Neighborhoods lose in battle to keep NRP local

by Dennis Geisinger
published Oct. 14, 08

“That’s cute,” said at-large rep. for the Neighborhood Revitalization Project Policy Board, Debbie Evans, when Southside Pride asked her if the creation of the new (9/26) “Neighborhood and Community Engagement Commission” by the City of Minneapolis was a victory for the neighborhoods.

“Whatever they call it, it just can’t be compared to what we have with the current policy board,” said Evans. “Whatever the current policy board recommends gets adopted. The city council and mayor vote under the direction of the policy board,” she said.

“The City doesn’t control it,” Evans said.
With the unanimous vote of the city council last month, the NRP Policy Board will be reorganized as a Neighborhood and Community Engagement Commission. Half of the members of the Engagement Commission will be City appointees and the whole she-bang will be supervised by the City Coordinator’s Office.
“I’m concerned that this puts us too close to city government,” said Nokomis East Executive Director Rita Ulrich: “The residents that make up our membership decide what our neighborhoods need.”

In their ongoing fight to retain some semblance of the NRP Policy Board that for 20years has fixed bad spots block-by-block with real input from the residents who had to live with them, the neighborhoods haven’t won one in a while. The restructuring of Minnesota State Tax Code at the turn of the century and decline in the tax revenue from land designated as Tax Increment Districts, has squeezed the money that pays neighborhood association staff and funds development projects for the Neighborhood Revitalization Project. Mayor Rybak and his City Council have consistently voiced their support for NRP, but there is a general agreement from those outside city government that the City’s plan for continuing its work—their “Framework for the Future of NRP”— seeks to change the fundamental aspects of how, by whom and in what quantities its state-appropriated funds are divided up by neighborhoods. “Because the state legislation that funded NRP sunsets in 2009, city leaders have been working for several years to improve the city’s community engagement system and to find ways to make sure neighborhoods remain a valued part of the city’s culture, serving as a link between city government, residents and businesses,” says a press release issued by the City in September.

“The bigger issue for us is how responsive is city government to the needs of the neighborhoods,” said Ulrich. “That’s definitely gotten worse in the last several years.”

“The City’s vision for NRP takes out the input and collaboration of the neighborhoods,” said Evans. “And without community involvement, the city council and mayor would not support the neighborhoods,” Evans said.
“This move has taken community engagement a step back—it’s a mile back,” Evans concluded.

“There’s no difference between what we have proposed and how neighborhoods have always been funded with NRP,” said 11th Ward City Council Member Scott Benson. “What is it that some of these groups want? It’s just bizarre to me,” Benson said.

Yet even Benson concedes that one of the City’s proposals for giving residents a share of the some $24 million NRP pie allocated for 2009 (Mayor Rybak’s $6 million property relief package)—after the City uses $10 million to pay a portion of the debt on the Target Center—would not add up to much for individuals in the neighborhoods.

“I have to confess I haven’t had time to study the numbers, but $6 million isn’t a lot when it’s spread across the city,”
said Benson.

“It’s about $22 a year per household,” said Evans. “That’s about enough for a pizza and a pop. Now if you give the neighborhood associations that $22, that translates into about $100 a year per household that can be leveraged for home improvement,” Evans said.
“I think the neighborhoods challenge the City and it’s annoying to them,” said Ulrich.