This plan does not serve low income people. If you follow the money, it will illustrate who this plan really benefits.
L
Lucas Ma
8 years ago
The risk of current plan is significant: change of characters in the existing neighborhoods, deteriorating property value, people moving out of Minneapolis, etc.. Plus, I don’t believe in giving city government, or any government that much sweeping power.
D
Dan Woychick
8 years ago
Create affordable housing? Yes, good! Increase density to create affordable housing? It has never worked and it won’t work in Minneapolis. It will increase the cost of housing in desirable neighborhoods, price people out of their homes, and create a funding shortage for infrastructure that will be needed to serve all the new multi-unit buildings. There is a place for density, but the answer isn’t "everywhere" unless you’re a developer.
E
Elizbeth Rosenwinkel
8 years ago
The 2040 plan is a dream for developers. Nothing will keep them from raising rents. They will make way more $ renting a multi-family dwelling than making affordable housing people can BUY. Developers have NO incentive to build HOMES to BUY, only units to rent, with no accountability to follow parking codes. It is, I repeat, a developer's dream. Your average lower and middle class folks aren't trying to "build wealth", they are trying to pay their bills and get affordable health care. RENTING is the last thing that allows anybody to build wealth!
P
Pamela Diamond
8 years ago
Didn't we learn anything from the 1960's? Density undermined the tax base and destroyed quality constructed buildings that could have been repurposed. Also, year round biking isn't feasible for our climate. Without an investment in public transportation how are seniors and families supposed to function? All this thinking has caused is worsening traffic jams and frustration.
R
Rebecca Woychick
8 years ago
I strongly oppose the 2040 Plan as not creating affordable housing but instead, creating profit opportunities for developers.
W
Wanda Ackerman
8 years ago
I am strongly opposed to the 2040 plan. It is too all encompassing and does not take into account the needs and differences in our many neighborhoods. Especially concerned about rezoning from single family homes to 4 - 6 story buildings without input from neighborhood residents.
E
Elizabeth Schmiesing
8 years ago
I’m concerned about the lack of provision for parking and for the lack of discussion about neighborhood schools and capacity. While I think the stock of affordable housing should be increased, I do not believe that the plan has adequate structure to ensure that new housing is affordable. Please note that while I don’t agree with everything as it is phrased in this petition, I do agree that the plan needs to be reworked.
M
Madeleine Henry
8 years ago
Without concrete plans for more mass transit this will be a disaster.
K
kathryn murray
8 years ago
We live on Excelsior Blvd. just West of the lake. The traffic is horrible already and I've seen NO improvements in the past 5 years that we have been here. We cannot support this many high rises in this small area.
A
Anonymous
8 years ago
I'm in favor of greater density, but have concerns about how this plan would achieve such, and to what end.
D
Dave A
8 years ago
A bad plan based on false premises. Do not support this travesty.
G
Germaine Hall
8 years ago
Definitely needs more research, a quick decision is bad for everyone.
J
Janet Dray
8 years ago
I am especially concerned about the lack of quality seen in multi-unit developments seen over the last 5 years (not built for 75-100-year lifespan) and at the same time no requirements to preserve green space, manage water runoff due to building footprint. Some de elements have not provided proper access for waste collection or the hauling vehicles, and these cause dangerous traffic conditions on residential roads, especially with the addition of thousands of units. Where is the consideration for sustainability, which keeps being professed by council members. Ever heard walk the talk?
B
Brian J Willette
8 years ago
We need to embrace diversity in the city and that includes having housing options.
S
Sara Donaldson
8 years ago
I don't believe that there is solid evidence supporting the assumption that increased density automatically leads to affordability in housing. I believe building affordable housing leads to affordability.
Z
Zachary Beatty
8 years ago
1000 block of Thomas Ave S is almost exclusively 1.5 story cottages and 2 story colonials. There isn't a single 3 story house. To be zoned as 6 stories seems like a mistake.
