Stock photo and blog post by John Hoff
After their "Bike Walk Center" proposal failed to obtain approval at the Minneapolis City Council Public Safety Health Committee, as extensively documented in this multi-part video post, click here, Anthony Taylor of the Major Taylor Bicycling Club (which is a project of the Cultural Wellness Center, headquartered in South Minneapolis) appeared before the Housing Committee of JACC two nights ago.
Taylor insisted he hadn't gone before neighborhood organizations earlier because there wasn't anything final, because it wasn't necessary, or something to that effect. However...
...a collaborative effort known as TREADS, which had its own biking center proposal slated for an empty garage building at 26th and Penn, click here, had gone around to seven neighborhood councils and received letters of support. Indeed, it was something of a mystery among a number of informed neighborhood organization members how the "Taylor proposal" had somehow gained more traction than the "TREADS proposal" and gone before the Public Safety and Health Committee...only to be seriously questioned and sent back.
In response to questions by the JACC Housing Committee, JACC members, and audience members, (including this blogger) Anthony Taylor spoke as though eventual success before the city council was all-but-in-the-bag. Indeed, a party is being planned for December 27 at the proposed site of the Bike Walk Center on Lowry and Penn.
However, success did not seem assured, neither politically nor financially. The Bike Walk Center has to be approved by the City Council and, furthermore, there are questions about whether Cultural Wellness Center has any track record of financial success. Click here for a copy of their 2008 tax return, which was apparently in the hands of at least a few of the committee members along with information from the Secretary of State's website about the finances of the organization.
Some of the toughest questions were asked by audience members. For example, one audience member asked about "Free Wheel" in the Midtown Greenway which (according to the audience member) has had "over a million dollars of public subsidies" poured into it, and "has yet to turn a profit." Tough questions were asked about the demographics in other neighborhoods versus the demographics of North Minneapolis. The "Taylor Project" Bike Walk proposal includes a coffee shop, but the question is whether any coffee shop can do well in North Minneapolis. Coffee shops have struggled here. Our neighborhood coffee shops are "mom and pop" affairs, since the major coffee chains have yet to see opportunity in our neighborhood. Is it even RIGHT to subsidize a coffee shop which would compete with private businesses for customers?
If Taylor intends to approach six other neighborhood organizations, it is fair to say the man has his work cut out for him.
Perhaps they don't seek neighborhood input because they are not part of the neighborhood; they are all southsiders. They have only been in existance since 2006 and aren't even listed on the Attorney General's website. Do our city council members support them? I wonder how the rents compare on the two sites. I know St Anne's. who owns the building at 26th and Penn, said they had no desire to make money off the property (if it isn't used, they plan on tearing it down) and would charge only enough to cover their expenses. Perhaps the Lowry site is intended to help out the developer who doesn't seem to be able to rent it (rent too high?) This deal deffinitely smells and many questions need answers.
ReplyDeleteI only saw a chilly reception from 2 people there. John Hoff and Megan G. The rest of the group did not seem to be attacking instead the others asked fair questions. John and Megan seemed just out for Anthony Taylor. John would not have been happy with any of the responses from Mr Taylor and the gentleman from Now Bikes and Fitness.
ReplyDelete@Anon but how can it be that the rent is too high at the Lowry site for any other prospects because on that video of the city council committee hearing the health department gal stated there was an urgency to approve this because there was a different interested party in the Lowry space and they could possibly lose the chance to rent there. Unless that was just a made up trick to try and create urgency and secure a lease? I say let the other interested party rent the Lowry space and have the Bike Walk center at the 26th/Penn space that way NOMI gets two spaces filled with new businesses!
ReplyDeletethe only chilly response I saw was from John Hoff and Megan G
ReplyDeleteHmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
ReplyDeleteChilly response? There are other groups that have been working with the neighborhood for "YEARS", Perhaps the real question is JNS and others have been around long enough to smell a "FIX" and can also smell out dis-tractors. Not our first time to the neighborhood meeting. Lets see Proposal vs. proposal and then we'll talk about "Chilly response" or BS ala-snowbank!
