-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 18 October 2002 16:36, Tim Bonham wrote: > "Eager to bulldoze"? Seems like a bit of revising history > here! As I recall it, the city fought this in Court for several years. > And the whole thing was started by a lawsuit from some residents (and > community organizations), not the city.
You caught me, Mr. Bonham! Please accept my apologies for distorting the story. This was due to in part to unintentionally selective memory and just plain ignorance on my part. I have done my research now. > They won the lawsuit, and now people are not happy with the result? The NAACP was a party to the original lawsuit. However, when the bulldozing had started, they were the ones filing for an injunction. Why? Because promised replacement housing was not in evidence. If one of the parties to the settlement was upset with the outcome and tried to halt it, I'd say this qualifies the city for the tag of "eager" with respect to the bulldozing. > What a surprise. How is that a surprise? > Maybe they should ask themselves that old political question: > Are you better off now than you were before this lawsuit? Perhaps the real question they should ask is: have years of allowing the DFL to have dominant control over the City made the City better off? Hint: possible answers may be gleanable from the results of recent local elections. The city has been good at bulldozing... not so good at planning and getting new buildings up. This could be why Minneapolis was only able to grow its population by 3.9% from 1990 to 2000. In that same period Hennepin County managed 8.1% grwoth (Minneapolis being the major drag here), but statewide the growth was 12.4%, and the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA had growth of 16.9%. (These are all numbers straight from www.census.gov). In that same decade the number of housing units available DECREASED by 2.4%, which I'd like to say is the result of some "smart growth" and increased density, but which more likely reflects the fact that owner occupied occupancy went up 4.5% (meaning: more people bought houses and condos because of great mortgage rates and a booming economy). In fact the number of renter occupied units went down 2.3%, which means that in all likelihood the people who could least afford to get squeezed in the housing market were forced out of town. (These numbers are right out of the Mpls 2001 State of the City report) That the City of Minneapolis was, for all intents and purposes, showing stagnant growth during an incredible boom to the metro area speaks volumes about the approaches taken during that period. I am heartened, however, to see so many developments of fairly dense housing going on-- so I'm hopeful that the statistics I've quoted will be much improved in 2010. I'm glad to see so much building going on in the warehouse district and the St. Anthony Main area. And while I wish I could afford to live there, I am not going to hold grudges against those who can. And although I'm not big on subsidizing development (preferring rent coupons and the like instead), I can say that I prefer to see housing built rather than stadiums and chain stores, even if the housing is not affordable to all. And let me just comment on rent coupons a bit further. What these would do is help prevent further lawsuits like Hollman by taking certain developments and, instead of requiring the developers to offer "affordable" housing units and all the red tape that goes with that (and I'm curious how well people think this actually works anyway), it allows residents to be able to afford to live where they choose, so that the promise of a truly mixed income rental population is much more likely to be a reality. As long as we're using tax money to attempt to manipulate the housing market, I think we should look at options that increase personal choice in housing, minimize bureaucracy, maximize family stability, and decentralize poverty. I think rent coupons does this better than any other proposed solution I've heard of. Just look at Mr. Goray's post about how can he get part of his duplex declared affordable housing. If his tenants qualify for that, they would qualify for rent coupons. His dilemma would be an open and shut case. Social engineering that gives immediate benefits to suppliers on the assumption that the suppliers will pass those benefits along to consumers is inherently less efficient than simply giving similar benefits directly to those consumers. It's an old technique called "cutting out the middle[person]." - -michael libby (cleveland/north mpls) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Michael C. Libby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> public key: http://www.ichimunki.com/public_key.txt web site: http://www.ichimunki.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9sKOW4ClW9KMwqnMRAsQzAJ0eJE3iOw5Z/XE9J4PFEmx6ah2OYwCfU36M Wtpt3L4wKz8wc3us8NSisCk= =WQSK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________ 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
