All posts in the topic NRP heading to Toronto to present to the world. (Short link)
Summary
- There are 5 posts — by 4 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Jack Ferman at Oct 18 01:37 UTC
Iam leaving tomorrow for Toronto. NRP has been invited to present at the
University of Toronto's international conference for participatory democracy.
Bob Miller will be part of a panel with representatives from other countries. I
find it odd that the rest of the world "gets it" while our city council and
mayor don't. I find it more disappointing that the people who rose to power
through participation in their neighborhood association and the NRP program
were the ones who pulled the trigger.
Will report back to the list with the new and interesting ways people of other
countries use to gather citizen input.
I disagree Barb, they did not "pull the trigger", that would have been too
honest. With arrogant hypocrisy dripping from their lips they smiled as they
stabbed the Neighborhood residents in the back. Hypocrisy because at least one
of them became wealthy from using NRP dollars and got elected by pretending to
be a "Neighborhood" person.
I do hope the media covers the role Minneapolis NRP will have in the that
international forum on "Participatory Democracy". Instead of a badge of honor
for Minneapolis NRP has become a white feather of cowardly betrayal of the
people who elected those Council Members.
Jim Graham
The rarest of gems, with the greatest clarity,
and with the greatest brilliance is not the diamond.
The rarest of all gems is the truth.
Yet as scarce as truth is, the supply has always far
exceeded any demand for it. In fact it may well be the
lest desirable commodity in the Universe.
Ask any politician.
Jim Graham: "they did not "pull the trigger", that would have been too honest."
The NRP was Mayor Fraser's legacy to the city and a good one, rare in mayoral
history. What "they" did was to trample Fraser's vision manifest in the NRP,
rather than sustain and enlarge it. What the present mayor did was hire a
consulting firm known for their determination to consolidate everything
strictly along the lines of typical corporate organization in total opposition
to Fraser's vision. The mayor is clueless about the value of the NRP and so are
the majority of CMs. Using the excuse of the consultant's "report," they have
jointly reversed the core idea of Fraser's vision.
I do believe the present mayor receives his support largely from the fertile
crescent and the northernmost part of Northeast Mpls. He was elected by those
with comfortable living situations, virtually no experience of inner city life
nor any inclination to support inner city neighborhoods for changes which would
ultimately support themselves, and a conviction that their tax money was being
wasted all around, rather than in specific areas.
The NRP was most visibly successful in those neighborhoods which needed the
most help. The fertile crescent neighborhoods got much less money and used it
for niceties rather than necessities. I don't fault them for that, but that's
the reality in wealthier neighborhoods: they didn't need to deal with
vacant/boardeds nor did they have to deal with a polyglot of languages,
cultures, and competing, very justifiable needs. Nor yet did they have to deal
with residents who looked on the NRP as a way to gentrify whole neighborhoods
and squeeze out the voices of those, largely blue collar, sometimes
inarticulate voices, who had lived in those neighborhoods for generations--the
folks who were entirely ignored or strenuously and with venom, disrespected.
The consequences are not pleasant to endure and the money and attention got
focused to suit the gentrifiers.
The NRP supporters have to take some of the blame for the demise of the NRP. It
was up to us to organize, not just for the uses of the money, but for the uses
of the future. We did not organize to sustain the promise of the NRP, nor to
criticize its shortcomings in a way that was helpful and sustaining. That
created an opportunity for business as usual to prevail. Ergo, when the
designers of the NRP had all left office, there were not enough TRUE supporters
of the NRP to step into those public service seats.
Some of the grassroots leadership for the 20 year plan were hired at NRP by Mr.
Craig, who shortly thereafter left the stage, others joined the electeds and
had to focus in on one facet of the issue, but how many of them ascended to the
City Council specifically to protect and sustain the NRP? Not having solidly
pro-NRP, grassroots, and electable candidates cost the city the NRP.
The city council we now have is most retrograde, with the exception of a very
few, and those had to be taught about the NRP's value, they had not experienced
it in more than a glancing way, and they did not comprise a majority. In
addition, we lost three city council members who did support the NRP and were
electable for another term until the feds descended on us with force. (We would
never have known about it otherwise.) The loss of three council members greatly
and suddenly increased the number of pro-NRP candidates who had to be put
forward. No members among those who ascended to the council were steeped in the
NRP, except Lilligren who would not have been elected the first time without
the unintended consequence of the feds descending on Herron. That is very
different from members of the grass roots ascending to those positions of power
principally to support the value of the NRP. The opposition on the council to
the mayor's plan was not fulsome enough, nor was it up to speed in how to
oppose the mayor.
It's a damned shame that the mayor and the council feel the need to crush the
NRP. Those who have no vision, and who cannot understanding a vision when they
have one to observe, most often are those who crush the vision as alien to
their way of thinking and therefore suspect.
Good post Wizard.
While Mayor Fraser bought the new NRP house and made some payments, the
architect and construction manager were Tony Scallon and Peter McLaughlin.
