Rework the Minneapolis 2040 Plan

This plan, as it is currently written, does not really address the root causes for why people can't afford current housing, and it assumes that by building simply more housing, without built in requirements for landlords/ developers to assure a percentage of affordable housing units, that the problem will be fixed. How naive. If it weren't for the fact that I have stayed in my bungalow for 45+ years, and basically paid for it twice due to a divorce, I would be one of those people who currently do not have a place to live because of the current rental rates... and I am talking about the lowest rental rates that you can find. There are a lot of senior citizens who have worked hard all of their working years, taken loving care of their homes and neighborhoods, who are relying on their homes to help pay for the next stage in their lives or to pass on to their closest relatives.

You have failed to make your case as to why blanket up zoning is necessary to create 40,000 units by 2040. Even Heather Worthington has made this statement (current zoning would allow for a million new units). Additionally, this plan will make the city less affordable to those who currently live here, opposing your goal of creating more affordable housing, while destroying the things that make Minneapolis a great place to live. From wards across the city, people are opposed to this plan. Scale it back, way back. Zoning should not be changing height in any neighborhoods. Density can be achieved under current zoning. This "plan", which seems to be a dream for developers, needs a major overhaul to make it good for the people, environment, infrastructure, businesses of Minneapolis, instead of the future investors who do not have a stake in where we live.

One size does not fit all!

This is an ill advised proposal that threatens the arbor of this beautiful city, is clearly not realistically addressing how this would create increased road congestion in the city, and is designed to benefit deep pocket developers.

Save our neighborhoods. We made them great, you didn’t...

I am opposed to this. Save our neighborhoods. We made them great, you didn’t...

Found on NextDoor, not authored by me, and spot-on accurate: "There is no way to sugar-coat it. The 2040 draft plan is a preposterous social engineering experiment by city officials out of touch with the majority of Minneapolis residents. It prescribes bad policy as the cure for nearly every societal ill in the city, and adopts a smug and righteous tone to sell it. But while many residents have expressed shock – thousands signing a petition against it in just one week -- the plan shouldn’t be so surprising. It is the predictable product of a broken political system in Minneapolis that advances trendy ideological causes over rational policy. The plan seeks to greatly increase affordable housing everywhere in the city by drastically rezoning neighborhoods. The blocks now restricted to single-family homes and duplexes would be open to four-unit and to three-story buildings with more units. Adjacent blocks with transit could see four-story buildings. The scheme is premised on the unproven theory that greater housing density will lower rental prices. Increasing affordable housing is laudable. But the 2040 plan is unlikely to accomplish its primary goal of expanding such housing into middle and upper-middle class neighborhoods. That’s because buying and tearing down a single-family home in those neighborhoods and putting up a multi-unit apartment building will be expensive. So developers, looking to recover their costs and make a profit, will need to charge much higher rents than would be affordable to those with modest incomes. The upshot: Charming, single-family homes will be bulldozed to make way for fairly expensive, utilitarian multi-unit rentals. And the remaining homeowners on the block will likely see their property values stagnate or decline. They could get hit again if the city makes good on hints it will subsidize the new developments and hikes taxes on homeowners’ property to do it. But the city is unlikely to be able to spend enough money to significan

As strongly as I can state it in this limited space, I oppose the Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft.

It appears to be a one size fits nobody plan rather than a one size fits all.

I am absolutely against this proposal to increase density?in Lowry Hill area.

Slow down...let’s learn more... give us a chance to rework the kinks

Stop this plan and start over!

Please think through the problem this plan was meant to address. Density does not solve all problems and can create many more. Existing bus lines and LRT do not connect most people to their jobs. There will be parking problems and neighborhoods never designed for high density will lose their character, chasing people away, just when Minneapolis has been attracting families back to the city with its great neighborhoods. The process used for creating the plan did not include neighborhood input and was not transparent. Please, please, rework this plan for the sake of the city and its citizens!

I am in agreement with this petition.

We love this neighborhood !!!

Although I don't agree or condone some of the language in this petition I do agree the Mpls 2040 Plan has a long way to go and support many amendments to the plan.

Adopt the St. Paul type plan with neighborhood nodes instead!

I am for no change in my area and the whole twin cities,fix the problems in the other areas that need help.

I agree with the concerns.

"Owning your residence is "outdated and we need to find new ways to build wealth."" (Heather Worthington.) Owning property is a hallmark of freedom, independence, and prosperity in this country, which historically and even today eludes the reach of lower socio economic and minority residents. I believe the proposed 2040 plan only exacerbates this problem - keeping property ownership in the hands of the wealthiest (including the flock of developers), and does not realistically improve access to affordable housing. I don't think the City is treating homeowners' concerns fairly and seriously, especially in light of Ms. Worthington's comments noted above (assuming their accuracy). The City should refrain from making a significant city planning blunder, and rework the plan with a more balanced approach.