Strib finds 2/3 of Residents Oppose - Continued Comp Plan Deceit

The Startribune completed its analysis of the online comments of the 2040
Plan and found that two-thirds of people were against the plan. Didn't
matter. Pretty much nothing changed from the first draft to the second. I
attached the text of the article for folks who do not have access.

Also, the Planning Commission is going to discuss the Comp Plan tomorrow.
Now apparently the Planning staff solicited the Planning Commission for the
amendments they intend to bring forward for change They found out that the
Planning Commission members intend to bring forward 200 proposals for
changing the Comp Plan.

Now you may have thought that if 200 changes to the Comp Plan were going to
be discussed that the public may want to know. But of course, as this has
all gone down, you would be wrong. This list of 200 changes are not on the
Planning Commission's website. It was not handed out to Council Members.
There was a copy at the Committee of the Whole but it was not made public
nor distributed. I have a copy and have attached them for your reading
enjoyment.

The Planning Staff has had them long enough to compile those ideas, and
then review and comment on them and determined what was actually an idea
and what was already covered or unnecessary. So this has been in the works
a long time.

Now if you have time to read this stuff and have concerns, the Planning
Commission is going to start discussing its changes at 3:00 tomorrow. They
are then going to have public comment at 4:30. Now if you had planned to
come at 4:30, you probably hadn't heard about how they moved the start time
to 3:00. But they did and that wasn't widely published either. So most
people wouldn't know to come early to hear about these 200 amendments.

The biggest proposed change? Changing the height restrictions for single
family up-zoned areas from two and a half stories to three. Something maybe
the public wanted to know about and weigh in on. But hey, that would
presume you even knew these things were being proposed.

Now I posted these two things together. That two-thirds of the people who
took time to write in opposed the plan, according to the Startribume.
According to our own analysis, there were a number of obvious bots which
put in the same (positive) comments over and over so the actual number is
higher. At the same time, 200 amendments are being brought forward by the
Planning Commission, 200 amendments that have barely seen the light of day.
200 amendments that the public has not and will not have the opportunity to
weigh in on.

Two-thirds of the people opposed. 200 amendments been hidden from the
public and now to be revealed in such a way to make it hard for the public
to even register an opinion. This all goes together. Slam through a hugely
unpopular plan by limiting public input where you can and just out and out
ignoring it where you can't. I have written before that the fix is in.
Developers win deregulation. And the people of Minneapolis lose.

Carol Becker
Longfellow

Rest of post

---------------

Opponents dominated the first round of public input on Minneapolis’
two-decade vision for its future development. Now city planning
commissioners will learn from a public hearing Monday if revisions to the
plan will earn more support for increasing housing density and quell the
fears of those worried about neighborhood destruction.

The Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan calls for denser development
citywide by allowing multiunit housing in neighborhoods now reserved for
single-family homes and more intense development along transit corridors.

In more than 2,100 public comments submitted online to the city this spring
and summer on housing-related aspects, critics outnumbered supporters
2-to-1, according to a Star Tribune analysis.

City planners released an updated version
<http://www.startribune.com/10-000-comments-later-revised-minneapolis-2040-plan-seeks-balance/494660441/>
of
the comprehensive plan last month. Major changes included allowing
three-unit properties in every neighborhood, instead of the original plan
for fourplexes, and scaling back a plan for up to six-story structures on
blocks near busy transit corridors.

Minneapolis real estate attorney Tim Keane, a vocal opponent of the
comprehensive plan, said he doubts that city planners weighed both sides of
the comment debate equally.

“In everything I have observed, the process has been structured to
reinforce the original premise,” Keane said.

By contrast, 2040 plan supporter Janne Flisrand, a representative of the
pro-density group Neighbors for More Neighbors, said she saw changes based
on specific requests during the public comment period, such as rezoning for
more density in south Minneapolis’ East Isles neighborhood.

“Speaking for myself, I see many of the things that I asked for in the plan
have shifted,” said Flisrand.

