I believe the residents of Bryn Mawr are rightly concerned about the possibility of their neighborhood being negatively affected by this plan. It's difficult enough for people to buy a starter home without having to compete with developers who want to tear the starter homes down to build multi-unit buildings. The focus on multi-unit density in this plan devalues existing homes.
A plan that allows a developer to find any lot that can support a 4 or 6 unit building is unacceptable without further requirements. Because many blocks have lots of various sizes, this would result in small lots with single family houses directly next to 4 and 6-unit rental units. Maybe that reflects your intent and politics but does not reflect the beliefs or desires of the population of Minneapolis.
N
Nate Pearson
8 years ago
The city should do referendums by ward on plans.
D
Darcy Winter
8 years ago
I am against the current proposals because there has not been adequate study of the issues, cost/benefit analyses, or sufficient engagement with stakeholders. It appears to be a broad brush attempt at creating density, rather than a true collaborative effort. The constituents of the affected areas are desirous of participating in the process, just not aware. As an example I never received a Public Hearing notice and I’m within 500 Feet of Penn Ave which is proposed for rezoning. Give us a chance to weigh in please.
J
John R Olson
8 years ago
As 25+ year HOME owners in the Bryn Mawr neighborhood of Minneapolis my wife & I agree with this urgent petition.
J
Joseph Baumer
8 years ago
I have concerns also about this plan.
D
Darcy Winter
8 years ago
There are numerous land use issues involved in this proposal, many of which are hard to imagine can be handled within the land area of the land area proposed to be rezoned multi-family lots. I'm of the opinion that with more opportunity for citizen input good land use modifications could be made that would satisfy most of the residents of the area. I am accustomed to many US Postal mailings to property owners in the larger area affected and as a resident right off of 54 and Penn haven't received even one piece of mail on this topic. Citizen and property owner input can't be judged on these proposed modifications as a result of lack of knowledge beyond this webpage, those who are not on the city's webpage are in the dark. Many of those of us who are on the webpage learned about it well into the process. Id strongly recommend tabling this issue for further input and collaboration with the property owners and citizens of Minneapolis.
K
Kathy reagles
8 years ago
This plan needs very important changes to prevent turning mpls into Detroit, an empty city.
R
Robert Miller
8 years ago
2040 needs reworking
M
Molly Kenney
8 years ago
I think we need to know more about the risks and benefits before moving forward on the project
T
TIM Lovejoy
8 years ago
This plan needs to be reworked, PERIOD!
Not happy with the city officials who claim this was a transparent process, it wasn’t and the proof is the outrage you see now.
M
Monica Murphy
8 years ago
I have grave concerns about the 2040 plan and believe it needs to be reworked on all areas-density, transportation and zoning.
B
Becky Hanssen
8 years ago
Well written. Sign displayed.
A
Anonymous
8 years ago
StarTribune does a feature article right before official comment ended??
Z
Zylpha Gregerson
8 years ago
Please assess the many concerned comments about the 2040 Comprehensive plan...too aggressive...too “cookie cutter”...one size fits all does not work for Minneapolis.
C
Colleen Buchanan
8 years ago
I believe each neighborhood needs to create a plan that is appropriate for the area. The Kmart on Lake would be a great location for appartments.
D
David Koehser
8 years ago
Yet another top down "solution" based on projected future conditions that will likely never materialize. Unfortunately, Minneapolis has a history of flawed schemes that destroyed historic properties, without delivering the promised results and leaving empty spaces - the Gateway District demolition, the Conservatory, City Center, Block E, the list goes on. Start by asking the neighborhoods and the taxpaying residents, rather than telling them.
A
Anonymous
8 years ago
This needs to be walked back and rolled out in phases. The people of Minneapolis do not want this plan!
