Regarding the issue of citizen participation funds and the neighborhoods, I want to offer additional information.
Although my neighborhood, Prospect Park, participated in the program something like eight years ago, it has not participated since then. It has not participated because the neighborhood organization, PPERRIA, can't qualify under the changed rules that were adopted then. Specifically, we would have had to change our long-standing bylaws to provide for business members and to not collect "dues." Regarding business membership, a successful applicant had to include businesses. The fact that there were separate business organizations and that the funds might be shared was not considered. There are several other business organizations already established in the neighborhood. Among them are SEBA and Stadium Village Business Association. It is doubtful that the businesses would want to participate in a residents' organization in any case and sharing was not an allowed option. Nevertheless, PPERRIA has considered having business memberships several time and, each time, decided to keep membership as following its 100-year tradition of affinity with residents. PPERRIA does not have "dues." It does, however, request annual contributions to defray operational costs. The amount is up to each member. Some contribute a substantial amount. Others can and do contribute nothing. Still, PPERRIA would have been required to drop all requests for yearly contributions in order to be eligible for citizen participation funds. PPERRIA considered doing so and decided that it was not economically viable for it to forego the annual requests. PPERRIA does other things too and funds to do that would not have been replaced by citizen participation funds. A few years ago, when the citizen participation funds were under MCDA, I explored the possibility of changing PPERRIA bylaws in order to qualify for the citizen participation funds. I reviewed the MCDA documents on what was required in exchange for the funds. My frank impression was that in exchange for the funds that a huge amount of free services were required. So, for example, if we got $2,000, we would have agreed to provide free services that were valued at maybe $10,000. Quite simply, what was required was way out of proportion to the funds provided to do it. It wasn't that we weren't willing to do what the MCDA wanted. It was just that the funds provided to do all of it weren't sufficient. It just wasn't a fair deal. It is my understanding that a few other official neighborhood organizations (i.e. NRP-related organizations) also don't take the citizen participation funds for largely the same reasons. So no one should think that use of citizen participation funds in all the neighborhoods of the city is a given. Whatever consideration is given to the continuation of the program might want to look at whether to much was being demanded of the neighborhood organizations for the funds granted. Steve Cross Prospect Park 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