I would tend to agree with the others. I thought the presentation was fairly well done and well receivd except for Megan and John. I got the impression they were against this from step one because of the earlier presentation to that other group.
ReplyDeleteActually, Megan was fairly restrained in any questions or criticisms. If anybody was actually there who is writing these comments, they would not fail to mention the tough questions from audience members.
ReplyDeleteBut since the anonymous people making comments are just PRETENDING to have been there, well, you get what you get when these anonymous folks make comments.
Maybe you should stop approving any anonymous comments on this blog if they merit no creditability.
ReplyDeleteThe policy of the blog is and continues to be that I approve substantive comments, though certain harassing troll comments get deleted.
ReplyDeleteSo why aren't you approving the Hawkman's comments? I'll bet they are mor substansive than the jokers who post here anonymously.
ReplyDeleteYou are confused and/or attempting to confuse others, and it's sad. Nice to see suspected trolls making up creative names instead of trying to be the same name over and over.
ReplyDeleteJNS, you've mentioned 'audience members', can you clarify that those 'audience members' your choosing to keep rather anonymous as well happen to be Pohlad staff and contracted members who are the ones who put together the competing Treads proposal that didn't pass the RFP review?
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the other tough questions your referring to came from the competition? Is that right?
In response to your anonymous comment: yes, some tough questions came from individuals in the audience who were Pohlad staff but those folks were seated behind me and I had my back turned to them. I'm not sure who, precisely, asked which questions.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't think it's accurate to say the TREADS proposal didn't pass RFP review. I think it might be accurate to say the TREADS proposal was withdrawn when it became suspected that the committee picking their preferred proposal to pass up to the Public Health Safety Committee was not using objective financial criteria but some kind of political criteria.
Others have more details than I do and we can have that discussion right here.
On another note, please learn and apply the correct form of "your" versus "you're."
I received the following communication by email. Apparently an attempt was made to post it as a comment but for some reason the comment function did not work. It is my understanding this missive went out as an email to a number of people, too.
ReplyDelete---------
This is Marina Lyon, director of the Pohlad Foundation.
Yes, we were in the audience at JACC’s Housing Committee meeting as we have been from time to time since we started working in North Minneapolis three years ago.
Yes, we asked questions and yes, we put together a proposal on behalf ten nonprofits, eight that are located and operate in North Minneapolis. In our opinion that proposal, TREADS, was very strong and included financial planning that allowed the center to operate long after federal grant funds would be spent. It also included nonprofit organizations that, on their own, are financially and programmatically strong. The bike shop would have been owned and operated by a north Minneapolis resident, who happens to owns one of the best bike shops in the Twin Cities. (In fact, Anthony Taylor asked this bike shop owner, to be a part of their proposal – slightly more than a week before proposals were due.)
TREADS was a true collaboration, in how it was put together and how the agencies would have worked together. On their behalf, we shared a summary of the TREADS proposal with virtually every NOMI neighborhood organization and received the support of seven. (An eighth offered its support, but, given other much more important issues in that neighborhood, we asked their volunteer leader to stay focused on issues most important to their neighborhood.)
We did withdraw the TREADS proposal, in order to save the intellectual property we created. City health department officials asked us, and every organization in our proposal, if we would be supportive of another proposal if the TREADS proposal was not chosen. We answered honestly, but only from our viewpoint. The answer was no. And it was no because if another proposal was stronger, it wouldn’t need our support.
All the Pohlad Foundation gained from almost one year’s worth of work, including the hiring of one of the best nonprofit consultants in the Twin Cities (see Neil St. Anthony’s column in the Dec. 19 Star Tribune) was a reminder that there are some in North Minneapolis that don’t believe, as we do, that North Minneapolis need only look to many of its own people and institutions to find its best future. Not everything works there, but a lot does, especially when you consider the difficult circumstances under which most people, especially children, live.
