All:
Since my post yesterday on the proposed modifications to the
Minneapolis Plan and zoning ordinances, I've been reading more of the
material on the city's web site. I also appreciate the opinions of
others who have provided their comments on the list.
On a technical basis, I get the allowance of a "density bonus" for
affordable housing.
But...
I still don't get how a "development" can be a single parcel with
already constructed housing in place. There is a map included with the
city's materials and it happens to be of my neighborhood: Prospect
Park. See:
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/citywork/planning/housing/ProspectPark.jpg
As it happens, my home's parcel is one of the scattered parcels
marked in orange that is "newly eligible for a lot area or lot width
variance." What does that mean? How would it work? (I can't see how
anyone could afford to tear down the house and put up three or four
dwelling units with all but one at market rate subsidizing one at an
affordable rate.)
The changes in the TMP and zoning seem to relate just to affordable
housing, but the description says it is intended to increase the amount
of "housing in general." What does that mean? Why is that being done?
(I know about the crisis in affordable housing but haven't heard
anything about a problem in market-rate housing.) What provisions are
being changed in the TMP and zoning that will affect "housing in
general."
It's also difficult to see how ultra-dense housing on narrow lots is
going to be desirable housing for anyone: "market-rate" people or
"affordable" people. It certainly isn't going to do much for
competition with the suburbs where lots are measured by the acre and not
by the front-foot.
I think that David Harstad makes a good point too. If zoning was
meant to ensure the "health, safety, and welfare" of the community then
allowing ultra-dense housing to gain a social goal sounds like it's at
the price of a serious loss in "health, safety, and welfare." If that's
the trade-off, I'm not sure how many will move in just to achieve the
social goal.
To be sure, we need to do more to gain more affordable housing.
But, based on what I've read so far, I don't see how this proposal has
much, if anything, to do with that goal. My gut feeling is beginning to
be that there is some other agenda being achieved and it's being
masqueraded under a label of "affordable housing" because everyone's
afraid of being accused of going NIMBY on the whole idea of affordable
housing.
The Zoning Commission meeting is Monday night. Maybe it will be
clearer then.
Steve Cross
Prospect Park
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
