Flaws In The Minneapolis "311" System And "Adopt-A-Dump" Mandate

People probably think I'm hyper-critical because of the nature of blogging plus, well, I've been known to be hyper-critical about a few different issues.

However, I am pointing this stuff out to be helpful to the city I love...

The Flaws In 311

When you call 311, it generates a report which goes to the appropriate department. The problem is the original report can't be changed, modified, or called back...furthermore, the city moves very slowly and, combined with this, the situation with the house is fluid and subject to change.

Let us say, for example, I notice the house is wide open to trespass because windows have been ripped off. So I call it in to 311. This generates a report which goes to the people sitting on the bars of gold, who must pay the contractor $140 per board to get the boarding done.

But, in the meantime, I find some boards and board it up myself. A few hours later, though, the front door is busted down by a furious crack head who can't get in the window.

Well, I'm not going THERE for a while. But I'll call the city to update the report.

Well, now they can't update it. The 311 operator would need to call the office where the report went, because the bureaucracy is so rigid and hidebound. Furthermore, in the meantime the crack head's friends are stripping off the aluminum siding, so I call that in, too...

Yeah, I could call the police, but unless I see the crack heads doing it, I'm going to call the city and put in new information through the 311 system.

Well, what's going to happen? By the time the report and the telephonic updates get where they are supposed to go, somebody is going to think, "Well, the windows are secure so I guess the building is now secure. The same guy who boarded the windows must have boarded the door, too, right? That's common sense. I guess the only problem is the siding is being stolen, and that's a police matter."

Meanwhile, the building sits open to trespass through the front door and crack heads make off with the siding, piece by piece.

What Needs To Happen:

There needs to be the ability for a citizen to keep adding developing information to the 311 report, and for that info to get where it is supposed to go instantly, not through a difficult and irregular process. The situations which require calling 311 are NOT STATIC, at least not when it comes to houses being trespassed upon.

Flaws With The "Adopt-A-Dump" Mandate.

Yeah, I know it isn't actually called "Adopt-A-Dump," but Behind The Mortgage Dot Com dished out the nickname, and the nickname stuck.

What does the City of Minneapolis think we are doing, frolicking around planting pansies and picking up litter, careful to separate the bottles and cans? The reality is the security of the buildings itself is a much greater problem than the litter or graffiti.

Yes, the City said words like, "It's OK to go in a yard to pick up litter." Well, the City needs to say more words, stuff like, "It's OK to board up a vacant, condemned building which is wide open to trespass. You won't get blamed. We WANT you to do this."

Another problem...what about the trash?

Yes, the city said "pick up the garbage...please!" So are citizens supposed to pay to dispose of trash they generously picked up from the yard of a vacant house? (Like the trash I picked up from "415 31st," and tossed in the truck while the crew cleaned up "416 30th?")

What are citizens supposed to d with the mounds of filled-up trash bags? Can they leave the bags on the curb in front of the house in question, and tell the city about the bags?

Could the city perhaps provide some large dumpsters, and just leave these dumpster sitting out for a week or two, and hope the presence of the dumpsters spurs cleanup activity?

Who pays for the paint? Where shall we get flower seeds?

Yeah, OK, I'm in favor of painting over graffiti, though it's kind of surprising how little graffiti there is on the North Side compared to, for example, Dinkytown right next to the U of M. Graffiti must be a real "wannabe gangster" activity which real thugs don't bother with.

But if the city wants citizens to paint over graffiti and plant flowers, could the city at least make free with some paint and flower seeds? Putting in time and effort is one thing, but does the city seriously expect citizens to pay out of their own pocket to take care of abandoned properties?

It's OK To Repost Official Notices, Right? How About Other Stuff?

Angry individuals frequently rip official notices off doors, the condemnation orders, etc. Citizens should be told, explicitly and clearly, to go ahead and repost those notices.

Furthermore, sensible "adoption" practices reasonably could include citizens posting, for example, the information about the owner of the building, or other contact information they might obtain about the building--a real estate company with no sign out front, for example--and so citizens should be told, explicitly, "Yes, you can and should post stuff on the boarded up buildings which makes sense as part of adopting the houses, like contact information for the owners."

Can We Paint Those Ugly Boards?

See previous blog entries showing attempts to turn boarded up buildings into something more artistic.

No, I'm not one of those people who tries to call tagging "street art." We don't need tagging. But we could use some boards over doors painted to look like doors, complete with a painted cat waiting to get inside, or a child's face in a window, pouting over raindrops, etc.

The boards are ugly. I have no real knack for this kind of artistic thing myself, but there are people who do.

If we "adopt" the house like a child, can we dress the child in something more pretty, so it doesn't look like a pathetic, ragged waif?