Post in re format of Annie Young/Gayle Bonneville letter

Jan 30 01:14 UTC

Sorry, but I could not make out the first one. I am curious as to which large
property owner is being refered to and how this was eventually handled.  Does
anyone else have any
information regarding this or the demise of the Park Board?
Gene Swanson
Lind_Bohanon

Can someone help me out here -
 reference to demise of the Park Board? I have been out of town for a few days
- can someone fill me in? What did I miss?
Annie Young citywide Park Commissioner On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:23:57 -0600

Gayle Bonneville <catspj@earthlink.net> wrote:
A heads-up to the City Council: Process matters. is this an example of what's
in store for "community engagement" in Minneapolis?

A Dec. 3, 2007, letter from the City of Minneapolis said that a large local
property owner's request for a demolition permit would be required to go
through a public hearing.
On Jan. 14, 2008, I learned that this public hearing would never take place,>
since the permit was granted without public input, without a public hearing>
and via what I consider backroom dealings. The advisory group established by a
court order was not notified. Nor, from what I can tell, was the city's own
commission that deals with this type of property request.

I bring this up because many questions have been raised recently about the
"community engagement" and "Framework" discussions under way at the City
Council level, the recent demise of the library board, the proposed demise of
the Neighborhood Revitalization Program and its Policy Board, and now talk
about the possible demise of the Park Board and other independent city bodies.
The general move towards consolidation of power is alarming in a city once
renowned for community participation.
Perhaps the end result for the permit requested would have been the same had
the public hearing taken place as promised to the public that wanted to be
heard. We'll never know. But the public process was corrupted: Perhaps we could
have learned from some of the experts that presumably sit on the commission
that is charged with having the public hearing. Perhaps those commissioners
could
have heard directly, face-to-face, from the public who ultimately puts them
there. Perhaps concerns could have been aired in a public hearing, on the
record, and better resolutions>arrived at that all could live with. Perhaps
there would have been an open airing of pros and cons of the proposed, leading
to a stronger outcome instead of a weaker view of public officials. Perhaps
we'd even
know the specifics of what was agreed to behind closed doors by the city
council member, staff and property owner. But that opportunity has been ripped
from us as well as from the city-designated historic landmark property in
question here.

And make no mistake about it:
We are headed for even broader loses in our participation systems unless we
speak up.
Now you see it, now you don't. Presto-change, your public hearing, your board