Skip to main content

Rework the Minneapolis 2040 Plan

1,205 Comments

A
Anonymous
8 years ago

Destroying single family neighborhoods, to benefit developers, is an irreparable disaster. Once old homes are gone, they cannot be replaced. One of the comments I repeatedly hear from visitors is how amazing it is that Minneapolis has mostly beighborhoods of beautiful old homes, it hasn’t been destroyed by developers. This plan will ruin what makes Minneapolis so special. This does not mean that I am racist, or unsympathetic to people who are struggling to get by, the truth is opposite really. I just don’t believe this disastrous plan would do anything more than gentrify neighborhoods further, and make developers rich. I would welcome true low income housing on my block, I fear instead I could end up with the post fraternity, hideous, condos full of single, white, bros like Uptown is now full of. If this idea of density brings about lower rents, why is it still so expensive to live in Uptown? Why would some 20 something guy want to live in my quiet single family home neighborhood anyway? This plan needs to be scrapped and people from ALL NEIGHBORHOODS need to be consulted, not just a few that were polled.

G
Gail Anne Rains
8 years ago

This one size plan doesn't fit all. It will only fit the developers. This plan will change the very structures of areas that people have chosen to buy and live. 'with your plan you will force people to make the decision to leave their beloved neighborhoods. Will this plan cause a max exodus out of the city? It just might. You truly need to rethink this plan immediately.

A
Alex Grey
8 years ago

I object to the Cities 2040 plan. It is so dramatic a change to the City that it should have been on a referendum for citizens to vote on.

K
Kim Wilson
8 years ago

I look be in linden hills and I am 100% against the 2040 plan! Stop it now

E
EJ Hansen
8 years ago

The 2040 Plan was clearly not vetted out. There are many local seasoned architects and urban planners that could have provided more realistic zoning options than those currently presented. I will post more comments on the city web site for 2040

M
Michael Everett
8 years ago

1) no changes to zoning, the proposed changes are an insult to the homeowners of Minneapolis—especially those in Southwest. 2) people need to live within their means and have no right to live in the most expensive neighborhoods unless they can afford to. This is true in every city on earth and there is no reason Minneapolis should be different. 3) Heather Worthington should be fired for her disgraceful comments at a 2040 meeting where she told people the city doesn’t care about people’s home equity and they need to find an alternative. People have invested for decades in their homes and for many these homes are a significant part of people’s returenent savings. Radical and jealous YIMBYs have no right to upend a nation wide standard to fulfill their weird fantasies 4) as a young college student I always thought I would want to remain in Minneapolis, this despite the high taxes. Seeing how willing the government was to bow to a few radical activists and out if state developers was disturbing. The homeowners of Minneapolis invested in this city and made it a desirable place to live. Don’t destroy it or I and many others will go elsewhere 5) the city needs to step up on historic preservation, especially in SW. large portions should be made historic districts. Follow model of St. Paul or NYC 6) no transit corridors. Follow St. Paul’s 2040 model and focus on commercial nodes 7) no four plexes in single family neighborhoods

B
Becki Carroll
8 years ago

I oppose the 2040 plan.

M
Michael HANSON
8 years ago

This plan should be on a ballot.

J
Judy Bratt
8 years ago

I think the lack of parking requirements is unrealistic.

T
Therese E Nooyen
8 years ago

Putting forth a plan for the future is smart and admirable. But making a plan for any community without involving that community is is unfair and irresponsible. And, plans and policies need to be made based upon realities, not wishes and pie-in-the-sky hopes. Please come up with a plan that doesn't take from hard-working people who live in a neighborhood to reward contractors and speculators.

D
Denise Robbe
8 years ago

I am retired, have owned my home for 20 years. I cannot walk or ride a bike to get anywhere, I drive to stay independent. I can barely afford my taxes now. This plan will force me to sell my lovely little home and end up renting in the suburbs where I do not want to be. I am sorry I voted for mayor Frey and will not do it again.

S
Suzanne Randolph
8 years ago

I strongly oppose the 2040 plan in its current state. It feels rushed, fails to take into important details and will not achieve the desired outcome-unless unbeknownst to me the desired income is to let developers take over.

J
Jeanne Schleh
8 years ago

What is the evidence in other cities that density press creates affordable housing? This has not been the case in Seattle or New York City.

A
Anonymous
8 years ago

Among the million other reasons this idea will in no way help solve the affordable housing issue in Minneapolis...I want to be able to park in front of my own house. Which I pay a LOT of taxes to own.

I
Ivy West
8 years ago

This is a give away to developers and the politicians who hope to gain from their contributions in future elections/their careers. City planning involves a more thoughtful approach which balances the preservation of neighborhoods and the city’s politicians desire of greater population density. We do not want to give away our neighborhoods to developers whose sole purpose is to make a profit. Healthy neighborhoods are made of people invested in their homes and community.

R
Robin Bryduck
8 years ago

PLEASE don’t give me, yet, another reason to sell my beloved home and leave my neighborhood to move to St. Paul - their city leaders seem to better understand what all the nuances are of successfully integrating diversity and affordability, while respecting and retaining the uniqueness and charm of the neighborhoods - as well as the people who make these neighborhoods (both home owners and renters) a GREAT place to live.

A
Anonymous
8 years ago

Please reconsider the plan. The entirety of its impact seems to be unexplored.

A
Anonymous
8 years ago

1) Little Lake Calhoun (aka bde...) is not Great Lakes Michigan and Minneapolis should not try to be another Chicago! 2) More rental property in North Mpls is not what that area needs to improve and prosper!!!!

M
Margaret Rejto
8 years ago

I strongly support this petition to reconsider and redesign the 2040 plan to better serve all residents of Minneapolis.

G
Gary Nelson
8 years ago

Rework the ridiculous 2040 debacle.