program. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/469/1831.html - In closing I will state that if Prospect Park votes to support Pratt school in their redirection meeting next week, it is within NRP policy for them to do that. Being within NRP policy does not appear to be the same as adhering to state law. I suppose that since I am not an attorney or a legislator that I must be missing the part of the law that allows money to be spent on items other than the above, please identify and post the section that repeals or modifies the statute above. The Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association (PPERRIA) Board has been advised in writing regarding NRP housing policies in addition to legal opinions on program proposals that were submitted to PPERRIA for funding consideration. PPERRIA has followed the NRP Policy on Changing Neighborhood Action Plans and has gone above and beyond the notice requirements to the entire neighborhood for this redirection of funds. Regardless of whether PPERRIA follows NRP requirements, does not assure that their decisions are wise, fair, or ethical. I have argued in this thread that the ability to provide funding that results in disproportionate spending per pupil for education, while legal, may not be just. 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
[Mpls] NRP Hypocrisy?
On Tuesday my local NRP contractor will oversee a budget reallocation meeting. This meeting is designed to reallocate approximately $600,000 in Phase I money that was originally budgeted for housing. There are a number of proposals as to what to do with this money many of which have nothing to do with housing. If the NRP is behind its mandated housing goal and my local NRP contractor is significantly below the 52% housing requirement, why is it that there is no mandate from the NRP management that this money be spent on housing as was originally intended? Beyond this fundamental issue is a question of equality and equal protection. One proposal for the reallocation is to spend $400,000 of this money remodeling a portion of our community center to add grade levels to an existing community public school. I believe that such budget allocations perpetuate educational funding discrepancies between wealthy and poor neighborhoods, and illustrates another flaw in the concept of the NRP. Do children receive equality in educational opportunity when poor neighborhoods need to spend NRP funds on housing and while better off neighborhoods can add their funds to their community school budgets? In our neighborhood this issue is complicated a little by the fact that in the area in which the school is located has contains both a small public housing project and a wealthy neighborhood (Tower Hill) where houses often sell for more than $300,000, but the fundamental issue remains: Does the ability to fund secondary needs beyond housing result in unequal economic outcomes for wealthy and poor neighborhoods? 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] NRP Hypocrisy?
Michael writes: Do children receive equality in educational opportunity when poor neighborhoods need to spend NRP funds on housing and while better off neighborhoods can add their funds to their community school budgets I believe Whittier, not a rich neighborhood, spent mucho bucks on their community school in Phase I. I think it's a flawed assumption that rich neighborhoods spend on schools and poor ones on housing. Is there actual data beyond our limited neighborhood anecdotes? 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] NRP Hypocrisy?
David Brauer wrote: Is there actual data beyond our limited neighborhood anecdotes? This is philosophical and policy question, not primarily an empirical one. I was presenting an example to frame the question, not to present statistical evidence. However, it is clearly obvious that at least in our neighborhood we are far short of the housing goal and that according to the NRP's own figures they are short of the overall housing goal. It is now unlikely that they will ever met the housing target. So what's the penalty for this failure, and why isn't the NRP management doing anything to correct its previous errors? I believe Whittier, not a rich neighborhood, spent mucho bucks on their community school in Phase I. I think it's a flawed assumption that rich neighborhoods spend on schools and poor ones on housing. I never make the assumption that rich neighborhoods spent more on schools (for all I know they could spend it on indoor hockey arenas instead of housing), I was just proposing that it was possible that rich neighborhoods might be in a better position to. I was really rising the question about the equality of school funding which has been discussed in the courts. I think that in California that the State Supreme Court ruled that all public school districts must spend the same amount on education per student and they then required a pool of state funds rather than unequal district budgets. I tend to agree with this principle and I am questioning whether the ability of neighborhoods to disproportionately support community schools violates the concept of equal allocations per student, and in turn results in differential educational and career outcomes. I'd like to hear your response to this question: Does ability of neighborhoods to disproportionately support community schools violate the concept of equal protection for students, and in turn result in differential educational and career outcomes? 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] NRP Hypocrisy?
