I’m going back to 1939 for this one:

Just an FYI for our local Not-for-Profits.  Congressman Tonko was involved with this legislation.  Press Release below:

National Service Agency Requests Applications for Social Innovation Fund Competition

The Agency Announces $50 Million Available for Organizations to Invest in Effective Nonprofits Working in Low-Income Communities

Washington, DC—The Corporation for National and Community Service today released a Notice of Federal Funds Availability (NOFA) for the newly-created Social Innovation Fund (SIF). Applications are due by April 8, 2010, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

“Too many social challenges have been allowed to fester when innovative approaches are already delivering results in communities throughout the U.S. – it doesn’t have to be this way,” said Stephen Goldsmith, the Chair of the Corporation’s Board of Directors. “The SIF will help ensure that high-impact nonprofits are able to attract the public and private resources they need to grow and improve the economic, education and health prospects of low-income communities.”

The SIF, authorized by the 2009 Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, is specifically designed to:

• Promote public and private investments in effective nonprofit community organizations to help them replicate and expand to serve more low-income communities;
• Create new knowledge about how to solve critical social challenges; and
• Develop the grantmaking infrastructure necessary to support the work of social innovation in communities across the country.

Instead of granting directly to nonprofit community organizations, like most Federal grant programs, the SIF channels funding through a network of “intermediary” organizations. These intermediary organizations – existing grantmaking institutions or partnerships – will host competitions within six months of the award to identify and fund nonprofit community organizations (subgrantees) with evidence of impact and effectiveness. Intermediaries will support this portfolio of subgrantees over time, and also assist with evaluation to help generate new knowledge about what works to address critical social challenges. Subgrants will be awarded to nonprofit community organizations working in the areas of economic opportunity, youth development and school support, and healthy futures.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, the Corporation will award up to $50 million in Federal funding to approximately seven to 10 intermediary organizations. Annual awards to intermediaries will be in the range of $1 million to $10 million. The SIF funding mechanism will leverage $3 in private funding for every $1 in Federal funding, generating a total public-private investment of $200 million in FY 2010.

The release of the final NOFA followed a one-month public comment period that generated over 200 public comments from a broad array of stakeholders, including potential intermediaries, nonprofit organizations and experts with deep experience in grantmaking, social change, evaluation, replication and expansion.

“The input of the nonprofit and philanthropic communities has greatly improved the final product that we’re publishing today,” said Goldsmith. “This is a key first step toward providing the financial capital and the ideas to focus public and private resources on what works, so our nation can make dramatic progress on key social challenges.”

The public comments were instrumental in generating policy changes that significantly broaden SIF eligibility. In particular, the comments led to:

• A lowering of the minimum grant award to $1 million from $5 million in the draft NOFA.

This change will enable a broader pool of intermediaries to apply, including grantmakers working in rural areas or states with less philanthropic resources.

• The elimination of an explicit preference for intermediaries that have already selected their subgrantees at the time of application.

This change will ensure that a broader pool of effective nonprofit community organizations have a chance to access SIF funding and work in partnership with SIF intermediaries. It will also increase the quality of the subgrantees selected, as intermediaries will not rush to complete their processes by the application deadline.

The final NOFA retains strict criteria for successful intermediaries. Successful intermediary applicants will have:

• A strong track record of using rigorous evidence to select, invest in, support, and monitor the replication and expansion of their subgrantees;
• The capacity to conduct a competitive process for selecting innovative nonprofit community organizations with effective and potentially transformative approaches;
• Expertise in one or more priority issue areas; and
• Deep and broad relationships with stakeholders in one or more priority issue areas and and/or specific geographic regions.

Potential intermediary applicants can access the full NOFA at: http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/serveamerica/innovation.asp

Applicants must apply using the Corporation’s eGrants system. The eGrants Web site is: https://egrants.cns.gov/espan/main/login.jsp

Click here to listen to the conference call held by the Corporation on February 16 on the SIF NOFA.

###

If you would like to be removed from this distribution list please send an email to newyorkersvolunteer@newyorkersvolunteer.ny.gov with a subject line of “Please Remove”. Thank you.
New Yorkers Volunteer
State Commission on National & Community Service
52 Washington Street
North Building – Suite 338
Rensselaer, NY 12144
Phone: 518-473-8882
Fax: 518-402-3817

I think the evolving commentary — around the grant writer, AIDA, URA, the Council — misses the key point. (Story here)

While the attention gets focused on the process and funding for grant writing, what about the overall objective of bringing growth to the community? Who owns that?

I might be wrong with this but my impression is that the ownership of economic growth is muddy at best.  Even worse we have no objective way to gauge whether we are succeeding or failing as we have no metrics for the process.  So this back-and-forth on the grant writer is a sideshow rather than a core issue of bringing growth to the community. Sure, grants are important but what is the overall economic strategy?

