Repeat reminder: be sure to clip the previous post, or excerpt what you're referring
to in the body of your email.
Constant reminder: our rules allow pointed disagreement but require respectful
discussion.
--
on 9/19/01 2:24 PM, deanc at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'd like to know what role Mr. Abbott played in brokering this solution.
After I announced on this list that I opposed the project, on August 16th,
the developers called me to discuss the issue (this was out of the blue - I
had never met any of them prior to this). We had lunch the following
Monday, August 20.
I gave the developers a candid assessment of what I thought of the project -
in particular that they had lost a lot of credibility with the public by
preserving the "option" of using city condemnation at some future point to
develop the whole block. I suggested that one way to begin to turn the
situation around was to permanently give up the "whole block" proposal, and
work to remedy the gap on parking and traffic issues for the smaller
project.
The developers took that advice. A couple of days later, at the Kenny
Neighborhood Association, for the first time they announced that they were
only seeking to develop the empty bank lot.
I was still opposed to the smaller project because of parking concerns --
which I had raised from the beginning (my August 16th statement, for
example, has a paragraph which begins "Even the Phase I proposal has some
problems . . . " ). The developers hadn't done anything to improve the
smaller proposal, even though dropping the "big block" proposal was very
constructive.
In fact, I said as much at the time, in a post to this list dated August
22nd (which some may have missed because it was in a thread entitled "MCDA
Held Property").
The developers sent me an e-mail a few days later, on August 27th, asking
essentially what changes in their proposal would be necessary for me to drop
my opposition to the project. I responded with two items: (1) more parking,
and (2) some kind of written promise that future condemnation was truly
off-the-table. We had a brief exchange of e-mails on some ideas about
getting more parking for the site.
That was the last I heard from the developers until I went to the Lynnhurst
meeting on September 13th. At that meeting, the developers announced that
they had been able to add 17 more parking spaces (5 on-site, and 12 leased
from a nearby business), and for the first time, the developers agreed to
sign a legally binding document agreeing to forego possible future
condemnation of the block.
At the same time, in my discussions with other opponents I made it clear
that stopping all development at 53rd and Lyndale was not realistic. I
pointed out that some redevelopment of the empty bank site would occur, and
that affordable housing was a very desirable component of that
redevelopment.
My sense of the opposition was that most people didn't mind the smaller
Phase I proposal nearly as much as the "big block" proposal, but that there
was an immense amount of ill-will left over from the perception that the
developers had tried to strong-arm the local businesses into selling with
the threat of condemnation.
Of course, there were a minority of opponents who were opposed to anything
-- but that was never my position, and it was not the position of most of
the opponents with whom I spoke.
I didn't intend to do this, but I ended up serving as conduit for an
exchange of views between the developers and opponents of the project. In
my judgment, the role I played was constructive. Had I intended to milk
this for political gain to the exclusion of the public interest, I would
have never talked to the developers or given them any constructive ideas
about how to respond to public opposition.
> This is truly an amazing turn of events, especially considering the fact
> that Mr. Abbott was so strongly against the project and stated so numerous
> times on this list.
My position has never changed - I was strongly against previous versions of
the project. In every post, I indicated that I was supportive of putting
affordable housing at that site, assuming that the parking and condemnation
issues could be addressed.
I'm not the one who has changed positions -- it is the developers who have
changed positions (for the better). If the objections were truly focused on
practical issues, reasonable people should agree that these practical
concerns have been substantially addressed.
In virtually every piece of writing I've done on this project I have
carefully explained the specific elements of my opposition. Hopefully,
people will have the patience, yet again, to read a lengthy post on a
complicated issue without resorting to labels or to make snippy assumptions
about what my position is.
Greg Abbott
--
Greg Abbott for City Council
13th Ward
http://www.gregabbott.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
612.925.0630
--
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
