Responding to the message of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I would like to start by apologizing if my comments appeared to vilify or demean Mr. Baylor or suggest that either he or Mr. Reitman are anti-parks. That certainly was not my intent. While not knowing Mr. Baylor personally, I've read enough about him that he seems like a decent enough fellow and he's put considerable effort to help improve Northside neighborhoods. I do however take issue with the Riverview Supper Club development proposal and will do my best to answer Keith's comments below. > >>>snip>>>>>KEITH reply to above starts below<<< > Keith responds: NO, I just expect that the hundreds of new resident/home > owners at the proposed Riverview site will add their eyes, ears, noses, > brains and voices to the mix of stake holders you mention existing north of > the Riverview site. They won't need stack testing equipment, nor need to > trespass, as you mention. They will reside near and have a natural concern > for the great river and great park that will be their front yard, wouldn't > you? Actually, the folks I referred to are north and east of the Riverview Supper Club. They do live across the street from Xcel's Riverside plant, which is located at 3100 Marshall St NE, about half a mile north of Lowry Ave. Not exactly right across the river from Broadway Ave and West River Road, where the Riverview site is. The Riverview Supper Club is actually across the river from the Grain Belt site that is slated for redevelopment. My recollection of the Upper Mississippi plan was that the Grain Belt site included a mix of housing and commercial (office park?) development. > <<<<snip/ Keith responds below to Snyder comment above>>>> > Please resend the e-mail if the verbiage is more compelling then this load, > but don't misinterpret me again, please. I still believe I am All correct in > my assertion that a great park is hard-wired into the JADT plan for the > Riverview site. The JADT park proposal is perhaps a more useful, more visited > and utilized plan then the larger, and less watched site would be without the > housing component. Also Mr. Snyder, I did not at all Question the need for a > park, nor did JADT, when they dedicated over half their land for a great > park. And it will have visitors. I strongly suggest to all stake holders in > the communities what I mentioned before: Home owners adjacent to this great > park will help define and secure this space for mom, dad, the kids and all > other naturalists who wish to visit and enjoy this remarkable site again and > again. I am sure Keith will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the full Riverview site is 5.3 acres and that JADT earmarks something over 3 acres for a park site. I also understand that something like 100 housing units would be included in the JADT development. 100 housing units sounds like an awful lot for roughly 2 acres being devoted to housing. My block (Johnson St and 23rd Ave NE if anybody doubts me) is a little less than 3 acres and has about 20-25 houses on it. Our lots are not huge, either. Mine is 115 feet by 45 feet. So it sounds like JADT is proposing 4-5 times the number of housing units for a space roughly 2/3 the size of my block. Something doesn't seem to be adding up here. Is this "park" in the JADT proposal an actual public park or more of a communal yard to be shared by all these housing units? > <<<Snip--Keith responds to above by saying below>>>snip > I reiterate my "best outcomes" statement you quote above, thank you. As to > the, " ... extremely diverse group of nearby residents, business owners and > regular visitors..." feelings you allude to in your extreme argument against > sharing the land with JADT (which JADT owns and you Don't) I have to break in here to point out that JADT/Mr. Baylor does NOT own this site. JADT has an option to purchase this site and the housing development is contingent on City Council approving a rezoning from industrial to housing. Big difference there. > I disagree with > your polling outcome. I may also disagree with your polling practice, here is > why. As to "nearby residents," did you count the fact that Jordan, Hawthorne, > and Near North neighborhoods all showed support for the JADT plan as > presented and approved by the West Broadway Area Coalition? You should know > that these neighborhood groups are voting participants in our WBAC. As to > your assertion that "business owner" support is against the housing, I would > like to inform you that the WBBA, our West Broadway Business assoc., voted > support for the JADT proposal both on it's own and as part of the WBAC > resolution (it is a voting member there). And Keith, do you speak for all of these organizations? I believe you when you say that WBAC and WBBA support this proposal, however I have difficulty believing Hawthorne is united in support of this proposal judging by conversation I had last week with a Hawthorne resident who serves on the Hawthorne Area Community Council who described the neighborhood as being split on the issue. Also, while I was regretfully unable to attend the Zoning and Planning Committee meeting (where this proposal initially passed by an underwhelming margin of 2 in favor, one against, 2 abstaining and one absent), I do have colleagues who attended that reported those who did show up, including some Hawthorne residents, were strongly against the rezoning for housing. Did anyone from the broad base of supporters you claim exist for the JADT proposal attend? > Finally, as to "regular visitors" > you mention; you are vague but I will assert that our regular visitors want a > park, AND HOUSING OPTIONS NOW. We are all for parks so please don't tell > others we are not. We simply have learned, through hard lessons, the > importance of building-in safety to maximize use and benefit for all. I also > will cautiously comment on what I may call the Plantation perspective that > other portions of the city seem to apply toward my Northwest Quadrant, the > Northside. We need, deserve, and demand all types of new commercial, housing, > and economic development on our west side of the river. I agree with you that Northside does need and deserve commercial, housing and economic development in these neighborhoods. I spent nearly a year working as an environmental consultant for the Hawthorne Area Community Council in 1997-1998 and I know how badly development is needed. I also know that much of 2nd Street North from Broadway Avenue to Lowry Avenue is vacant commercial buildings where either new commercial investment or redevelopment is desperately needed and that there are countless open plots throughout these neighborhoods where new housing could be used to "seed" further growth and development in Northside. However, the Riverview site is the only open space remaining available on the Northside for a decent-sized park and there's a reason why it was earmarked for parkland in the Upper Missisippi Plan. North of Riverview is heavy industrial from 26th Ave to about 33rd Ave and then housing in Camden. South of the Riverview site is all commercial/industrial all the way to downtown. Putting a park anywhere else on the Northside would mean displacing other housing or commercial units. What kind of sense does that make? > We will define what > is optimal for us using the democratic mechanisms we have cultivated and put > in place. We will attempt to utilize our communities human resources for > these projects to help create jobs and an engine of economic opportunity. Mr. > Tim Baylor of JADT is a prime and proven current example of the copious human > capital we have here on the North side. We understand clearly the importance > of our great riverfront to our neighborhood, our city and the rest of the > metro area. Please consider that we have studied our area's needs. Then > please consider that our neighborhoods, business assoc. and the West Broadway > Area Coalition support the JADT housing and park plan. Finally, we must be > allowed the weight in the final decision that is our right. We are no longer > spare parts, the 'B' side, or a plantation for the rest of the city. And our > plan is great! I don't wish to be seen as second-guessing all of the work done by Northside neighborhood and business associations and I certainly don't wish to be seen as suggesting that Northsiders should not have any say in how the Riverview site (or any other land in Northside) should be used. I simply disagree that the JADT proposal actually has the unified support purported by Mr. Reitman. Sincerely, Mark Snyder Ward 1/Windom Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