J
Julie
8 years ago
My neighborhood is not the place for multi-unit dwellings.
E
Elizabeth A Huey
8 years ago
I am concerned about stress on our infrastructure, adequate off street parking and maintaining the value of the homes currently owned in the City. If this passes, I will move to the suburbs as soon as I can.
P
Patrick Lennander
8 years ago
2040 is a very bad plan. Needs to start over and needs citizen involvement not developers input.
This plan does not serve low income people. If you follow the money, it will illustrate who this plan really benefits.
The risk of current plan is significant: change of characters in the existing neighborhoods, deteriorating property value, people moving out of Minneapolis, etc.. Plus, I don’t believe in giving city government, or any government that much sweeping power.
Create affordable housing? Yes, good! Increase density to create affordable housing? It has never worked and it won’t work in Minneapolis. It will increase the cost of housing in desirable neighborhoods, price people out of their homes, and create a funding shortage for infrastructure that will be needed to serve all the new multi-unit buildings. There is a place for density, but the answer isn’t "everywhere" unless you’re a developer.
The 2040 plan is a dream for developers. Nothing will keep them from raising rents. They will make way more $ renting a multi-family dwelling than making affordable housing people can BUY. Developers have NO incentive to build HOMES to BUY, only units to rent, with no accountability to follow parking codes. It is, I repeat, a developer's dream. Your average lower and middle class folks aren't trying to "build wealth", they are trying to pay their bills and get affordable health care. RENTING is the last thing that allows anybody to build wealth!
Didn't we learn anything from the 1960's? Density undermined the tax base and destroyed quality constructed buildings that could have been repurposed. Also, year round biking isn't feasible for our climate. Without an investment in public transportation how are seniors and families supposed to function? All this thinking has caused is worsening traffic jams and frustration.
I strongly oppose the 2040 Plan as not creating affordable housing but instead, creating profit opportunities for developers.
I am strongly opposed to the 2040 plan. It is too all encompassing and does not take into account the needs and differences in our many neighborhoods. Especially concerned about rezoning from single family homes to 4 - 6 story buildings without input from neighborhood residents.
I’m concerned about the lack of provision for parking and for the lack of discussion about neighborhood schools and capacity. While I think the stock of affordable housing should be increased, I do not believe that the plan has adequate structure to ensure that new housing is affordable. Please note that while I don’t agree with everything as it is phrased in this petition, I do agree that the plan needs to be reworked.
Without concrete plans for more mass transit this will be a disaster.
We live on Excelsior Blvd. just West of the lake. The traffic is horrible already and I've seen NO improvements in the past 5 years that we have been here. We cannot support this many high rises in this small area.
I'm in favor of greater density, but have concerns about how this plan would achieve such, and to what end.
A bad plan based on false premises. Do not support this travesty.
Definitely needs more research, a quick decision is bad for everyone.
I am especially concerned about the lack of quality seen in multi-unit developments seen over the last 5 years (not built for 75-100-year lifespan) and at the same time no requirements to preserve green space, manage water runoff due to building footprint. Some de elements have not provided proper access for waste collection or the hauling vehicles, and these cause dangerous traffic conditions on residential roads, especially with the addition of thousands of units. Where is the consideration for sustainability, which keeps being professed by council members. Ever heard walk the talk?
We need to embrace diversity in the city and that includes having housing options.
I don't believe that there is solid evidence supporting the assumption that increased density automatically leads to affordability in housing. I believe building affordable housing leads to affordability.
1000 block of Thomas Ave S is almost exclusively 1.5 story cottages and 2 story colonials. There isn't a single 3 story house. To be zoned as 6 stories seems like a mistake.
My neighborhood is not the place for multi-unit dwellings.
I am concerned about stress on our infrastructure, adequate off street parking and maintaining the value of the homes currently owned in the City. If this passes, I will move to the suburbs as soon as I can.
2040 is a very bad plan. Needs to start over and needs citizen involvement not developers input.