A
Anonymous
8 years ago
Exactly. We need real affordable housing policy, not trickle down economics that strangely and falsely promises affordability via helping the rich build and buy more luxury housing... sorry but that doesnt work just like Reaganomics didnt work. And the ONLY way the working class can build wealth is buying an affordable home, so why at a time of alltime high economic inequality is the allegedly progressive city government working hard to take the ability of buying a small house away from people? And not only take it away but give it to developers who will take that asset and add it to their already unfair share.
Stop this nonsense
I believe the residents of Bryn Mawr are rightly concerned about the possibility of their neighborhood being negatively affected by this plan. It's difficult enough for people to buy a starter home without having to compete with developers who want to tear the starter homes down to build multi-unit buildings. The focus on multi-unit density in this plan devalues existing homes. A plan that allows a developer to find any lot that can support a 4 or 6 unit building is unacceptable without further requirements. Because many blocks have lots of various sizes, this would result in small lots with single family houses directly next to 4 and 6-unit rental units. Maybe that reflects your intent and politics but does not reflect the beliefs or desires of the population of Minneapolis.
The city should do referendums by ward on plans.
I am against the current proposals because there has not been adequate study of the issues, cost/benefit analyses, or sufficient engagement with stakeholders. It appears to be a broad brush attempt at creating density, rather than a true collaborative effort. The constituents of the affected areas are desirous of participating in the process, just not aware. As an example I never received a Public Hearing notice and I’m within 500 Feet of Penn Ave which is proposed for rezoning. Give us a chance to weigh in please.
As 25+ year HOME owners in the Bryn Mawr neighborhood of Minneapolis my wife & I agree with this urgent petition.
I have concerns also about this plan.
There are numerous land use issues involved in this proposal, many of which are hard to imagine can be handled within the land area of the land area proposed to be rezoned multi-family lots. I'm of the opinion that with more opportunity for citizen input good land use modifications could be made that would satisfy most of the residents of the area. I am accustomed to many US Postal mailings to property owners in the larger area affected and as a resident right off of 54 and Penn haven't received even one piece of mail on this topic. Citizen and property owner input can't be judged on these proposed modifications as a result of lack of knowledge beyond this webpage, those who are not on the city's webpage are in the dark. Many of those of us who are on the webpage learned about it well into the process. Id strongly recommend tabling this issue for further input and collaboration with the property owners and citizens of Minneapolis.
This plan needs very important changes to prevent turning mpls into Detroit, an empty city.
2040 needs reworking
I think we need to know more about the risks and benefits before moving forward on the project
This plan needs to be reworked, PERIOD! Not happy with the city officials who claim this was a transparent process, it wasn’t and the proof is the outrage you see now.
I have grave concerns about the 2040 plan and believe it needs to be reworked on all areas-density, transportation and zoning.
Well written. Sign displayed.
StarTribune does a feature article right before official comment ended??
Please assess the many concerned comments about the 2040 Comprehensive plan...too aggressive...too “cookie cutter”...one size fits all does not work for Minneapolis.
I believe each neighborhood needs to create a plan that is appropriate for the area. The Kmart on Lake would be a great location for appartments.
Yet another top down "solution" based on projected future conditions that will likely never materialize. Unfortunately, Minneapolis has a history of flawed schemes that destroyed historic properties, without delivering the promised results and leaving empty spaces - the Gateway District demolition, the Conservatory, City Center, Block E, the list goes on. Start by asking the neighborhoods and the taxpaying residents, rather than telling them.
This needs to be walked back and rolled out in phases. The people of Minneapolis do not want this plan!
Exactly. We need real affordable housing policy, not trickle down economics that strangely and falsely promises affordability via helping the rich build and buy more luxury housing... sorry but that doesnt work just like Reaganomics didnt work. And the ONLY way the working class can build wealth is buying an affordable home, so why at a time of alltime high economic inequality is the allegedly progressive city government working hard to take the ability of buying a small house away from people? And not only take it away but give it to developers who will take that asset and add it to their already unfair share.
I oppose the 2040 plan.