I wish we could feel as strongly as City Health Department staff about the recommended proposal. But, in our opinion, it falls far short of what we believe North Minneapolis residents deserve.
Others have tried, and failed, to run us out of the North Minneapolis before. We will continue to work — in the full light of day and with credible individuals and institutions — to improve the lives of families and children who live in North Minneapolis.”
Marina Muñoz Lyon
Here is some commentary
ReplyDeletefrom Roberta Englund on behalf of the Webber Camden Neighborhood Org. I agree with Roberta, the TREADS proposal was one of the strongest business proposals for our area in a long time.
I'd like to see the two proposals side by side and compare and contrast in order to be able to see how/why the city staff feels the Major Motion proposal is stronger. Frankly, with the poor financial track record of many of the Major Motion partner organizations, including the main partner, Cultural Wellness Center, I do not have much confidence in the ability of Major Motion to survive past the federal subsidy.
This is why I was asking some serious questions at the JACC meeting, I wasn't chilly, I was serious and concerned.
I have added the Weber Camden blog to my blog roll. I am very glad to see Roberta England weigh in upon this issue in a public way.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a stunning level of conjecture and ongoing misinformation here, JNS.
ReplyDeleteOne question remains: if the Pohlad proposal was so strong, why did they not submit their proposal - as was required to be considered. One can hardly believe that the City reviewers would not have chosen their proposal if the foundation was committing to the long term sustainability.
The fact is that they pulled their application and it was therefore not considered. One has to ask: did they expect the process to just stop? Can you say sour grapes? What a bunch of sore losers! Note: the City's Health Department, has a 15-month timeframe to spend these federal stimulus dollars and was thus obligated to select an applicant who met the required RFP standards. Since the Major Motion proposal met that standard, they were chosen.
What is amazing is that one of the state's largest foundations would show up to a public neighborhood association meeting in North Minneapolis and would attempt to impugn the credibility of good organizations. Despite this unethical, petty conduct, the truth is:
-Cultural Wellness Center has a nearly 20 year history of highly respected work in Minneapolis. Is it fair to sling mud at them because they had a bad financial year in 2009?(the example you cite, JNS). Major Motion is a recent examples of their productive efforts.
-Emerge is a very strong (financially and otherwise)organization in North Minneapolis with a great track record of connecting youth and adult residents to jobs;
-Neighborhood Development Center, which mentors and supports NEON (a fairly fledgling organization based in North Minneapolis), is a very strong organization, and is the Twin Cities leader in community-based small business development.
Hard to believe professional people would stoop so low.
First, I think Cultural Wellness Center has had more "tough years" than just 2009. This is a non-profit entity which survives on subsidies. They don't seem to, you know, make money.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to financial soundness, there is no contest between the Pohlad Foundation and Cultural Wellness Center. The Pohlads have--my word--just slightly less money than GOD. In any fair comparison between Pohlad Group and Cultural Wellness Center, the Pohlads would win. However, don't confuse things by saying it was ONLY the Pohlad Group behind the TREADS proposal. That was a true coalition and it was backed by SEVEN NEIGHBORHOODS.
Funny you should mention NEON. I heard something very interesting about NEON recently, that NEON had been, quote, "defunded."
On another note...
ReplyDeleteI'm always glad to sponsor a substantive though anonymous discussion. However, I'm going to point out that Marina Lyon is speaking in her own name, in the light of day. So it's odd that somebody who clearly has inside info about the other proposal should choose to speak anonymously on this thread, partly in response to Marina Lyon.
However, I'm really glad to see correct use of the word "impugn." So often anonymous comments are just ignorant of grammar and vocabulary. Clearly, the comment was written by somebody professional.
But, as the anonymous commenter himself/herself put it: hard to believe professional people would stoop so low.
