The post from Fred Markus reminded me of a presentation I saw back in February of this year by a housing developer who was talking about projects they had done that were designed to fit in with the Met Council Blueprint 2030 concept.
He gave an example of a common development style where you'd take a 25-acre plot and divide it into five 5-acre plots for five single-family homes and what his firm did that was different was they would take that 25-acre plot and carve out five 1-2 acre plots for single-family homes and the remaining 15-20 acres was devoted to green space for the community and might consist of a park or a pond or perhaps there was forest area there and this design allowed for minimal disturbance of that area. Perhaps a similar concept could be used on a smaller scale in Minneapolis (since we don't have loads of 25-acre plots waiting to be developed) for community gardens. We hear so much about areas of the city where there might be two or three or even more houses that have been boarded up or torn down on a block, leaving a slightly larger area to work with. When we get around to doing so, maybe we could give some preference to developers show a little extra creativity and work some community gardens into their designs. I think Tim Bonham's argument that we have to choose housing vs. community gardens gets away from the point. Thanks to years of the "knock 'em down" mentality that has been discussed so many times on this list, we should have plenty of room for both. I think the point that Fred and Carrie Zoll are trying to make is that we shouldn't merely view community gardens as a "temporary" use of land in Minneapolis. They're important enough that we should be trying to establish permanent community gardens throughout the city. Mark Snyder Windom Park (59A) [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 7/28/02 11:44 AM, "Fredric Markus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tim Bonham says, in effect, "Put your money where your mouth is!" > > This helps explain why there isn't a property ownership stipulation in > our country's constitution. If only people with serious money can have > gardens, then perhaps only people with serious money should have > museums, schools, hospitals, parks, highways, armies, and so on, and the > rest of us can move to Canada or jump off the nearest cliff. > > Jennie Heiser wrote to remind me that "in some neighborhoods these > gardens serve the basic function of actually filling and/or extending > the food supply/budget for seniors and immigrants and poor people -- > some of whom fall into all three categories." > > The rationale that produces and maintains our parkways and other green > assets also encourages private property ownership: we use our > government's assets to promote the general welfare. My general > suggestion is that there are values beyond capital assets and I suggest > that there is a balancing act among "highest and best use" notions that > can't be defined entirely in monetary terms. > > Community gardening is a vital part of our city's life and needs to have > a more robust and sustainable presence at the planning table. "Robust" > means changing the ground rules about land use to include gardens as a > permanent civic good - upgrading from ephemeral/interim land use as the > only possible option to a consideration of interactive green space as a > desired aspect of development. "Sustainable" means picking up Barb > Lickness' list of management needs and moving to methods of financing, > ownership, insurance, and physical maintenance that are at least as > egalitarian in their prospect as that much-battered term "affordable" > that we apply to housing development. > > The Troy Gardens project in Madison, WI combines both housing and > gardening in a large-scale "affordable" wholly-owned variation on a land > trust theme. Our public housing also has the existing capacity to > accomplish this joint goal and indeed there are two large gardens and > some more modest plots here and there including I should imagine > individual gardens in scattered site housing that are indistinguishable > from planted areas in private hands. The challenge comes when > contemplating thousands of people who live in private rental housing > where continuity of participation is at issue and where there is no > "bottom-line" incentive for the private owner to make land available or > to have any insurance liability for that matter. > > This is not a simple question and we've certainly danced around it for > the 33 years I've been in Minneapolis. But just as cyclists now have > access to publicly owned physical assets and greatly improved standing > as a desired civic presence - why not get real about gardening? > > Fred Markus Horn Terrace Ward Ten _______________________________________ 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