The city introduced the first draft of the comprehensive plan in March. The
proposal provides a road map for Minneapolis over the next 20 years on
interconnected goals that range from accommodating density to reducing
carbon emissions and making the city racially equitable.

From the start, the plan’s recommendations to loosen zoning codes —
particularly in residential areas — have generated the most controversy
<http://www.startribune.com/feeling-the-heat-minneapolis-council-members-say-2040-plan-must-change/488810061/>
setting off shouting matches at neighborhood forums and lawn-sign campaigns
on both sides.

On Monday, the city’s Planning Commission will hold its first public
hearing on the second version of the plan. The City Council will hold its
own public hearing next month.

In the first round of public input, the city received more than 18,000
comments <https://minneapolis2040.com/received-public-comments/> through
in-person public forums, online comments and more.

In an interview last month, Heather Worthington, the city’s long-range
planning director, said staff reviewed every one.

“I think we have done a very robust and very deep process of considering
the comments that we received,” she said.

The Star Tribune analyzed more than 2,100 public comments submitted online
to the city and posted on the 2040 plan’s website, focusing on areas
directly addressing housing and density. Of those, about 60 percent
expressed opposition, 26 percent supported the concepts and the rest were
inconclusive or unrelated.

Of the hundreds who supported the plan, many lauded its goals to make
Minneapolis neighborhoods more affordable and racially integrated.

“Love this!” wrote one. “These plans will allow our city to adapt and
thrive. I can’t wait to see what new housing options will be built in the
near future.”

Some supporters urged the city to loosen zoning restrictions further to
allow for more density, or even require it, in some areas.

“Density is good when done right and for the most part, this plan proposes
higher density in the appropriate places and along transit lines,” one
commenter wrote. “If anything, I would double down on the density
requirements of certain areas such as the downtown core and require a
minimum of 15 stories or more.”

Opponents worried that allowing more multiunit buildings would wreck the
character of their neighborhoods and give developers a free pass to buy up
and tear down single-family homes, many of them small enough that they’re
affordable.

“This plan could destroy the nature of my neighborhood and my reason for
living in the city,” wrote a south Minneapolis resident. “We moved here
because we like the idea of living in a neighborhood of well-maintained
older homes with sunny lots.”

“NO NO NO ... You are crazy!” wrote another. “I work outside [Minneapolis]
but live inside. We don’t need to develop all this land in one of the
biggest giveaways to developers.”

Some were skeptical that the proposals were enough to make Minneapolis more
affordable and ease segregation, and worried it may do the opposite.

“You say the plan is for racial equality but all you are doing is making
developers’ pockets bigger and creating 2-3-4 plexes that will be too
expensive for most people of color,” wrote one commenter.

The Planning Commission’s public hearing is scheduled for 4:30 p.m. Monday
in room 317 of City Hall. The City Council’s will take place Nov. 14 at
4:30 p.m. in the same location.

The City Council plans to vote on the final plan in December.

Staff writer Eric Roper contributed to this report.

CommissionerComments Final_Sorted By PolicyNum.pdf 298.72kb

The way this Comp 2040 Plan has played out I have one recommendation to the
younger set. Given that each must save for retirement and old age, there is one
certain tool for that = ownership of a home. During the mortgage years there is
the interest tax deduction. After those years your rent is just property taxes
(for our house prop tax is about $5,000 - cf that to rent a 3-bd house). As you
age your house increases in value approximately as inflation - so you do not
get drowned. The Comp Plan puts uncertainty into the mix. So my advice to the
younger set is to look to the suburbs for house ownership - it is called
practicable and non-uncertainty planning. Remember a life time of rent receipts
do not buy even moldy bread.

Sent from iPad
John Ferman
Minneapolis, MN

My doctor says I have a malformed public-duty gland and as a result have a
severe morale fibre deficiency, so I should not be expected to save the world."

Rest of post

I think I get Jack’s gist; however, this thing has not played out yet and that
will take years. I’m sick of these threads of Carol’s, though.