Go ahead, though. Comment anonymously and specifically about how superior the Cultural Wellness Center Proposal was. If it was such a good proposal, how did it get kicked back so hard by that council committee? Oh, sure, it was all very polite...but how often does that HAPPEN and on the heels of such tough and pointed questions?
Oh, I also need to mention...as promised in another blog post...
ReplyDeleteEvery day until March 15 is Friedman's Butt Glass O Rama here on Johnny Northside.
WHY DON'T THEY FIX THE DISCOLORED GLASS?!! SHEEESH!!!
Now back to our regular programming.
To the Anonymous commenter at 1:06am, thanks for engaging in the discussion, we will all be more informed if we have a substantive discussion. You seem rather, well actually very knowledgeable about the whole subject. Can you please identify yourself so we are all clear. Marina Lyons identified herself when she stepped into the discussion.
ReplyDeleteI did not know Cultural Wellness Center has been in existence that long. I did see some financial balance sheets for the past 4 years which indicate they have had 3 bad years out of the last 4.
Can we get a 10 or 15 year history on their financial operations? That would help a lot. Like I openly said to Anthony Taylor at the JACC H&D committee meeting, the northside has seen an incredible amount of nonprofit money move through here and not produce an ounce of good, so I tend to be leery of organizations that haven't proven themselves.
It is unlikely that the community will ever have the opportunity to review the two proposals written in response to the Bike Walk Center RFP side by side. The process of submission to municipal authorities does not permit that kind of disclosure until there has been an action to approve a submission that will be funded by public dollars at which point it becomes a public document.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the issue of concern related to this particular project is vested in the process of selection that resulted in the Health Department identifying the Cultural Wellness/Major Taylor proposal to receive the award.
There are questions that should be answered:
Who specifically reviewed the proposals, what is their expertise for participating in the process, and do any of them have a conflict of interest?
Why is the Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) so insistent on a Lowry location instead of 26th and Penn for reasons that were strongly supported in the proposal and by the neighborhoods that endorsed it?
What was the real intent of the rapid timeline from response to the RFP to submission to a Council Committee for approval given the conditions of the grant?
I suggest that this is a question of ethical practices for the City of Minneapolis’s Department of Health and that a review of what constitutes due process may be in order for any City department action.
If north Minneapolis residents really want the best for themselves and these neighborhoods they need to be informed and actively engaged. I commend the Public Safety and Health Committee for postponing a decision on this project until January 5, 2011. However, if this project falls off the radar, if residents and organizations who care don’t pay attention – any discussion about which proposal was better, which one delivered a collation of partners that could sustain the project beyond the grant period and which one really met the intent of the RFP to encourage healthy neighborhoods will be irrelevant .
Thank you, Roberta England, for weighing in on this. As you will note, I have added your blog to my blog roll.
ReplyDeleteThe question you are asking is the great unanswered issue, here. WHO WAS ON THAT COMMITTEE?
The Bike Walk proposal is not a matter of national intelligence. We should not have a secret committee. It's not that I've been denied the info it's just that...well, nobody seems to be able to provide the answer about who was on the committee.
Why is that info so hard to come by?
This blog post was originally published on December 16, but a request was made by a certain North Minneapolis mover and shaker to move the post up, chronologically, so it would stay near the top and more discussion might be encouraged.
ReplyDeletemister proper grammar guy is so full of shit that i am going to make you my spring project.Have a nice winter, asshole, your spring of 11 will be unsettling.fuck you and talk more shit now.Make it Worse for YOU'RE self!!!
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to pick apart ideas based on ideological values. But look at the facts provided on the 2008 tax return.
ReplyDelete$373,433 of salaries and personal compensation for the staff and $307,541 of professional fees to independent contractors from $635,266 of total revenue (the vast amount coming from public/private grants) makes this organization look like another "sudo-nonprofit" more interested in feathering their own nest and furthering independent ideals with public funds without the benefit of any solid accomplishments.
$101,113 is a HUGE footprint for 1 years occupancy,rent, and maintenance. What gives here?
