Rework the Minneapolis 2040 Plan

No to 2040

Bad plan, no on-site parking and it will create neighborhood congestion. Also, NO guarantee of affordable rents. I'm sure a developer will charge market rate rents after investing all that money in these buildings. This is not a plan that will benefit neighborhoods. It will only line developers pockets. I know how this goes, the city forced my mother out of her house, the house my father built and we all grew up in. This was right around 2001. They tore down houses for the Humboldt Greenway Project on the North side of Mpls. The developer went bust and "our" lot on 50th and Emerson North, 55430 is still sitting vacant today in 2018. The city forced may seniors from their homes with eminent domain and gave them next to nothing for their properties. Another bad decision by city planners to "improve" the neighborhood!

We need a more measured plan that takes different neighborhood needs into consideration. One size does not fit all for a city this size and diverse.

As residents of the East Calhoun neighborhood for 63 years we are 100% against this plan and all that it stands for. Should it pass I can guarantee that anyone who supported it will never see another vote from anyone in our household.

I strongly support the reworking of this plan so that it takes all of the citizens into account.

I’ve seen no research, no data to shoe that the proposed changes will work. Where is the analysis and comparison to similar cities? Nothing in his plan provides incentives for affordable housing. What this will do is give developers even more opportunities to make money while demolishing more affordable housing. More housing does not equal more affordable housing. If you want to start somewhere, stop developers from buying up affordable homes in our neighborhood and building larger, more expensive homes; that’s what’s killing affordable housing in our neighborhoods.

Residents in Fulton neighborhood of Minneapolis

Our Lowry Hill neighborhood is working now. Do not change what isn't broken.

Agree with the petition!

I have been profoundly disappointed in the Minneapolis 2040 Plan for its policies and goals to make it easier for developers to destroy the urban neighborhoods that make Minneapolis unique. I am against the zoning changes that encourage density for density's sake without taking into consideration traffic congestion, parking congestion, and loss of quality of urban life that is unique to this city. We need to think about Minneapolis as Minneapolis, not as another Chicago or New York City, and god forbid that we turn into another Los Angeles. While I agree that thinking ahead is a good thing, I am against the Minneapolis 2040 plan as it stands. It needs work to address how to keep Minneapolis' unique urban qualities, to address (already) increasing traffic congestion, infrastructure improvements and a dedication to public transportation.

Do not perform such a horrible experiment on the entire city of Minneapolis, start on maximizing transit n commercial corridors, do not upzone entire city to allow 4 plexes anywhere.

I live in a neighborhood that I feel has a healthy mix of single family, duplexes, 4-plexes, townhouses and larger condo and apartment buildings. But I am concerned about the plan to allow 4-plexes to be built on city lots intended for single homes. The ones I have seen going up in the last few years have been very ugly, leave no green space on the lot, and tower unnaturally over neighboring properties, affecting them adversely in a multiple ways. For this and other reasons outlined in the petition, I strongly oppose the plan.

Neighborhood, Lowery Hill, is already crowded with not enough parking. There is high pedestrian traffic and drivers are not paying attention to stop signs or traffic signals nor do they give pedestrians the right of way and of course speeding. When I walk my dogs in the mornings and evenings during rush hour it is very dangerous. Come take a walk with me one day and see for yourself. Drivers are using our streets to access the freeway and are hurrying to and from work. Our neighborhood is historic, so you are encouraging the destruction of character. I see tour busses sometimes bring people to see what’s here. We have already had many historic houses torn down for multi-resident housing which is stressing the infrastructure. In one particular incident, a house on Mount Curve was torn down to be replaced by four or five town homes, on one lot! They have been unsold and vacant since! You realize that this greedy building boom will have a recession one day as happened in the above case. Are you prepared for vacant properties? I will add that these will not be housing for low income people so it is not alleviating housing for middle or low income. Recall the effects of 394 on Bryn Mawr?

I strongly object to adding multi-unit housing in the Lynnhurst neighborhood. I believe it will devalue my property and overall quality of life. Our neighborhood schools are already overcrowded, and traffic congestion is already at a hair-pulling situation on Lyndale Avenue.

I'm afraid this plan will devalue my property at critical time in my financial life. Please don't put senior citizen property owners at risk! Don't implement a plan that creates a new class of losers.

Stop the madness please

I’m all for affordable housing, however I don’t believe some of the zoning changes will accomplish that.

I understand the need for more house but PLEASE be reasonable. Ten story units will destroy the Bryn Mawr neighborhood. So will six stories in what we call downtown BrynMawr. PLEASE, PLEASE be reasonable.

Do not destroy the character of neighborhoods with older houses by promoting tear-downs for apartments. Parking is a nightmare already on some of these streets, and with no new parking being added, this will be a real problem. People are not going to stop driving cars just because you think they should.

The underlying assumptions on growth are faulty. City Council tried this once before and the population remains steady at barely 750,00 in both metropolitan areas combined.