ONWARD! - We have submitted our first copy of the petition to the city and we're setting our sights now on 3,000 signatures. We have no intention of ending signature collection on this petition even though official comment to 2040 plan has supposedly ended. We will continue to collect signatures and comments and submit updated copies of this petition to the city periodically until some version of the 2040 is actually voted upon by the city council. We have reminded the elected officials it is their civic duty to take into account all feedback they receive from residents before they vote on important matters. So keep on signing!!

It seems clear the residents of Minneapolis intend to just keep on offering their objections to the 2040 Plan. If you sign, we only ask that you please "pay it forward" and send this to others you think will be concerned about the City Council's 2040 Plan! Of course, you should send your comments directly to the city about the plan as well. Also, please consider ordering a yard sign from these guys. https://minneapolisforeveryone.org/request-a-minneapolis-for-everyone-lawn-sign/

To Mayor Frey and Members of the City Council:

We, the undersigned voters, come from all parts of Minneapolis. We are all ages, races, religions, creeds and sexual orientations. We come from a wide range of economic backgrounds. We are single or have partners or are married. Some of us have children or grandchildren; others of us don't. We are artists and teachers and firefighters and corporate business people and city workers and writers and restaurant workers and nurses and lawyers and small business owners. We are your community. Given all of these differences, it is unusual for us to unite behind a single cause. But you've managed to make it happen. Because when it comes to your 2040 Plan, we bring you one clear message:

ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL!!

That's right. We strongly oppose your plan. It must be reworked.

This isn't because you want a city that can better advance the interests of all citizens regardless of life-position and circumstance. It isn't because you want to foster economic growth. And it isn't because you recognize our city, like so many others, must provide housing for an increasing population across a wide range of economic circumstances. All of those are noble ideals that well-minded and caring citizens like us want to advance.

But in pursuing those aims you have badly missed the mark by pushing this plan that does not take into account the unique differences and circumstances associated with different neighborhoods and constituencies.

We know the Met Council requires a comprehensive plan every ten years. In the past the city asked each neighborhood to draft its own plan that was rolled into the whole. But this time a handful of you disregarded decades of community input and neighborhood planning to impose your vision on everyone.

The outcome is a one-sized-fits-all zoning policy that blankets the entire city. Unbelievably, your plan would allow almost any residential lot in the city to be bulldozed and turned into a fourplex apartment or condo building. And further, your plan permits almost any single-family home or duplex within two blocks of a bus line to be turned into a sixplex or larger complex. And you propose changes in transit corridors that will further erode existing housing stock. Rather than target density to avoid disruption to our neighborhoods your plan offers density anywhere and everywhere a developer manages to purchase properties.

This is a dream plan for speculators and developers. It is a free-for-all that leaves every resident who has invested in their neighborhood’s current character at threat of waking up to a vastly different reality in their small corner of the city. You've wrapped this vision up in admirable notions that citizens support: affordable housing, social justice, environmental protection, and others.

But we voters get it. We know that density itself does not equal affordability because developers are driven by maximizing profits and are adept at managing their investments to mitigate risk. We know among the areas of the city ripest for speculation and development will be those with more affordable lots. As lots are purchased and developed long-standing residents in those areas will face higher tax burdens and come under more pressure to sell and move. And as more lots are sold these vital properties for families will be removed from the housing stock forever. We know that density for the sake of density will not relieve social ills and likely will exacerbate many of them. We know that to pursue those aims you don't have to promote the wholesale threat of destruction to existing neighborhoods where residents have invested their lives and set down their roots and are raising their families. We know that targeted zones of density are available for development without upending existing neighborhoods. We know the metro area does not end at our borders and that other nearby communities are already working to help meet demand for housing through strategically-placed density.

There are many other problems with your plan. The city already faces many challenges that it struggles to address. Among others, these include: the state of our roads and other basic infrastructure, concerns over policing and public safety, overcrowding in our schools, concerns for environmental watersheds and green spaces, and the strains placed upon our parks. Yet all of these essential functions will see significant cost increases that your plan does not adequately address. Your plan also largely ignores increased congestion on our streets as well as expanded parking needs. These are enormous problems in cities that have invested tens of billions more in public transport systems than Minneapolis. Yet you expect we’ll somehow escape these problems and do not properly address them in your plan. Indeed, some of us live in wards where recent development has already made these problems a pressing reality for residents and local businesses.

We reject your plan because we value our city. We reject your plan because your one-size-fits-all approach for every part of our city is wrong and ignores what makes neighborhoods unique. We reject your plan because all of us are invested in a city that respects our rights as residents not to have the investments we have made in the neighborhoods where we live tossed into uncertainty. These are investments you, as our elected representatives, are supposed to respect.

The 2040 Plan is grounded in social goals that people support. But your policies will cause a host of bad consequences that we outright reject. This plan must be put aside and reworked. In its place a plan must be developed with strong, localized, community input that recognizes and respects the unique and multi-faceted nature of each neighborhood within our great city. Our neighborhoods should be cherished - not threatened with destruction.

This petition and all of its comments are therefore submitted as comments to your 2040 Plan.

Sincerely,

Your Constituents

NOTE - Petition launched afternoon of 7/10 with an original goal of 100 signatures. Goal updated to 200 morning of 7/11. Goal updated to 300 afternoon of 7/11. Goal updated to 400 late afternoon of 7/11. Goal updated to 500 early morning of 7/12. Goal updated to 750 early afternoon of 7/12. Goal updated to 1,000 morning of 7/13. Goal updated to 1,500 afternoon of 7/14. Goal updated to 2,000 evening of 7/17. Goal updated to 2,500 morning of 7/21.

ADDED NOTE - Please send a link to the petition to your friends and ask them if they will think about signing as well. And then tell them if they do decide to sign to "pay it forward" as well. Thank you.

ANOTHER ADDED NOTE - AT A TOWN HALL ABOUT THE 2040 PLAN HELD ON JULY 11TH THE CITY MADE THIS STATEMENT TO THOSE WHO OWN RESIDENCES - Heather Worthington, the City's Director of Long Term Planning, said owning your residence is "outdated and we need to find new ways to build wealth". An upset attendee then asked what alternative ways Ms. Worthington would suggest. Ms. Worthington answered only that she wasn't "an economist".

Mayor Jacob Frey and City Council President Lisa Bender were present at the town hall and said nothing about this exchange.

We are unsure whether Ms. Worthington owns her residence. We do not know what other alternatives she is using to save for her retirement.

YET ANOTHER ADDED NOTE - The folks over at MinneapolisForEveryone.org have now linked to this petition. We feel the more the merrier. They apparently are behind some of the lawn signs to oppose the 2040 Plan. You can order one using the link below - although we don't know how they keep inventory, how long it will take to get to you, etc. https://minneapolisforeveryone.org/request-a-minneapolis-for-everyone-lawn-sign/

AND ONE MORE NOTE - Here's another group with whom we've been in contact that also opposes the 2040. They are already fighting a battle over the future of public housing that homes and buildings the city wants to redevelop. If you are unaware of this ridiculous story, it is definitely worth your time to learn more. Here's a link to their story and a petition for your consideration: https://campaigns.organizefor.org/petitions/minnea... In addition to that battle, they also are very much opposed to the 2040 as they fear it will be used to drive out the existing inventory of public housing and displace thousands of residents from their current homes. To that end, they've agreed to promote this petition as well!