Russ says:
>First regarding David's comment about fees...I'd like to
>know why David thinks the "The (largely) suburban
>"association dues" model seems wrong"? Is it because it's suburban and
>we're discriminating geographically?
Yes, that's it! No, seriously...
>Or is it just because
>it smacks of elitism - they're the kind of people who can
>afford that? If people said the largely urban NRP model
>just seems wrong there would be an outlay of rebuffs on this
>list. I would like a more detailed explanation from David
>if he is willing to help us understanding his thinking
>better.
Sorry, my observation deserved more explanation.
Suburban housing tends to be newer and more development (or even gated
community) oriented. Such new developments more often come with "homeowners
associations." That's not a character flaw, just a historical pattern of
housing development.
However, I do think the suburban ethos is more elitist, or at least less
concerned with equal access. There are any number of issues I'd point to:
gated communities, affordable housing, resistance to social programs, etc.
Minneapolis is far from perfect but the 'burbs are generally worse. This is
not to single out specific suburbs or, of course, specific suburbanites. But
I think it's broadly true and not a reach. It's like saying Democrats favor
more spending.
>I can't for the life
>of me understand why taxes through a neighborhood
>association in the form of dues that bring people together
>to make decisions about their neighborhood is wrong? But I
>am willing to listen to others' rationale.
The biggest problem - based on my personal philosophy - is that dues are
often levied as a flat tax. ($20 to join, for example.) That's regressive -
it hurts people more who have less ability to pay. (It's why I oppose a
federal flat income tax.) However, to extend Barb Lickness's observation, at
a very low dues level the harm might be minimal.
OK, you might say, what about a sliding fee? Sure, but how does a
neighborhood association do that? Trust, I suppose, since I we can't get
income tax figures. Maybe go by publicly available property tax statements?
When a city funds NRP as it now does - admittedly, with the weakness of
indirection Russ notes - they can deploy a fairer mechanism. Property taxes
aren't the fairest taxes out there (I was a renter for more years than I've
been a homeowner), but conceptually I'd be the city's overall tax structure
is fairer a flat tax.
So that's why I favor a possible "mill levy" approach to funding
neighborhood associations rather than a dues structure. To those who argue
taxation is coercion, I'd be willing to make it a check-off.
As for Russ's more general observations - I agree with most, though family
members seem to be quite well represented in our neighborhood affairs.
(Minorities, singles, and renters are another story.) However, I don't see
broader participation at City Hall hearings or at other taxable units of
governments. I think the challenge of involvement will persist whether
neighborhoods get taxes or dues.
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
Son, Brother, and Nephew of Suburbanites
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
