[Mpls] 'Citizen Participation' still a myth; 'Activist Participation' not...

[Chris Johnson]

Nikkicarlson001 at aol.com wrote:

> There is not a "quick fix" to shifting away from apathy and disconnected 
> neighbors... we need a long-term strategy that will continue to bring MORE 
> participation in at the neighborhood level.  As the process continues to become 
> better known, even through criticisms such as those below, more people will learn 
> that YES, I CAN have a significant say in what happens in MY neighborhood... 
> that is a VERY GOOD direction to take. I disagree with the suggestion that 
> somehow handing off this decision-making to elected officials makes the process 
> better. Let the neighbors have a say... that will lead to increased neighborhood 
> involvement over the long-term.
> 
> Nikki Carlson
> Linden Hills


Well said.

All processes will have some flaws in them; as humans we simply cannot perfect 
something big and complicated like civic policy and governance.  So should we 
throw the baby out with the bathwater?  Just because the current process for 
citizen involvement tends to favor "those who show up" is an inadequate reason 
for getting rid of it.

Of course NRP has not been perfect, but it has done a lot of good, directly 
and indirectly, as others point out.  Would we have been better off if all 
that NRP money had stayed in the MCDA or other city coffers?  There is no way 
to prove that argument one way or the other, but if there were, I'd be willing 
to bet NRP has done a better job than if the decision making had been done by 
elected officials.

--
Chris Johnson
Fulton