Far easier to analyze what folks send as official comments on the plan than to
find those who actually read it and found no reason to comment officially for
their takes. While not meaningless, the article is not all that useful.

I am not involved in any planning efforts much anymore, but years ago I did
keep close tabs on things near me including one local industrial area plan that
was referenced in a previous Comp. Plan (There is a broader more recent plan
referenced in the small area plan section of this 2040 plan, but who knows if
that one references the Bridal Veil Southeast Industrial Area ‘Master Plan’
[hate that term “master plan” as it sort of smacks of a master race]? I suspect
it probably doesn’t, but the info is there for when they do something stupid
and are sued.).

You know what? I don’t really care much about this, but it is an interesting
take on a city plan. I like that. I like the fact that it involve citizens as
much as any other effort since our long lost Neighborhood Revitalization
Program, never mind that they tended to be ‘handled’ once sucked in.

What really counts is how the Council codifies any part of it and how city
departments implement the policies listed.

Watch for the new zoning and other ordinances for most of Carol’s stated
concerns.

If you don’t like this plan, ‘throw the bums out’ in favor of those who will
run on a revised 2040 plan to supersede what gets sent to the State now.

One thing I know from all this: if anyone new runs for the Board of Estimate
and Taxation, I’ll probably vote for them over Carol.

Sent from my iPhone

Rest of post

Bill - I can’t tell you how tired I am of writing this stuff. But it just gets
stinkier and stinkier every day.

> On Oct 28, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Bill Kahn <<email obscured>>
wrote:
>
>
> I think I get Jack’s gist; however, this thing has not played out yet and
that will take years. I’m sick of these threads of Carol’s, though.
>
> Far easier to analyze what folks send as official comments on the plan than
to find those who actually read it and found no reason to comment officially
for their takes. While not meaningless, the article is not all that useful.
>
> I am not involved in any planning efforts much anymore, but years ago I did
keep close tabs on things near me including one local industrial area plan that
was referenced in a previous Comp. Plan (There is a broader more recent plan
referenced in the small area plan section of this 2040 plan, but who knows if
that one references the Bridal Veil Southeast Industrial Area ‘Master Plan’
[hate that term “master plan” as it sort of smacks of a master race]? I suspect
it probably doesn’t, but the info is there for when they do something stupid
and are sued.).
>
> You know what? I don’t really care much about this, but it is an interesting
take on a city plan. I like that. I like the fact that it involve citizens as
much as any other effort since our long lost Neighborhood Revitalization
Program, never mind that they tended to be ‘handled’ once sucked in.
>
> What really counts is how the Council codifies any part of it and how city
departments implement the policies listed.
>
> Watch for the new zoning and other ordinances for most of Carol’s stated
concerns.
>
> If you don’t like this plan, ‘throw the bums out’ in favor of those who will
run on a revised 2040 plan to supersede what gets sent to the State now.
>
> One thing I know from all this: if anyone new runs for the Board of Estimate
and Taxation, I’ll probably vote for them over Carol.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Oct 28, 2018, at 10:15 AM, Carol Becker <<email obscured>> wrote:
>>
>> The Startribune completed its analysis of the online comments of the 2040
>> Plan and found that two-thirds of people were against the plan
>
>
> Bill Kahn
> PPERR, Picayuniariana, The future state within the State of Minnesota
encompassed by the Minneapolis city limits (consider annexation if you are
tired of being manipulated)., http://www.lastminneapolismayor.org
> About/contact Bill Kahn: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/billkahn
>
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5TbTLIPrVpyfPbE6D0nbXz

Rest of post

For-profit developers are the ultimate culprits in this ever-continuing attempt
to mask the distortions that routinely come from the Minneapolis Planning
Department. The planners that this city pays handsomely have been working their
way around civic input since I was kneehigh to a grasshopper and took on the
those ne'er-do-wells who would have made mush of our downtown riverfront and
the historical origins of this city.