While Don sometimes seemed to be asleep in his office he certainly did no harm
in his treatment of Minneapolis and in fact did a lot of good. Something no
Mayor since can legitimately claim.
Even though Don Fraser had been someone who was actually important before
becoming Mayor his office was always open to the people of Minneapolis. This
became less so during Sharon's reign, and has become non-existent with the
present Mayor. Anyone else ever wonder how RT became so important that he has
to have more walls around him than any other politician in Minnesota. I think
it is easier to meet with the Governor. I know it is easier to see Amy
Klobachar or Norm Coleman. I guess in his own mind RT simply has become too
important a person to be bothered with regular people. Or it could be just that
his managers just manage him better. Rather amazing, isn't it?
The relative accessibility of Fraser and Rybak may also indicate their relative
view of NRP. Fraser was always open to the people and helped create a program
that would have as much 'Participatory Democracy' as possible. Fraser wanted
the people engaged and empowered to creatively address the problems of
Minneapolis. His office always seemed open to the public. Rybak has conspired
with Council Members to limit, wherever possible, that same engagement and
certainly limit any empowerment of Minneapolis Residents. RT has become more
and more unapproachable since he took office. RT started off good, but quickly
became too important to talk to regular people. Now it's as if he is a Lord who
commands the City Hall Castle that reigns over a population of peasants who
constantly besiege him. I guess RT was insulted by having those peasants think
they needed some power to decide even a few things for themselves.
Their attitudes towards participatory democracy and empowerment of the citizens
of Minneapolis seem to be indicative of more; Fraser had the confidence of
being someone important before serving as Mayor. He helped create a mechanism
for promoting participatory democracy. RT was a relatively unknown who received
the help of those "Empowered" neighborhood residents to get elected, but then
immediately began working to kill that empowerment. Was it because RT was
fearful of those empowered residents or that he simply did not need them after
being crowned?
There is hope though. In discussions with a couple of State Senators they let
it be known that they at the State, though disgusted with our present elected
officials, have confidence that the voters will once again throw several out
and elect competent people to have a more responsive and responsible group to
work with. One Senator said this seems to be a trend. She says every eight to
twelve years we in Minneapolis are fed up and get rid of a group that has
become too important or corrupt to listen to people. We then elect more
neighborhood responsive people, but after four or five years the new group gets
the same problem. She says the present group of elected Minneapolis officials
may be the worst ever, but expects the Minneapolis voters to trim them down the
next election.
Well maybe someone wonderful,like Gail Dorfman, will move across the border and
run. Or perhaps another retired Congressman will run. How about it Martin? Or
perhaps we can get someone with the great public service knowledge of a Robert
Miller to run. Since it is too much of a sacrifice for Miller, and he is off to
teach other Cities about NRP and "Participatory Democracy", perhaps we can get
Miller to teach someone else who can run and win. Of course with our Strong
Council-Weak Mayor system perhaps we just need to haveMiller teach a few other
people to run for Council and ignore the "Weak Mayor".
So Wizard (and anyone else), do you have any suggestions? We need 7 council
seats and a mayor, or we need nine council seats. With only 4 Council Members
even remotely supportive of residents and neighborhoods there are at least nine
Wards who could use a new one. Of course if you can muster enough votes to
elect even four or five new Council Members you will also get a new Mayor. So
what would need to happen to return the City of Minneapolis to responsible City
government?
While some might say we need all of them replaced I just do not think that is
possible. Though the weak Council Members may lack the personal courage to call
out the rest when they are screwing the public, or lack the courage to point
out incredible conflicts of interest, not all are bad. So we only need about
five or six replaced. The timid will follow along and act responsibly if there
are strong people around them. (They have shown that)
And Wizard you may be partially correct on another issue. In my opinion Brian
Herron was one of the most responsive Council Members before being caught up in
the Sabri fiascoes. I would say that Brian was the best Council Members
representing the interests of the Sixth Ward in the last 20 years. When people
would comment that Brian was elected in the Eighth Ward I would reply, "I know,
I didn't say elected in the Sixth, I said the best at representing the interest
of the Six Ward". Even Tony Scallon when fighting with Neighborhood group was
more responsive to the residents of the Sixth better than any CM elected from
it in the last 20 years. Amazing, though it does show that good CM's can be
responsive to the needs of Minneapolis residents, whatever Ward they vote in.
Sorry for the long screed this morning, hopefully we will have a brighter day
come March and the caucuses.
Jim Graham
Political Experience is a wonderful thing in politics. It allows us to
recognize when we elected the WRONG Minneapolis politicians again.
Slight disagreement. Gail should stay on the Henn board because she
has an important job of protecting us there. Should she decide to seek
another office, it should be a higher office not a horizontal move.
Those who see RT as weak and ineffective should start, if not already
have been, grooming a better replacement from the crop of occupants of
lesser offices or new blood,
John Ferman
<email obscured>