Rework the Minneapolis 2040 Plan

After reviewing the Minneapolis 2040 Draft Plan, I wish to express my serious concerns and general opposition to the draft plan as written. Furthermore, I request that an extensive revision be undertaken predicated on resident and taxpayer input. In my opinion, each neighborhood needs to be involved in conducting a comprehensive neighborhood plan that best reflects and respects the views of current homeowners and residents. Most of all, I despise the notion of tearing down single-family homes and duplexes and replacing them with cheap, tasteless, modern multiple-unit behemoths that destroys the charm and character of our neighborhoods. The unique charm of our neighborhood is what persuaded us to establish our roots here 35 years ago.

Please extend comment period on 2040 Plan. Most people I speak to have very little knowledge about the plan, what it means and why they need to comment. This takes time!

(Submitted by residents' daughter Laura Ferster)

Please rethink this plan. I'm in a neighborhood being overwhelmed by apartments. My once safe neighborhood is now dealing with constant car/home brake ins, drug deals and prostitution.

I support the comments/statements contained in the petition.

I am very against the 2040 plan

Please save our home & neighborhood!

Please save our home & neighborhood!

Please rework the 2040 plan--it is NOT the right plan for our city!

I am concerned that the plan does not set out clearly how many parcels can be combined to build multi family dwellings. I also don't see any requirements for parking for the 4 and 6 unit buildings.

Seems like a great idea for DEVELOPERS, What about current residents? Seems like residents lose and developers win. Just who is the City Council representing?

Local neighbors understand their neighborhood. A top-down city council imposition to change the local neighborhood without local neighborhood input will fail.

I am against this plan as currently written. It is not comprehensive. It leaves too many loose ends and I do not think it will solve issues of affordable housing, not at all.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE 2040 PLAN!!!

I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE 2040 PLAN!!!!!!

I am especially concerned about the upzoning of Interior 1 and Corridor 4 zones. Developers will ask for variances and conditional use permits...with Planning Commission approvals easy to get, Corridor 4 buildings will become 6 stories and Interior 1 buildings will now be 4-plexus and 3-4 stories in height. The feeling of single-family areas will be diminished.

We moved to CIDNA in 1985. We could afford a home here back then. At the time, a huge development project was halted by many city residents (not just NIMBY)at (former) Lake Calhoun because it was too harmful to the lake, the environment, and to overcrowding/overuse issues. At that time, developers were also planning condos in the woods on Cedar Lake. What a great place to live for a few! This was also halted to preserve the woods for the public (access to park for all-SAVE CEDAR LAKE ). This area is now a park for all. If I lived in my old neighborhood (Phillips) I would still care about what happened with the lakes and parks in Minneapolis. If we proposed light rail along the shore of Lake Harriet or Lake Nokomis, it would matter to more people than just those who lived there. Why? Because our lakes and parks are for everyone. This NIMBY blame game is dissing those of us who have helped preserve the lakes and parks for everyone to enjoy and use. My concern with the density proposed is -with more and more rental/condo density around the lakes, the lakes will only really serve the people who can afford to live in the expensive buildings. Rents have only gone up. Other city residents who want to use the lakes will experience the traffic and density as a barrier to coming. The urge is to build and build. Accessibility for the public to parks and lakes is not about grabbing every inch of real estate for building, it is about leaving space and parkland open for all. It would be more tragic to continue building and building which will choke access to this area for people from other parts of the city. PS: for any area, non-resident landlords and property development companies don't have much interest in being neighbors, friends, community members, polling judges, school coaches, etc.

This plan needs to be discarded and the process needs to start over in a transparent and open manner. Re zoning such huge areas at one time is imprudent and likely is of most benefit to developers, not residents. There is no going back once houses are removed (remember the streetcars?).

No to one size fits all.

Why haven’t we heard about this sooner. What about neighborhood information meetings.