Tell me this is not so. I'll believe Carol who enjoys solid support from the
electorate before paying even minor attention to critics who just would rather
look the other way. Fifty years in this town come 2019 and I am no dunce.

Fred Markus
Phillips West

I’ve nothing but respect for planners. Twenty five years ago I graduated with a
Bachelors in a program that took many into the field and I think I have a
pretty good handle on it.

I don’t think many on this forum have the same insight that these people work a
job that most would prefer any circle of Hell than have. Planners exist between
a rock and a hard place every minute on the job, and I hope for and wish them
all a good home life because the work is thankless for the most part (thanks,
folks). They have many bosses and must work hard for them all; I think they do
a good job here overall.

I am certain that developers are watching this closely and like most businesses
look for all the opportunities they can find; it is what they do. Maybe
campaign contributions get them some recognition, but hopefully that’s it. I
really doubt they are or could drive most of this effort and think the plan
would look much different if they could.

This is being driven by the folks, sans Carol of course and perhaps others
unknown to me, who won elections, and I’d put Mayor Frey at the top of this
heap. If you don’t like it, figure out how to elect those who see things
differently than this crew.

Planning Commission, then Council, and perhaps we’ll try this thing out. Want
to stop it? Contact your CMs and the Mayor and do your best to convince them
this is a lousy idea; I am not sure, so I won’t.

Sent from my iPhone

Rest of post

Several years ago I too graduated with BS in the field of urban
planning.Perhaps we have insights ~ perhaps not.What we have here is a plan
completely constructed (behind the scenes) by an unelected body of young,
earnest, no doubt hardworking planners. Little to NO input from primary
stakeholders ~ until it had already been written.When "public engagement"
finally occurred ~ to review not participate ~ it was with carefully chosen
(vetted for ameniability?) stakeholders.Those most likely to agree with the
Comp Plan ideology. I've still yet to meet a single person who was "invited" to
whatever outreach ocurred in the mysterious 2015 - 2017 time period leading to
"post-it note" parties. Kudos, whoever you are!Were you sworn to secrecy?This
all began pre-Mayor Frey. Which is not to say that cm Frey (with close ties to
developers) or other re-elected cm..say maybe Kevin Reich( very cozy with the
development community) were not involved.But, it is very difficult to make a
dent when cm & council pres Lisa Bender is pushing for adoption. When newer cm
are ... hmm, perhaps "intimidated" by their more experienced co-workers into
just TRYING to keep up, know what's going on and not make too many waves.I'll
give them the benefit of the doubt on that (even as delicately phrased)We dont
have time to wait for the next election (tho, believe me~ comp will be
HUGE)because this is being rammed down our throats.. NOW!Don't think its being
rushed?Get this timing:On Monday at 3pm the Plan cComm will review 200
amendments ~ BEFORE 3 hours public testimony (how generous -2 minutes)And
then vote.No taking time to consider and discuss:the 200 Amendments!No taking
time to consider & discuss 3 hours of public testimony !Sounds very much like,
as I've sadly witnessed in those meetings before...Like decisions have already
been made.Top down, unelected, largest experiment in upzoning in the country,
absolutely NO environmental studies, horrible & faux attempts at stakeholder
involvement...If I were STILL in school... this project would be an EPIC
FAILImho, with my limited experience. But yes, planners are people too. With a
difficult job.And sometimes,, they just get it all wrong.Carin
PetersonSheridanSent via the Samsung Galaxy, powered by Cricket Wireless

