the City of Minneapolis. A plan for redevelopment to the benefit of North
Minneapolis, an area with high poverty, and the City is in process. A study
by the University of Minnesota, taking a “map’s eye view shows the area and
its potential. More importantly, the study points out that the process of
determining this opportunity was to include residents, the City, its
consultants, and others concerned about critical issues from the
bio/physical environment to achieving UHT’s economic potential.
The latter is of particular concern given the high rate of poverty and the
lack of any significant economic development. The UHT site with its long
front on the Mississippi and its current access to rail, river and general
transportation, along with the fact that it was historically an industrial
area points to the economic potential. Its location and its 48.8 acres of
land offers the opportunity to also meet the needs of the residents for
affordable housing and other amenities now lacking in North Minneapolis.
As noted, above, of the critical insights of the University of Minnesota
analysis is that the process include participation of the residents in
developing the plan to meet the broad needs of the community. That process
has taken a traditional path with the City’s planning team and its
consultants taking the lead in initial design and the residents’ and other
concerned citizens’ participation largely manifest through a series of
meetings where comments made were taken into consideration by the City
departments along with their chosen consulting team. In most instances, the
City’s response has been to further justify their decisions while
acknowledging resident concerns that could be included as seemed
appropriate by the planners.
There are a number of central concerns of the residents that have either
not given priority in the site development or have been placed in an
undefined queue for consideration. The first of these, which underpins the
development is the assurances that the land be retained intact and be
developed for the present and future benefit of the residents. It should
not be developed following the traditional path of ceding or transferring
the land to private developers.
The model is the creation of a land trust similar to the Dudley Street
Neighborhood Initiative, DSNI, where the City of Boston ceded land to the
community with Boston’s employee pension fund providing a loan for
development. In North Minneapolis the City of Lakes Community Land Trust
provides another example. While keeping the land in trust for the residents
it also lowers the development costs for affordable housing and also for
attracting commercial/industrial development on a portion of the site.
This step meets the two top priorities of the residents for the site. The
first of these is the development of the infrastructure to attract and
support industries and businesses that can employ local residents and
programs to upscale the capabilities of the residents for work at more than
un or semi skilled labor.
The trust removes the cost of the land to be financed that is attractive to
business. More importantly it lowers the development costs of housing,
significantly making ownership and/or rent more affordable for the
residents of North Minneapolis.
While housing and industrial/business development sits at the top of the
residents’ queue, at the bottom is the proposal by the City and its
consultants to develop an amphitheater. During all the “listening” meetings
for residents, the objections to this project and the lack of a clear
rationale for such an effort has never been clearly articulated as to why
this should be the first project or how it would provide significant
benefit over the top demands of the residents.
Neither the City’s staff, its consultants, and more importantly, the
council members have never addressed the resident concerns nor has the
council members’ presence or times of comments addressed the concerns
except through the City staff and consultants.
Juxtapose the UHT effort with the development of the Ford plant in Highland
Park. In the latter case, the residents strongly objected to the plans
presented by developers and the City of St. Paul. The residents organized,
including the traditional yard signs and other efforts that have caused
rethinking of how that property is to be developed.
The residents of North Minneapolis have yet to take such action. More
importantly, should such action be pursued in response to the City’s
adamantine commitment to its current path, it might subsequently motivate
the larger resident community to challenge the current paths of development
across the City.