” … but have real power to initiate, decide, and execute the affairs that concern the neighborhood: land use, housing, maintenance, streets, parks, police, schooling, welfare, and other services. ”

Does this mean the councils will replace the city departments now running all these things? Are the council persons proposed here to be paid or volunteers ? Will school principals be selected by the council ? Will the council replace police district supervisors ?

The best interpretation of this would be to reduce the city council and whatever type of entity controls each particular school to just passing a budget allocating funds to each council. I can’t even imagine what this means about federal welfare benefits.

While this direction could be interesting, one problem that arises is an inability to fund projects with a city wide importance but actual effects in only one area. Dressing up Canal Street sidewalks and French Quarter sidewalks was good for the former tourism industry here but would it be funded under this plan?

You’d also end up with people saying that money collected in their council district should be spent there. City revenues come from sales taxes and real estate taxes. In the olden days, sales tax meant hotels and tourism centers. As for real estate taxes, look to the CBD and Entergy for the real money, not the neighborhoods.

I think this plan bites off more than it can chew in a practical sense and in a political sense. I would focus on land use/zoning and require a big process to grant an exception from general rules that were approved by the council.

One problem with these articles is the differences in style that occur. Some are succinct and pointed and others are not. Who, what, where, when and why should all be answered.

Someone please put some carriage returns in the education section and in the health care sections !