Now when you pose the question of strategy, you naturally get into the question of vision and here’s where it gets troubling for me. If you were to deduct a strategy from the names of the entities AIDA and URA, you would literally end up with “Industrial Development” and “Urban Renewal”, respectively, as the strategies or perhaps the missions of the organizations. Now let me create a bit of a strawman here and let’s admit the strawman would say something like “Come on Flippin, just because it’s part of the name it does not mean that is the strategy!”. I beg to differ.

You don’t have to look too far back in the public record to see the desire and aim to revisit widescale demolition as a strategy for driving development in the city, you know, urban renewal. Nor do you have to look too far back to find the champions of an industrial development strategy as a way to bring growth back to the city. And for those believing the path ahead lies in reviving urban renewal or industrial development, the agencies literally become vehicles for said strategies. This should not stand. It’s akin to embracing the view that the Earth is flat.

What should stand is a way to repurpose these entities for a viable strategy forward from 2010, not from 1910. That should be the focus of the conversations and efforts to drive economic growth, not the attendant sideshow of whether a 7 figure return justifies a 5 figure expense.

Let me be clear: I recognize that not all stakeholders in the agencies or even all members of the community share the above views so I’m not trying to paint with too broad a brush. At the same time, a sizable swath of the community and political leadership does indeed embrace urban renewal and industrial development as viable, perhaps even the only strategies in their eyes. The brush may not be broad, but it’s not that fine either.

Let me pile on a bit more: where is the local business community in the process? Do they not have a stake in whatever strategy evolves? Are they in the flat-Earth society too?

Developing strategy is tough work; building consensus amongst multiple stakeholders is even tougher work; holding on to anachronisms for our alphabet soup of economic development agencies, well, that requires no work at all.

In honor of the Soundgarden reunion and tour. Cheers

A slow day for local commentary so here is a list of Best Journalism of 2009.  The Matt Taibbi piece on Thomas Friedman is viciously funny (here)

Correction to Schoharie Crossing; it’s in Montgomery County

h/t Ann Peconie for Press Release so here are the closures locally and the attendant press release. I’m surprised to see Thatcher State Park closed too. Wow

Saratoga-Capital Region
Bennington Battlefield State Park    Rensselaer    Close Historic Site
Hudson River Islands State Park    Rensselaer    Close Park
John Boyd Thacher State Park Albany    Close Park
John Brown Farm Historic Site    Essex    Close Historic Site
Johnson Hall State Historic Site Fulton    Close Historic Site
Max V. Shaul State Park    Schoharie    Close Park
Schodack Island State Park    Rensselaer    Close Park
Schoharie Crossing Historic Site Schoharie Montgomery  Close Historic Site
Schuyler Mansion Historic Site    Albany    Close Historic Site

News from New York State Office of the Governor
For more information contact: Marissa Shorenstein, 212-681-4640/518-474-8418
Statements from Governor David A. Paterson and Commissioner Carol Ash

ALBANY, NY (02/19/2010)(readMedia)– The Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) today put forward a recommended list of closures and service reductions in order to achieve its 2010-11 agency savings target and help address the State’s historic fiscal difficulties.
Governor David A. Paterson issued the following statement:
“New York faces an historic fiscal crisis of unprecedented magnitude. It has demanded many difficult but necessary decisions to help ensure the fiscal integrity of our State. The unfortunate reality of closing an $8.2 billion deficit is that there is less money available for many worthy services and programs. In an environment when we have to cut funding to schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and social services, no area of State spending, including parks and historic sites, could be exempt from reductions. We cannot mortgage our State’s financial future through further gimmicks or avoidance behavior. Spending cuts, however difficult, are needed in order to put New York on the road to fiscal recovery. Going forward through the budget process, I look forward to a productive dialogue with the Legislature on parks and historic sites, as well as other issues.”
OPRHP Commissioner Carol Ash issued the following statement:
“The 2010-11 Executive Budget included reductions to every area of State spending. As such, the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation has today put forward proposed closures and service reductions to meet its agency savings target. These actions were not recommended lightly, but they are necessary to address our State’s extraordinary fiscal difficulties.”
###
A fact sheet on the proposed closures and service reductions is included below:
The Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) today put forward a list of closures and service reductions in order to achieve its proposed 2010-11 agency savings target and help address the State’s historic fiscal difficulties. As part of a comprehensive plan to close an $8.2 billion deficit, the 2010-11 Executive Budget included necessary cost reductions to each executive State agency, as well as cuts to education, health care, social services, and every other area of State spending.
OPRHP’s plan includes the closure of 41 parks and 14 historic sites, and service reductions at 23 parks and 1 historic site.
The plan also assumes $4 million in park and historic site fee increases that will be identified at a later date, and the use of $5 million in funds from the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) to finance OPRHP operations. These two actions were part of the 21-day amendments to the Executive Budget and are intended to reduce the number of parks and historic sites subject to closures and service reductions.
Specific recommended closures and service reductions are detailed below:

As the rules of logic and rational thinking no longer apply to development within the city of Amsterdam, I offer the following as evidence of what happens when you just move a few thousand feet beyond the city boundary (from the Leader Herald here):

A local developer is proposing to build an upscale apartment complex and a strip mall on Wallins Corners Road.
[snip]
Giardino said he wants to build a gated community with an apartment complex, a walking track and a clubhouse.

