“No doubt, there are trade-offs: someone who values action to fight climate
change will probably support energy efficiency standards and growth
boundaries--believing sustainability is worth the added housing cost.
Sometimes an action can tick off multiple priorities at once: easing
density restrictions and parking requirements will move us away from the
expensive, auto-oriented, exclusively single-family neighborhoods that
dominate most of the Twin Cities. It's not unheard of -- even for a person
with a garage -- to list abundant street parking as their number one value
(because we're having an honest conversation, please don't be ashamed to
say it out loud).”
I am proud to say street parking is important. Mobility is the life blood
of a city. I could not get to my job without my car. I could not take my
kid to school without my car. I could not take my child to soccer games or
her friend’s house or camp without my car. I could not see my friends or
take care of those who rely on me without my car. I could not do my
shopping. A car is the best leading indicator of an individual leaving
poverty. Limiting people only to where they can walk or bike or take
transit would radically reduce job opportunities, school choice, business
customers and the vitality of our city.
Mr. Edwards continues:
What are the values served by saying the most walkable and
transit-accessible areas in the state of Minnesota must be dominated by
low-density, auto-oriented uses? What are the values served by saying these
areas must always and forever be reserved for ever-larger single-family
homes?
That keeping housing costs low is important. That keeping housing for
families in our city is important. That a vibrant city comes from
diversity and that means the people who want a garden or a back yard for
their dog are just as important as those who want to live in a multi-family
unit. That we honor our history and where we came from. My home was built
as worker housing 100 years ago and I proudly maintain that heritage.
Mr. Edwards continues:
We’ve inherited a system, a legacy of redlining, that's left us with
increasingly exclusive neighborhoods. It's a system where not being able to
afford the neighborhood you want means you can't afford access to a good
public school; or to be near grocery stores and other amenities; or to keep
yourself and your family safe from dirty air, soil, and water. It'll take a
lot more to undo that legacy, but ending exclusionary zoning is a necessary
step.
One of the things that the YIMBY movement does very well is a bait and
switch. It tells you that if you just let developers built whatever they
want, whatever they want, that if we build more market rate housing,
somehow racism will be addressed. Somehow income inequality will be
addressed. Trick down racial and economic justice. But it is never clear
how building more market rate housing will do this. More market rate
housing does not create more affordable housing. It just creates more
market rate housing. And does nothing for historic racism.
I will also say that personally find it odious that the YIMBY movement uses
people of color to sell a pro-developer agenda, an agenda that will do
nothing except accelerate gentrification in our city.
Mr. Edwards continues:
I've previously written that the Minneapolis 2040 plan is bold. But it’s
only bold when judged against the low expectations set by generations of
misguided policies. We've been numbed into thinking what we've been doing
for decades is our only choice.
Allowing up to four families to live in a house the size of a large
single-family home isn’t bold. It’s not bold to legalize three-story
apartment buildings in neighborhoods adjacent to downtown. It’s not bold to
allow many more people to live along major transit corridors. These are all
modest changes, and the very least we should be doing to give ourselves a
fighting chance at a better future.
Instead of rejecting the idea of change and holding dearly to an
unsustainable status quo, I hope you'll seek out facts about the
Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Tell the city council what you value.
There is a better vision. And it is a vision that meets the values of Mr.
Edwards better than what Mr. Edwards argues for. Instead of scattering new
housing through dozens and dozens of miles, concentrate new housing in
existing walkable environments. Concentrate new housing at high frequency
transit nodes rather than expecting people to walk blocks and blocks in the
snow and rain and dark. Ensure new housing is built throughout the City,
not just Southwest, by using zoning to direct development where it makes
sense instead of whatever developers want. Preserve single family homes
because they are cheaper than new housing. Prioritize families with
children. Maintain mobility to maintain economic vitality.
As I said at the beginning, I believe we both love our city passionately. That
we both want the best for it. We just understand the world very differently.
I hope this helps bridge that gap.
Carol Becker
Longfellow
PS: As I don’t have Mr. Edward’s email, I would appreciate someone
forwarding this to him.