Rework the Minneapolis 2040 Plan

As a Fulton resident/home owner I 100% agree with the premise that a "one-sized-fits-all zoning policy that blankets the entire city" is terribly flawed. I am 100% against it.

Uptown used to be a mixed neighborhood, and now it is a cautionary tale of the worst way to develop a neighborhood. Increasing density in that part of town is making inequality worse, not better. This plan needs to be scrapped and reworked from the ground up. My suggestion is we improve transit first, before we shoe horn a whole bunch of people into areas with no decent public transportation.

This plan needs major revisions

City Council members who support this plan should consider themselves vulnerable in the next city election. So should the mayor.

The current plan needs to be reworked.

I strongly oppose your plan. It must be reworked to meet the needs of the existing homeowners in SW Mpls.

This plan is flawed. There is no plan for infrastructure improvements. This cities growth projections are exaggerated.

I agree with this petition and oppose the 2040 draft plan as it is currently written. I also appreciate the insightful comments of others who have signed the petition as well. As I suspect is the case with many of us, I have not had time to go and earn an urban geography degree in order to offer an expert, detailed assessment of every aspect of the 2040 draft plan. However, here's what it smells like to me. While it's strategically dressed up with progressive claims, the economic dimensions of the 2040 plan (in my estimate) seem fully committed to the worst tendencies of neoliberal captalism: the privatization of public processes. There are all the usual symptoms. There's the misplaced faith in free-market fundamentalism as the distribution mechanism for sorting out more complex socioeconomic challenges that previously relied on public support (in the form of no significant public investment in affordable housing). There's the bypassing of neighborhood-based democratic processes by imposing a top-down structure that we're told is better and will allow more freedom (in the form of market-based housing "choices"). There's the very thin, blurry line between political and corporate interests (I'm not looking to alienate anyone, so no comment here). It may not necessarily be "disaster capitalism" -- though the fear that's being weaponized here is the future "disaster" of what might happen if there's not enough housing stock to meet the unrelenting population growth that's coming. On the municipal level, giving away the city of Minneapolis to private developers might be the grandest experiment that neoliberal capitalism has ever seen. When capital reigns supreme, we all know who wins and who loses. Since the 2040 draft plan, as it stands, would create irreversible changes, I personally feel I cannot allow for an experiment that would inflict real and lasting damage --damage that cannot be undone -- on people, neighborhoods, and communities. I

This will not increase affordable housing but will boost property tax revenues.

The 2040 City Plan as written is a threat to the livability and quality of life of each neighborhood. I live in the city because I appreciate the smaller lots, but still enjoy the community feel. This plan allows for development to overshadow existing homes and create an unprecedented amount of added people, traffic, etc. to be introduced into areas where the infrastructure was not planned for. Rethink the plan and consider the consequences you will have.

Trying to increase population density with more multiplex units in Minneapolis is a very bad idea at this point.

I strongly support the call to redraft the 2040plan using neighborhood land use plans as the foundation.

Strongly against 2040 rezoning!

I oppose the 2040 plan and ask that the current plan will be reviesed to come up with a plan that keeps the charm, look and feel of our neighborhood.

One of the greatest attributes of Minneapolis is the pride people have in the history and development of their local community along with the strength and vitality of the neighborhood organizations that represent them. This plan ignores all of this and instead seeks to impose a single model to fit the entire city. Neighborhood land use plans were developed with great thought and effort. They were done with the input of the local constituents, and an understanding of the history and needs of each community. These plans should serve as a basis of any citywide plan. City planners should recognize the need to keep the characteristics of the different areas of the city unique and vibrant. This is what makes Minneapolis a desirable and diverse place to live.

I oppose your plan!

I’m all for density and equity of housing availability and affordability throughout the city including my neighborhood (linden Hills). However, this plan will not achieve equity and affordability. With this plan, only the wealthy will afford purchasing new devolpment. Rethink this plan! Require builders to offer a significant % housing at below market rate. Develop viable public transportation so increased car traffic is alleviated. Respect and support well functioning neighborhoods rather than decimating them.

a big NO to this horrendous plan. its being forced upon the residents of MPLS by a group of terrible minds - it feels more like an ATTACK on our property and lives than a plan to offer so-called affordable housing! AWFUL.

Please do not give the power to the developers. Minneapolos is a charming city with beautiful architecture. We love our homes and our city. Please don’t destroy the charm.

This is a horrible plan. It completely defeats the purpose of why we bought a home in our neighborhood. Change it or Minneapolis will face a mass exodus of people who are otherwise committed to the city.