Rest of post

-------- Original message --------From: Bill Kahn
<<email obscured>> Date: 10/28/18 8:02 PM (GMT-06:00) To:
mpls@forums.e-democracy.org Subject: Re: [Mpls] Strib finds 2/3 of Residents
Oppose - Continued Comp Plan Deceit I’ve nothing but respect for planners.
Twenty five years ago I graduated with a Bachelors in a program that took many
into the field and I think I have a pretty good handle on it. I don’t think
many on this forum have the same insight that these people work a job that most
would prefer any circle of Hell than have. Planners exist between a rock and a
hard place every minute on the job, and I hope for and wish them all a good
home life because the work is thankless for the most part (thanks, folks). They
have many bosses and must work hard for them all; I think they do a good job
here overall.I am certain that developers are watching this closely and like
most businesses look for all the opportunities they can find; it is what they
do. Maybe campaign contributions get them some recognition, but hopefully
that’s it. I really doubt they are or could drive most of this effort and think
the plan would look much different if they could.This is being driven by the
folks, sans Carol of course and perhaps others unknown to me, who won
elections, and I’d put Mayor Frey at the top of this heap. If you don’t like
it, figure out how to elect those who see things differently than this
crew.Planning Commission, then Council, and perhaps we’ll try this thing out.
Want to stop it? Contact your CMs and the Mayor and do your best to convince
them this is a lousy idea; I am not sure, so I won’t.Sent from my iPhoneBill
KahnPPERR, Picayuniariana, The future state within the State of Minnesota
encompassed by the Minneapolis city limits (consider annexation if you are
tired of being manipulated)., http://www.lastminneapolismayor.org About/contact
Bill Kahn: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/billkahn1. Be civil! Please read the
rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.   If you think a member is in violation,
contact the forum manager at   <email obscured> before continuing it on
the list.2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious
flame-bait.------------------------ Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2NfRdCLxPWFcYeFDTGhljJ New Topic:
mpls@forums.e-democracy.org     Digest: Subject: digest on     Leave: Subject:
unsubscribe Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mplsHelp?
http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net

Ahhhhhh! A fellow hater of the planning profession! How sweet. How common (like
Fred’s flowery attack).

Ms. Peterson, since you have some knowledge of planning, answer some questions:
What is different about the public participation process and participation for
this plan over plans over the last 50 years more or less? More or less
participation than most cities? (Without the NRP.). Aside from the conspiracy
theories put forth by all the major critics of the plan, what and how much do
you think is going to happen because of it, good or bad, should it be approved?

We’ve already addressed much about the first question—outside of the NRP, I’ve
never seen a public participation effort any more effective—and the last can
only be answered by implementing the plan, but you all keep up the opposition
and answer them both anyways as we’ve nothing better to do than read endless
rants about how bad it will be.

I think the main problem with planning today is the fact that it mostly works
with stuff that is already there and not well considered in the first place.
Natural and man made (and woman made) disasters that destroy all or part of the
built environment present opportunities to really do things differently, wrong
or right (very subjective).

Change is inevitable, wrong or right, and will happen whether we want it or
not. Now we’re considering a plan that will be accepted or rejected by our
elected representatives. We’ll either go with it or reject it for something
more or less effective at addressing what needs to happen for those living and
working in Minneapolis.

I’ll respect Carol Becker’s exposition on the numbers for this or that city
expenditure, but she is not, much like me or you or anyone else on this plan or
planning in general, going to give us all a reading from her crystal ball that
will either prevent disaster or stop something good for this city. Some of us
have degrees and experience in stuff, but we all have just one opinion with or
without consensus by others who think it is rubbish or magic.

Let the public process continue to the end, but there are a whole lot of forum
members who are skimming these threads at close to light speed. Learned
scholars or cryers of “Wolf” (What is so bad about wolves, anyways?), we have
not been here before. It is not “Déjà vu all over again.” The plan addresses
many old and new goals differently than plans before have or have not, so some
don’t like it. The Council will adopt it or they won’t.

I’ll keep watching, but I’m fine with whatever is decided by our elected
representatives. Whether it works out or not, they will own their decision on
it forever, feather in their cap or campaign club with which to beat them (same
for any politicos chiming in on one side or the other).

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 28, 2018, at 9:43 PM, carpete61 <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> What we have here is a plan completely constructed (behind the scenes) by an
unelected body of young, earnest, no doubt hardworking planners. Little to NO
input from primary stakeholders ~ until it had already been written.When
"public engagement" finally occurred ~ to review not participate ~ it was with
carefully chosen (vetted for ameniability?) stakeholders

I'm only getting BillKahn's dismissive posts in this thread. Don't know
whether to be glad or sad.

