Rework the Minneapolis 2040 Plan

I support affordable housing, better transit and social justice. The 2040 plan does not achieve that. I also think that homeownership is a vital part of people investing in their communities and that Heather Worthington's comments are highly objectionable.

I am not in favor of building 2-, 3-, and 4-plex units in residential neighborhoods, and particularly with no off street parking. I am also not in favor of building up ton increase density unless there is a proven need to do so. The concept of building tall buildings in the neighborhoods adjacent to the light rail lines, particularly when such buildings detract from historic city neighborhoods such as Prospect Park, is in my opinion very short sighted. There is no proof that residents in such buildings, if they can even be filled, will never own vehicles. The 2040 Plan presumes that the millennials will never want cars. When they are young that may be the case. When they are old. they will find it difficult to rely on bikes and trains. I think the city should move more slowly and cautiously in its development. We are a tier two city, and I am happy with that status. We will never be able to compete with the big cities. That is one of the reasons I like Minneapolis. Not all cities needs to be big. Mid-size urban areas are great!

The current process for zoning works fine.

dangerous case of good intentions by city council

The 2040 Plan lacks details and clarity on how it will specifically address racial equity and affordable housing. I would have a lot more peace of mind if the 2040 Plan included language stating all new multi-family homes must include 30%, or more, affordable housing rental prices. Simply allowing for more housing density at market rates does not address affordable housing, or racial equity. As presented the plan is a boon for developers who face no mandates to increase affordable housing. All of this is at the expense of existing neighborhoods.

I think your plan will ruin the quality of life we moved here to enjoy. I moved here from NYC and will not want to continue living here if it becomes a concrete jungle. As to the development planned for the Lake Calhoun area - it is TOO much. This is a small lake - not Lake Michigan. Please apply some sense to this. You will be driving permanent residents away and encouring transient living. No one can live for long term in the kind of environment you are proposing.

Do not ruin our great neighborhood.

This plan needs details to be a real plan.

I have lived in my home in south MPLS for 40 years. Our neighborhood is what has kept me here. This plan will destroy our neighborhood and slowly but surely destroy the city that my family and I love. It is an ill conceived bundle of short sightedness!!!!!!!!!!

We have lived in SW Mpls for 41 years. This plan is a terrible idea just for parking alone...the neighborhoods don't need density.. there is plenty of building room in greater Twin Cities...why we do we need to live on top of one another? What exactly are we fixing?

The plan is a one size fits all approach, and is too mammoth for a person with a job and a life to understand in the time alloted for review. Please pump the brakes on this one!!

See my e-mail sent to 2040 Minneapolis on Mon., July 9th, and copied to Mayor Frey and Counsel Person Lisa Goodman.

No! I strongly oppose the 2040 plan! In particular, giving developers license to destroy our beautiful lakes areas by building WAY too many multi-unit buildings.

This plan creates misery for too many in our community. It also robs the equity people have spent their lives building. Stop cramming people together to get more revenue and start caring about the residents.

This plan will destroy the character and charm of our neighborhoods! Leave the zoning as it is.

Neither well -thought out nor designed to achieve the stated goal of more affordable housing. Will destroy neighborhoods without providing any benefit except to developers.

How can you destroy the integrity of such a historic neighborhood? Your proposal would send more fleeing to the suburbs after trying to sell their devalued homes. Please don’t do this. There must be better solutions.

When rezoning, resist the temptation to use a sledge hammer when a scalpel is called for. Minneapolis has a long history of major irreversible errors in city planning, all done for the "greater good"...witness the wholesale destruction of the gateway district in the 50s, the freeway corridors carved out of the vibrant city core in the 60s, closing off Nicollet at Lake Street for a Kmart in the 70s, the decision to keep and expand the airport in its present location in the 80s (rejecting a viable plan to move to a less populated area) resulting in ever increasing noise pollution and reduced property values in large swaths of the city. Today's "future looking" city planners should look to the past, and earlier generations of starry-eyed futurists who pushed through their visions resulting in unintended and sometimes catastrophic consequences.

4-plexes will destroy the character of our neighborhoods with increased parking challenges to already-full streets, and lack of support for keeping up our supply of affordable houses.

I am against the 2040 proposal and don't believe this is the best plan for our Fulton neighborhood.