So, as many NoMi residents face rising taxes, foreclosure and unemployment do we really want to publicly fund a group that just "lost" $-252,588 last year so we can have a Bike/Walk coffeeshop?
I"m sure you mean "pseudo" non-profit but I have to ask what is "pseudo" about it? They clearly aren't making any profit.
ReplyDeleteAs for the guy who criticized my criticism related to the bad grammar I often see in anonymous comments:
More shit. More shit. More shit.
Oh, also, I should mention it's a brand new day and so I'd like to add:
Friedman's Butt Glass. Why don't they fix their ugly, discolored glass? Sheeeesh!
Who was the "mover and shaker"? I think if we are demanding to know who was on that committee we should also know who is pulling the strings of this media outlet?
ReplyDeleteWell, I think I should "demand to know" who exactly is the anonymous commenter who is demanding to know?
ReplyDeleteI moved up the blog article in question because there was an active discussion going there, and I didn't want that blog post to get buried beneath (good heavens) a very large heap of posts featuring Level Three Sex Offenders in North Minneapolis. (Collect and trade them all! Do you know any of their addresses or have links to court records? Feel free to contribute to the discussion)
I noted, openly, that I was actually asked to move the article up to encourage the active discussion but, really, it was a good idea and I'd been considering doing that after I busted loose on half a dozen sex offenders and put up all those posts, each one dedicated to a different Level Three Sex Offender. Good work I figured needed to be done, but it kind of buried the post about the Bike Walk Center meeting at JACC, you know?
So when I was asked to bump that post to the top I thought, well, that's a good idea. I was thinking of doing that ANYWAY.
I did make a public note about it because it would change the date of the article as it appears on blogspot and I want to be open about the fact the article was moved, and to note for the record the original publication date by writing something in the comments.
But as for your remark that somebody is "pulling my strings," the following...
(Singing and waving arms)
I GOT NO STRINGS ON ME!!!!
FRIEDMAN'S BUTT GLASS!!!
ReplyDeleteGgggaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!
*pulling hair out of head*
When will Friedman's Shoe Store's cruel siege of discolored butt glass come to an end?!!!
ReplyDeleteWHERE IS THERE A HERO TO SAVE US, CLICK ON THIS LINK FOR A MUSICAL TRIBUTE!!!!
I've Got No Strings On ME!
ReplyDeleteThe very high salary for Jerry Moore is actually one of the reasons there is new leadership in JACC today. On the current board, I believe there isn't a single person who supported Jerry Moore's high salary.
ReplyDeleteSo are you saying CWC needs the kind of shake up they had at JACC?
By the way, who exactly IS getting that $78k salary over at CWC?
johnny,
ReplyDeleteyou might want to contact marina and ask them when exactly they pulled their proposal. They did submit their proposal. It did go through review with the review panel. And in that process, the CWC was the winner. Then, it was at that point they withdrew their proposal because they didn't want their proposal info to be public, which the city was proposing. I think that is a fair move by them. BUT, the reality is that they did enter into the process just like the CWC proposal and they lost. Marina is a competitive soul who cares about north minneapolis, but the reality is that the pohlad proposal lost and maybe that's hard to swallow.
From the CWC perspective, they engaged in a legitimate process and they won. They met the guidelines of the RFP and now they are being criticized.
Also, as a note, the Pohlad foundation proposal also includes a "coffee/juice/smoothie" bar. Not taht different than the coffee shop model CWC is proposing. I wonder if they would have gotten the same critique from the council?
What i actually wonder is if the pohlad foundation has political power with the city council and so everyone is mad that they didn't get selected. but maybe the city council members should take up the argument, like roberta mentioned, with the dept. of health. they set up a process, it was undertaken, and pohlad lost. what's so hard about that?
anon 3:22pm
ReplyDeletebut WHY was the cwc proposal the top choice? what made the city department lean that way rather than the treads proposal? if they would be transparent with their reasonings i think it would clear up a whole bunch.