Michael writes: I never make the assumption that rich neighborhoods spent more on schools (for all I know they could spend it on indoor hockey arenas instead of housing), I was just proposing that it was possible that rich neighborhoods might be in a better position to. I was really rising the question about the equality of school funding which has been discussed in the courts. I think that in California that the State Supreme Court ruled that all public school districts must spend the same amount on education per student and they then required a pool of state funds rather than unequal district budgets. I tend to agree with this principle and I am questioning whether the ability of neighborhoods to disproportionately support community schools violates the concept of equal allocations per student, and in turn results in differential educational and career outcomes. I'd like to hear your response to this question: Does ability of neighborhoods to disproportionately support community schools violate the concept of equal protection for students, and in turn result in differential educational and career outcomes? I'm saying I don't think that ability exists, at least based on NRP, our starting point. Remember, NRP is an extremely progressive program - in the classic definition of the word - poor neighborhoods get more funding, per capita, than wealthy ones. So without evidence that disproportionate spending occurs - and at least structurally, that funding is progressively weighted the opposite way, toward poor areas - I'm not much worried about the problem through NRP. Now, that said, I DO worry about things such as parent fundraisers affecting school funding imbalances. My kid's school, Burroughs, is very good at raising private money and bless them for itbut, every time I buy a roll of wrapping paper or contribute to the school through a book sale or read-a-thon, I wonder who's providing equivalent money to schools in poorer areas. THAT said, my friend Lynnell Mickelsen would remind me that in Minneapolis, schools with high-poverty student bodies ALREADY get much more per student than schools in areas such as mine. AND, it looks like one of the first things the Minneapolis Public School District will cut is so-called impact aid which provides money to schools with wealthier student bodies (a mild balancer to federal and state funding to poor schools)...so while schools may have less money in the next few years, it's quite possible that the funding gap will WIDEN in favor of schools in poorer areas. 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] NRP Hypocrisy?
As the NRP staff person assigned to Prospect Park I would like to respond with the following: The 52.5% housing expenditure mandate is on the program over the 20 year period. NRP has NEVER required or dictated what each neighborhood spent individually on housing in Phase I of NRP. While some neighborhoods have spent nearly 80% on housing, others have not. Phase II or NRP has significant hold-backs on discretionary (non-housing) related funding until the program has ensured that they have met the 52.5% programmatically. The Board of Directors of Prospect Park have been made aware of these hold-backs. Secondly, to say that poorer neighborhoods have not invested in things in their neighborhoods that go beyond housing is just plan flawed and untrue. My own neighborhood spent nearly $2M of it's $7.7M on the park and school complex. We also spent money on programming for the park and school and provided program funds for youth serving agencies in the neighborhood. We paid to build the bookmobile and Prospect Park kicked in some NRP funds for books. We did commercial loan funds for businesses and invested in a plan for Nicollet Ave. Phillips spent a significant amount of their NRP funds on issues that were not directly housing related. Many of these expenditures were on Peavey Park, Stewart Park, Anderson School and the many social service programs needed in a neighborhood like Phillips. In closing I will state that if Prospect Park votes to support Pratt school in their redirection meeting next week, it is within NRP policy for them to do that. The NRP Policy Board will have to give final approval of this request. If they choose to support some of the educational and social service programs that have submitted proposals, NRP will work with the neighborhood and applicant agency to ensure that the proposals meet NRP legal requirements. The Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association (PPERRIA) Board has been advised in writing regarding NRP housing policies in addition to legal opinions on program proposals that were submitted to PPERRIA for funding consideration. PPERRIA has followed the NRP Policy on Changing Neighborhood Action Plans and has gone above and beyond the notice requirements to the entire neighborhood for this redirection of funds. Barb Lickness NRP Staff to Prospect Park East River Road = 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 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