But I note that some of us simply find that broad, sweeping provisions that
are imposed suddenly and quickly, with twenty years of impact on
implementations from approval of specific zoning code changes to project
reviews for compliance with the 2040 Plan's outlines, are a lot to swallow
at one time. No glide into change, but massive implementation of changes
that many people have good reasons to object to.

How are we to digest the fact that our own Minneapolis will be a national
outlier in planning and implementing the changes envisioned here, in their
broad, sweeping nature? We will be the sole city to implement the Plan's
urban studies textbook theories. The planners are too rigid to consider
real changes to the changes they want to impose on Minneapolis (one tires
of seeing only residents of Minneapolis, not city staff, labelled as
resistant to change; the staff has their identity tied to the drafts they
are presenting to us, and that's a negative, a limit on their
effectiveness).

By the way, this Plan for 2040 (the next 21 years) is already being
implemented, bit by bit. Those of us who follow the Planning Comission's
agendas have seen the pre-approval creep--lots of late agenda items that
have to do with Zoning provisions that now exist and are being
systematically changed.

However, here's a sector of our planning stakeholder population that's
raising their voices and yet not becoming controversial: The developer
community [apparently allowed to be NIMBY ] is communicating clearly to the
City their opposition to any insistence that all projects be required to
include a percentage of "affordable" units.

In a Star Tribune article today we read all about how neither for-profit
nor non-profit housing developers can "make it" (profit from an almost
guaranteed double-digit return on equity for a project) if they have to
include the poor or less economically advantaged.

It's hard to perceive if the opposition is typical conservative
businesses' umbrage at being required to do anything by government
regulation, and how much is hard-nosed acceptance of the fact that the
wealthy simply do not like to live cheek by jowl with the indigent, in a
large apartment building or condo development. Or neighborhood, So some
theoretical proposal that insists that, say, 20% of a project must be
provided to people who earn less than a certain low income, comes crashing
down for developers who KNOW that the rich won't buy into a building that
has ultra-poor people living in it. Their conclusion? "We won't build here
under those rules." [This is a version of Play My Way, or I'll Take My Ball
and My Bat and Go Home.]

Does anyone know of a housing project in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or
nationally, that contains a successful, long-term mix of the economically
very well-off and the indigent or near-poor?

The only project I'm at all familiar with was the 1960s Cedar-Riverside
towers, which were intended for a mix of income levels. In that case, very
quickly the people with comfortable finances decided that they really
didn't want to have to put up with the many problems provided by the
economically-challenged folks with whom they shared the elevator and the
parking garage. The wealthy left and never came back. Those towers have now
a long reputation as a kind of entry point for those who don't have much,
before they're able to make it out to the suburbs.

I read some time ago about at least one recent project in New York City
where the poor had a separate entrance to the building that included vastly
different economic classes. The poorer folks were suing the developer or
the city, as I vaguely recall, for discrimination. In other words, it
wasn't working out well.

Connie Sullivan
Como, in southeast Minneapolis

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:37 PM Bill Kahn <<email obscured>>
wrote:

