Neighborhood Revitalization Program — the Framework or compromise?
People often ask “What makes the Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) so unique from other city’s community engagement programs?”
Citywide Minneapolis neighborhoods have invested $280 million through a neighborhood driven action plan that’s reviewed by city departments and then approved by the neighborhoods, NRP Policy Board, City Council and Mayor. Here’s just a partial list of the resulting projects and programs in the 4th Ward because of NRP and resident identified priorities during Phase I of NRP from 1995-2007:
Housing: Home improvement loans, emergency loan programs, first-time home buyers loans, housing developments, affordable housing, housing for seniors, housing for folks with disabilities, mortgage foreclosure prevention and predatory lending.
Hosting and partnering on community events: Ice cream socials, park picnics and concerts, movie nights, talent shows, garden tours, home tours, business and health fairs, school carnivals, Spring Art Party, Holiday on 44th and Heritage Day.
Youth programs: Phat Summer and other MPRB youth programs, Camden Youth Engagement Project, Victory’s Senior/Youth Program, Kid’s Cook, after-school and summer programs.
Schools, parks, library improvements: Totlots, skate-board parks, wading pools, tree plantings, signage, community gardens, books, equipment.
Community planning and improvements: Housing, business improvements, parks, schools, libraries, vacant properties, boarded properties.
Collaborative events and community-wide meetings: Camden Alliance of Neighbor-hoods, Northside Neighborhood Alliance, Northside Clean-up and Green-up Day, Household Hazardous Waste day, Shingle Creek and Ryan Lake clean-up and planting, Lyndale Blooms with Youth, environmental and livability community meetings.
Crime and safety: Forums, stroll patrol, street clean-ups, streetlight inventories, block club celebrations and training sessions.
Marketing venues: Newsletters, websites, local newspapers, brochures, postcards, flyers, posters.
Economic development: Facade improvements, node and corridor plans, lighting improvements, safety improvements, banners and signage.
For a full list of NRP Phase I highlights by neighborhood click here. For a full list of city-wide investments click NRP is a valuable, independent and award-winning program that has helped stabilize the community over the past two decades. Throughout the city’s public comment periods over the years, community residents continue to overwhelmingly support NRP.
In August, with less than a month to engage the community, the Minneapolis City Council held a public hearing on their final working group report called the “Framework for the Future” which recommends a dramatic change to the current NRP structure. The Framework proposes to establish a new City Community Engagement Department with a new coordinator and would dismantle the independent structure of NRP. This new community engagement department would in many ways unilaterally control NRP. By not allowing it to be independent and without honoring the input and relationships of the other multijurisdictional partners, i.e., Minneapolis Park Board, School Board, Hennepin County and Legislative partners, many of the neighborhood organizations’ accomplishments listed above would not be possible.
Community members attended this standing-room only public meeting at city council chambers on August 20 and again strongly supported the independent, well-established, and successful multijurisdictional structure of the current NRP. Hennepin County Commissioner Gail Dorfman spoke as the NRP Policy Board Chair. Although neither the policy board nor county had had enough time to develop a formal position, Dorfman praised the council for their efforts to recognize the positive contributions of NRP to the city. She then brought forward concerns about the lack of multijurisdictional partnership in the Framework for the Future, “...it will lead to greater isolation for the city, less coordination in projects with multiple partners, and a loss of potential revenues for neighborhood revitalization.” She questioned the lack of funding, transitional process, and how existing contracts would be managed. Senator Torres Ray spoke in favor of having the council support NRP and looked forward to working together in the future legislative session. Senator Karen Clark, chief author of funding legislation last session, also spoke in favor of NRP saying, “...I don’t think we should give it up…one of the intangible things at stake here…is that NRP generates hope.”
Residents commented they wanted to be able to review the final report with their neighborhoods and scolded City Council for “disrespecting residents and the process” and said that by using the process they have so far they have “violated all of their seven adopted principles of community engagement in December 2007.” One resident asked, “Who is driving this effort?” and pointed out the post-election timing of the McKenzie report, after the mayor and others campaigned and promised to protect NRP. The McKenzie report illustrates centralization of community engagement proposed in 2002. “It’s alarming to me, because McKenzie was the company that advised Enron. What did they do? They removed middle management. They centralized the power. There was no accountability and the whole thing collapsed…Centralizing this government is not okay…” Almost every neighborhood representative requested more time until a firm budget could be determined for moving forward rather than the unspecified and uncommitted language of the Framework report. They also highlighted more work is needed at the capitol to clarify the language of the statute passed this last session.
An alternative response to the Framework entitled “A Residents Response to the Framework” was presented by a city-wide coalition of neighbors called Neighbors4NRP. (For a copy of the response go to www.neighbors4nrp.com). This document looks to preserve many of NRP’s core structural principles and outlines potential future funding mechanisms as solutions for both NRP and the City’s priority for Target Center relief.
At the Committee of the Whole meeting the following morning, the committee chair and Workgroup Taskforce Council Member Lilligren gave an overview of the themes during the public hearing. Included in many themes (besides residents requesting more time), was “How have we been heard?” His response was that he would refer to Attachment B of the Framework….and “I’d say that there’s a difference between being heard and governing.” From all of the list of concerns brought forward by residents the previous night, the only and most substantive outcome showing that the residents were even remotely heard by the council was that Council Member Colvin Roy motioned to delay the vote one council cycle (motion approved).
Residents are encouraged to send comments to their city council members and the mayor regarding this topic. They will be accepting public input on the report until September 11 and are scheduled to take action on establishing a new City Department and Advisory board for Community Engagement at their city council meeting on September 26.
For info or a list of neighborhood organizations go to www.nrp.org. For info on the city’s proposed “Framework for the Future” click here To watch the full webcast of residents comments click here.
workaround
Comments
Post new comment