Imagine that: upscale apartments as a viable concept everywhere but within the city. Of course there is no way upscale lofts on with a river view could ever, ever compete with upscale apartments amongst a retailized and suburbanized cluster. That would be unthinkable.

Something must be in the water– it’s the only explanation.

The following commentary offered based upon a slew of conversations over the past week.

“Like a business” — I always find this phrase intriguing as it usually signals a certain trajectory to the ensuing conversation. Much like, when people say ‘to be honest’. Typically ‘like a business’ refers to a desire to see public agencies operated as private enterprises.  What’s odd is that typically the thing advocated to be run as a business typically does not lend itself to such and ironically, the things that could benefit from business thinking get passed quickly by. Usually ‘like a business’ is intertwined with thinking that public employees serve as ‘our employees’; ‘our’ referring to the taxpayer.

If you want to see ‘like a business’ thinking in progress, take a look at the debate of paying a grant writer. By any measure, paying someone on the order of $30K to bring in $2 million dollars in grant money seems like a pretty good return. If we are going to think in business terms, this would be the equivalent of laying off someone to save $30K in expenses yet sacrifice $2 million that they bring to the firm. I’m not sure most business people would consider this sound business thinking.

But in our fair city, it is always the expense side of the equation that gets the most focus. How often do strategies or policies derive from the revenue side of the equation? hardly ever.  I don’t have the time but if you were to look at how much energy goes into expense related issues versus revenue related issues, it would be several orders of magnitude in difference.  Look at how much effort goes into a 4 or 5 figure expense decision versus how much effort on a 4 or 5 figure revenue decision.

And public employees are not ‘our’ employees. It’s a ridiculous statement.

Moving on. I had a discussion this morning on retail space in the downtown district which made me soapbox a bit on the whole notion of ‘downtown’. Sure, we all view downtown as the historic downtown and even I will admit to yearning for its return to even a shadow of its former self. But I have to admit some skepticism that the current downtown can be revived; I’m starting to question whether we should not consider a ‘new downtown’ or a new center to the city located elsewhere that is more amenable to serving as the core of the city.

I think the problem with the current downtown is that it is really isolated from the rest of the city; it’s not suited as a gathering place; it’s suited as a transport space. From the highways surrounding it to the mass of cars parked in the median, it’s just not a great streetscape. And if by chance you were to attract residents and businesses, how do you sustain growth to the outside blocks? You cannot.

I think we should redefine the city center as existing elsewhere: maybe on the South Side, maybe along Division Street but somewhere where the following conditions hold:

1) Density and sustainability of residences; the denser the better

2) Pedestrian friendly

3) Extensibility — once the core forms, growth can occur organically to surrounding blocks

4) Mixed use — shops+residences+small businesses

I’ll admit the above is somewhat off-the-cuff but it seems that we may need to challenge some assumptions; maybe there is a faster, simpler, clearer way forward.

Cheers

Inspired by this.

Just to refresh you memories in case you’ve forgotten: for a seeming eternity, we’re reminded about how poor our infrastructure has become and how poor our neighborhoods look. We need new hydrants! We need new infrastructure! We need to demolish old buildings!

I’ve always marveled at the sheer hypocrisy of those who profess urgent, vital needs for public safety and public health but when it comes to funding, the protests over the attendant tax increase become just as urgent from the very same crowd.  I hate to say it but you need to choose a side: you either say we cannot afford to fund projects and accept the risks of not doing so or you need to advocate on why you want the public to shoulder the cost for the project. ( Yes, I know some people ‘get it’ that you can’t have it both ways; I’m talking about others who refuse to get it)

And for those who continue to believe in the free ride of demolition:

the council recently pared down the list of expenses, shaving $1 million for demolition to $500,000

Can’t we get some college kids to do this stuff?

The Recorder story (here) gets reactions from public officials on social media including blogs, Facebook, Twitter.

What I find most interesting and compelling in the piece is again how local officials rail against anonymity, negativity, personal attacks, et al in digital media yet remain absolutely mum on voicing the same criticisms of local radio. Think about it: week after week, the very same public officials and others, chat it up on the radio with varied hosts and their anonymous callers leveling negative, personal and vicious attacks. And of course said hosts certainly do not misinform or peddle in rumor or innuendo.

So ask yourself why are local radio programs, local hosts and their callers not subject to the same criticisms from public officials? Why do public officials revel in appearing on the radio and even run campaign ads on such media when it embodies many of the faults of digital media ?

I’m just asking. It’s an intriguing question.