Rest of post

> Ahhhhhh! A fellow hater of the planning profession! How sweet. How common
> (like Fred’s flowery attack).
>
> Ms. Peterson, since you have some knowledge of planning, answer some
> questions: What is different about the public participation process and
> participation for this plan over plans over the last 50 years more or less?
> More or less participation than most cities? (Without the NRP.). Aside from
> the conspiracy theories put forth by all the major critics of the plan,
> what and how much do you think is going to happen because of it, good or
> bad, should it be approved?
>
> We’ve already addressed much about the first question—outside of the NRP,
> I’ve never seen a public participation effort any more effective—and the
> last can only be answered by implementing the plan, but you all keep up the
> opposition and answer them both anyways as we’ve nothing better to do than
> read endless rants about how bad it will be.
>
> I think the main problem with planning today is the fact that it mostly
> works with stuff that is already there and not well considered in the first
> place. Natural and man made (and woman made) disasters that destroy all or
> part of the built environment present opportunities to really do things
> differently, wrong or right (very subjective).
>
> Change is inevitable, wrong or right, and will happen whether we want it
> or not. Now we’re considering a plan that will be accepted or rejected by
> our elected representatives. We’ll either go with it or reject it for
> something more or less effective at addressing what needs to happen for
> those living and working in Minneapolis.
>
> I’ll respect Carol Becker’s exposition on the numbers for this or that
> city expenditure, but she is not, much like me or you or anyone else on
> this plan or planning in general, going to give us all a reading from her
> crystal ball that will either prevent disaster or stop something good for
> this city. Some of us have degrees and experience in stuff, but we all have
> just one opinion with or without consensus by others who think it is
> rubbish or magic.
>
> Let the public process continue to the end, but there are a whole lot of
> forum members who are skimming these threads at close to light speed.
> Learned scholars or cryers of “Wolf” (What is so bad about wolves,
> anyways?), we have not been here before. It is not “Déjà vu all over
> again.” The plan addresses many old and new goals differently than plans
> before have or have not, so some don’t like it. The Council will adopt it
> or they won’t.
>
> I’ll keep watching, but I’m fine with whatever is decided by our elected
> representatives. Whether it works out or not, they will own their decision
> on it forever, feather in their cap or campaign club with which to beat
> them (same for any politicos chiming in on one side or the other).
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Oct 28, 2018, at 9:43 PM, carpete61 <<email obscured>> wrote:
> >
> > What we have here is a plan completely constructed (behind the scenes)
> by an unelected body of young, earnest, no doubt hardworking planners.
> Little to NO input from primary stakeholders ~ until it had already been
> written.When "public engagement" finally occurred ~ to review not
> participate ~ it was with carefully chosen (vetted for ameniability?)
> stakeholders
>
>
>
> Bill Kahn
> PPERR, Picayuniariana, The future state within the State of Minnesota
> encompassed by the Minneapolis city limits (consider annexation if you are
> tired of being manipulated)., http://www.lastminneapolismayor.org
> About/contact Bill Kahn: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/billkahn
>
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4ivJeS9rVmyoOoTgb5CMA1
> New Topic: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>
>
>
>
> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
>

Well, Connie, I’d suggest you consult your CM’s latest newsletter and those of
other CMs and ignore all our blathering.

Sent from my iPhone

Rest of post

It will take a massive infusion of public money to move the deplorable sellers'
market that is shoehorning young tenants into leases that drain their resources
long-term. There is no credible way for many of these folks to get out from
under contracts that require literally thousands of dollars. First month, final
month, security deposit, utility costs, and squeaky clean backgrounds are now
standard. Add in long-term college debt and there is a partial list of
structural disadvantage to purposes like marriage, starting a family, lateral
and vertical job mobility and the very unlikely dream of home ownership.

Private capital will never embrace initiatives that draw down their profit
margins. There is simply no communitarian ethic involved beyond minimalist
face-saving gestures. Political gamesmanship is the only medium of exchange
locally and I truly doubt anyone will ever convince the Minnesota Legislature
to get real even about subsidized housing maintenance costs that get a pittance
($10M) when a considerable multiple of that figure is piling up (~$400M).

Attacking me as a messenger of critical concern is puerile. I too have a
substantial college degree that would easily qualify for an urban planning role
but I've been persona non grata in the halls of real power for a very long
time. I am nonetheless proud of my facility with writing craftmanship that has
served me well since the early 1960s.

Bottom line - the fix is in as usual.

Fred Markus
Phillips West

You cannot post because you are not logged in.

Strib finds 2/3 of Residents Oppose - Continued Comp Plan Deceit

Already a member?

Not a member?

E-Democracy is 100% Donation Supported Contribute Today!