Why was cwc proposal the top choice? anybody?
anon 6:04
ReplyDeleteThat, to me, is the right question. Can somebody get an answer for that? Maybe somebody should contact the health department and tell us the criteria for selection?
Kristen Klingler is the main contact her number is 612-673-2910.
To Anon @ 12/21/10 1:06 AM
ReplyDeleteDid you not read the Treads signed response? Your answer is clear
"We did withdraw the TREADS proposal, in order to save the intellectual property we created."
From some vantage points this can be interpreted as a very polite and professional way of saying there is a very real and severe problem here!
pond dragon,
ReplyDeletePohlad pulled their proposal after they got news they weren't selected. They pulled their proposal to protect their intellectual property, that's okay. But it's not like they pulled their proposal before the selection process was complete. They cried foul after they lost, not before.
but why did they 'lose' as you put it? what made the major motion CWC proposal a better one? what made TREADS a weaker one? how was the decision made?
ReplyDeleteI have an idea: How about somebody with some commercial property just, you know, RENT TO A BIKE SHOP. I hear there's an established one with an owner who's interested in expanding to our area.
ReplyDeleteOh but wait - a whole bunch of extra people wouldn't get a whole bunch of extra money for a whole bunch of EXTRA shiny titles and fancy baubles then. Oh. Right. (That's what's important here on the Northside, you know.)
To Anon 12/23/10 9:55 AM
ReplyDeleteYour Point well taken:
Counter point: To what folks like us find a miss.
Treads are very, very, streetwise, experienced and effective folks, they know how to design administer and implement plans worth $M's with minimal administrative drain.
(The tax records of the so called Bike Walk speak otherwise, 100% administrative). We have seen the Treads people performance multiple years in a row. What caused them to feel threatened over their IP? These are not babes in the wood!
Was/is there (Corruption) in the process? Where are the facts?
It is very difficult to phantom this so called decision, when the neighborhoods are consulted by NRP etc. before a house is purchased by the city, but now a group with 7 Neighborhood recommendations and years of a solid in neighborhood performance track record gets blown out by a more or less totally unknown with "ZERO" local credentials and experience? W/O so much as a post card? The President of the City Council wasn't impressed and its going in her back yard.
I don't know the Pohlad group at all but find it strange that they want public money but are unwilling to make their proposal public. I know Tracey F who would run the the Ctr and one board members of CWC and I know they are good people.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to know the criteria for judging the applications I am sure that they are public documents that the Dept of Health will give out on request. I hear that the $ from MDH and Feds will disappear if this is not resolved soon.
I worry that some of the problem could be that some people think it is wrong for the city to spend money on amenities for African American residents of N Mpls. No Nice Bike sites in N Mpls. til the imbalance was pointed out....
Unfortunately the commercial circumstances in N Mpls are such that there will not be amenities like cycle/walk shop, coffee (or smoothie) shop unless there is some subsidy. The hope is that adding amenities will add viability to the community and prevent a few heart attacks and cases of diabetes as well. Don't let the chance drip away....
Did you seriously just assert that North Minneapolis can't get a coffee shop or a smoothie shop without some kind of subsidy?
ReplyDeleteThat's just wrong.
If I was African American i'd take offense to the suggestion that unless the government puts healthy choices in our face or forces us by law to be healthy we're incapable of doing so. I think that anyone who is African American in NOMI can make up their own mind to do healthy or unhealthy things. I don't see them as the victims that you do I guess.
ReplyDeleteHot cheetos,mountain dew,10 freeze pops,two honeybuns,a pack of sunflower seeds,and two boxes of crackers with one cheese whiz.Put that on my E.B.T.please,oh,and a pack of kools. This scene, recently seen at pennwood market
ReplyDeleteis brought to you by moneysota.Again, how do i qualify for this? Cigarettes as food?
To anon 12/30/10 6:54
ReplyDeleteThe grading documents were requested and are not available.
