Village meeting segregated
de facto or not, procedure discriminated

by Abdel Shakur

The Ventura Village Neighborhood Council's monthly meetings are not usually known for their excitement. The Council sets neighborhood policy, which includes allocation of Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) grants in the presence of a few regularly participating businesses and home owners. Several weeks ago, however, the Council's meeting spiraled into a mass of accusation and insinuation, leaving some to label the Council’s actions as racist and other’s to question the true motives of those opposing the Council.
The beginnings of the controversy can be traced back to the days and weeks before the meeting. Steve Wash, Director of the Collaborative Village Initiative, submitted a proposal for a 20 unit housing development that would serve ‘at risk’ families in South Minneapolis. Wash's plan would provide both drug treatment and on-site counseling to the residents of the building.
Council member Jim Graham says that while he supports the work Wash's proposal would do, he doesn't think the development is a good fit for the neighborhood. “Ventura Village has been one of the most vocal proponents of affordable housing in the city. We just don't think there should be this type of facility located directly within the commercial corridor of our neighborhood.”
Wash, however, disputes Graham's claims. “They obviously haven’t even looked at the proposal. We understand the need for commercial development and we’re planning on using the area that faces Franklin Avenue to house small businesses.”
Opposition to Wash’s plan was congealed, Gram says, when Council members heard rumors about an effort to undermine the Council's authority. “Before we even had a meeting, people were bragging about how they were going to take our meeting over. We heard ahead of time that Steve Wash’s proposal would be shoved down our throats and that there was nothing we could do about it.”
“It was very sad,” said Joan Resner of Project 504, who was one of well over a hundred people who attended the meeting in support of the Wash proposal. “When we came in, there was a long table in the middle of the room. Someone came up to us and asked if we had attended a meeting before. If you said yes, then they checked to see if your name was on the list and seated you in the front. If you
continued from page 1

seated you in the back." The end result was that you had a majority of white people in the front of the room and a majority of black people in the back," recounted Resner. "Someone turned to me and said, 'I thought these days were over'. I have never seen something so blatantly discriminatory. As a white person, I was ashamed to be a part of that process."
Gram argued that the format for the meeting was not segregationist by design. “Holliar Tyner, a member of the NRP policy board, notified us that our meetings were not in compliance with State law, as far as voting eligibility is concerned. That's why we had the tables and the list to make sure we could identify eligible voters. We would have had at least 20 to 30 people voting who were not even residents casting votes without this procedure. Anyone labeling what happened in the meeting as racist is blatantly lying.”
Long time Ventura Village resident, Corey Bird, who was prevented from voting by the new procedure, felt wronged by the Council appointed to represent his interests. "I was stripped of my rights in the community,” he said. I've been a homeowner since 1992, I participated and voted in a council meeting just 10 days before and yet I wasn't allowed to vote. It doesn't make sense."
Although Bird is contemplating legal action over his inability to vote, he also expressed disapointment at the language used by those voting against Wash's proposal.
"I was one of those 'dysfunctional' people they say they don't want in the neighborhood. I would never be where I am now if someone hadn't tried to reach out and help me."
When asked about the timing of the enforcement of the state eligibility laws, Gram noted that the Council acted only after being notified of the issue by Tyner.
Wash, for his part, finds it hard to believe that the enforcement was by chance
"It was a very deliberate attempt to keep people from the neighborhood who supported our proposal from voting. We had over 500 signatures from people in the community going into this meeting. We have broad based support".
Although Gram denies that the Council selectively applied State mandated voting procedures, he acknowledges that some members of the Council were pleased by the opportunity to thwart what they saw as an attempted takeover. We are already getting calls from other neighborhood councils asking us how we were able to do what we did," he claimed.