In reference to the Pohlad group, its called leveraging resources.
The answer to the pulled plan is simple if you understand the term IP.
The subsidies: Could the same be said for a Viking Stadium, or a bridge, or perhaps a Freeway? Or perhaps a home interest write off, what it the difference between a Tax Break a tax incentive and a subsidy? Again if you understand what is happening with the $ then you might understand why the term is not what it appears to be.
Fortunately for the TREADS group, Pohlad has billions of dollars that they can throw at what must be an amazing project. Oh wait...I forgot... the Pohlads insist on using public money to fund their private interests. Silly me.
ReplyDeleteI bet the TREADS proposal included a direct NOMI to Target Field greenway so all of the minimum wage workers could make it to their hot dog turning jobs in a timely and sustainable manner. Thanks Pohlads! :)
ReplyDeleteWait, are you trying to say we DO NOT want the well-heeled Pohlad group trying to do things in the neighborhood and helping a group like TREADS?
ReplyDeleteInstead we should prefer federal subsidies given to a group from South Minneapolis which will use those subsidies mostly to pay a lot of administrative overhead and then in a few years the project will either fold or need more subsidies?
Using private money to leverage some available public money was clearly the smartest plan, versus the Anthony's Mom Gets Anthony A Job With Public Subsidies Plan.
Oops. Did I just pop off? Yes, I think I did. I was holding back, but today is the day it gets decided, probably, and so I popped off.
The Pohlads can heel away in NOMI (in fact, I believe they have a lot of heeling to do). If their project is as great as they believe it is and they care as much about North as they claim they do, they can see the project through without my money. Shame on Marina Lyon for starting a pissing match because she wasn't picked as the 'winner.' What can be said for CWC is that they clearly understand the importance of collaboration and conducting one's self in a professional manner.
ReplyDeleteQuite a lively discussion we have going here.
ReplyDeleteI've interacted with both "sides"/proposers in this now ridiculous debacle through (marginal) involvement in both work/volunteer roles. It has become abundantly clear to many involved that the TREADS/Pohlad "faction" have been hellbent on spreading woefully inaccurate misrepresentations of a number of individuals and organizations for reasons unknown/unclear. They have similarly greatly misrepresented the level of support they have received from neighborhood organizations and partners in general. My (fairly informed) understanding is that many of the neighborhood organizations were contacted in the final hour of the grant proposal deadline and asked to provide a letter of support stating that they would support the idea of the project- sure, why not? -commonplace practice in the nonprofit sector. It sounds like some additional communications happened where Pohlad alluded to potential future discussions as to how they might further support N.O.'s down the road (*wink/nod*- although great if that does happen considering recent NRP decisions, which is where northsiders should really be devoting their outcries right now). Yet the Pohlad "letter" that has now gone around to everyone and their mom in the city seems to imply that there was a years' long process to plan and develop true collaborations around a shared vision with all involved partners.
My understanding is similarly that many of these "strong" partners have been dropping left and right from backing the TREADS proposal as a direct result of the highly divisive, inflammatory, and arguably unethical communications and decisions being perpetrated from both the TREADS folks and City Council members, which shouldn't really be a shocker to anyone at this point.
I'm sick of my elected representatives and persons in positions of great influence in the grantmaking sector not only not having a pulse for what's actually going on in their communities (esp. with low-income underrepresented groups), but feeling it's their position to tirelessly work on concentrating their own power so heavily to be able to do things like literally reverse a public RFP process conducted with due diligence (as a for instance). Pohlad's over-the-top portrayal of themselves as some sort of oppressed minority group on the Northside illustrates just how far removed they are from reality.
And some of this mudslinging tossed at CWC, Atum, and many others, most of whom I personally have a lot of respect for, is really just inappropriate, uninformed, and uncalled for- it's as if everyone on here is taking a page right out of the Donnie Allen playbook.
Quite a lively discussion we have going here.
ReplyDeleteI've interacted with both "sides"/proposers in this now ridiculous debacle through (marginal) involvement in both work/volunteer roles. It has become abundantly clear to many involved that the TREADS/Pohlad "faction" have been hellbent on spreading woefully inaccurate misrepresentations of a number of individuals and organizations for reasons unknown/unclear. They have similarly greatly misrepresented the level of support they have received from neighborhood organizations and partners in general. My (fairly informed) understanding is that many of the neighborhood organizations were contacted in the final hour of the grant proposal deadline and asked to provide a letter of support stating that they would support the idea of the project- sure, why not? -commonplace practice in the nonprofit sector. It sounds like some additional communications happened where Pohlad alluded to potential future discussions as to how they might further support N.O.'s down the road (*wink/nod*- although great if that does happen considering recent NRP decisions, which is where northsiders should really be devoting their outcries right now). Yet the Pohlad "letter" that has now gone around to everyone and their mom in the city seems to imply that there was a years' long process to plan and develop true collaborations around a shared vision with all involved partners.
My understanding is similarly that many of TREADS' "strong" partners have been dropping left and right from backing their proposal as a direct result of the highly divisive, inflammatory, and arguably unethical communications and decisions being perpetrated from both the TREADS folks and City Council members, which shouldn't really be a shocker to anyone at this point.
ReplyDeleteI'm sick of my elected representatives and persons in positions of great influence in the grantmaking sector not only not having a pulse for what's actually going on in their communities (esp. with low-income underrepresented groups), but feeling it's their position to tirelessly work on concentrating their own power so heavily to be able to do things like literally reverse a public RFP process conducted with due diligence (as a for instance). Pohlad's over-the-top portrayal of themselves as some sort of oppressed minority group on the Northside shows just how far removed from reality they really are.
And some of this mudslinging being tossed at CWC, Atum, and others that I personally have a lot of respect for, is really inappropriate, uninformed, and uncalled for- it's as if everyone on here is taking a page right out of the Donnie Allen handbook.
Ok, first of all...
ReplyDeleteIt's a small universe of people who are intensely interested in this topic, and it's not THAT hard to figure out where comments like the ones above come from, comments which talk about "mudslinging" tossed at CWC (Cultural Wellness Center) and "Atum" (Anthony Taylor's mom who runs Cultural Wellness Center)
I mean, you come here anonymously and talk about mudslinging? But then you sling your own mud? Who on earth would be up at 1 in the morning mulling over this issue but the loser of this latest round? Somebody in the CWC corner of the ring, OBVIOUSLY.
And, oh, who would THAT be?
So let's talk about your "mud." You try to imply that seven neighborhoods who wrote letters didn't mean what they said?
Well, let's see, two of those neighborhoods--Hawthorne and Jordan--I'm pretty sure mean what they say, because I was watching it up close.
Three of those neighborhoods--Weber, Camden and Folwell--are run by Roberta England, and the blog England publishes has written things which make it pretty clear that, yeah, they mean what they say about supporting the other proposal put forward by TREADS.
So that's five neighborhoods right there. Are you saying there are two neighborhoods out there who don't mean what they say? It appears the side that can't get support here was CWC, based on what happened yesterday at the city committee hearing. Which, you know, you can watch on videotape. I just posted it.
So you get on this blog at 12:57 a.m. on the day AFTER the committee meeting and you try to say...
What?
That the superior proposal comes from the non profit from OUTSIDE North Minneapolis which was going to hire a manager from OUTSIDE North Minneapolis and (if the history of CWC in their tax returns is any indication) spend lots of money on administrative salaries...
And Anthony Taylor--whose MOTHER runs Cultural Wellness Center--he was going to work for this Bike Walk Center project?
How is that NOT a conflict of interest?
As for the Don Allen playbook...
It probably doesn't come from the Don Allen playbook if it produces a winning result.
OOOOH! SNAP!
ReplyDelete