I've been reading some very interesting posts from list members concerning proposed changes to the Minneapolis Plan (TMP) and the zoning code in areas dealing with affordable and supportive housing. Conspiracy theories abound and 'facts' seem elusive. I appreciated seeing the Mayor post on the subject about a week ago, offering links to appropriate documents, and seeking comments and discussion. I've read good comments/critiques by list members and I've heard comments from people that have addressed the issues before the Planning Commission.
In general, the proposed changes are aimed at simplifying TMP and relevant zoning in an effort to make it easier to develop/build/occupy affordable housing and support services within the city, given the current fiscal dilemma, which continues to worsen. Mention was made of Randall Bradley's proposed language to TMP (at a recent Planning Commission mtg) that would effectively restrict construction of affordable units in racially and economically impacted neighborhoods-- actually by census tract. His language was reflective of some testimony received by the Planning Commission, indicating that some impacted communities do not want more 'affordable' units-- they want market rate units. They feel they have enough subsidized units in their neighborhoods. Similar thoughts have been expressed on this list in recent days. Commissioner Bradley's language was narrowly approved by the Planning Commission late at night, in what I would call a vote of political expediency. The restrictive language was moved/approved, subject to modification, so that the overall material could be moved forward in the process, with Commission concerns included per the Bradley language, possibly to be refined by staff at a later date. It was suggested that the originally proposed language was too weak and generalized, and would simply result in more concentrated poverty in certain neighborhoods. We've all experienced the effects of historic development that concentrated poverty, the ancillary busing of school kids, the move to community schools, the recent poverty-deconcentration efforts that helped lead to the current housing shortage (Hollman), and now more discussion on how to improve the situation. The City has been debating the need for affordable housing and development strategies for years now. I think it's important to keep the process moving forward at the Planning Commission and at other levels of city government. Commissioner Bradley's language and the other proposed changes (to TMP & zoning) now goes to the Z&P Committee and then to the City Council. I've discussed the matter (restrictive language) with several City Council members and they do not seem sympathetic-- undoubtedly for many varied reasons. I expect the restrictive language to be stripped by Z&P before reaching the full Council, with the originally proposed unrestricted language being reinserted. Due to time constraints, I'll just throw out some relevant thoughts here: In general, many Council members do not want to have their hands tied regarding development potential associated with affordable housing and mixed-use, mixed-income projects in their respective Wards and neighborhoods... an understandable concern. Typical developments would include 20-30 percent affordable units mixed with market rate; and the housing component would often be included in a larger development that includes new businesses and jobs. Various bonus incentives are offered in an effort to make it financially feasible for a developer to include the 'lower-rent' units to the maximum extent possible. These incentive bonuses (i.e. building allowances for including mixed-use, underground parking, etc.) are intended to allow the builder to get more income-producing property into a given development as incentive for including the lower-rent units-- this in lieu of higher cash subsidies from the city. The incentives allow the city and the developer to do more with less public funding. This is a key consideration all parties should keep in mind. If restrictive language (Bradley's or other substitute) is included to limit the development of affordable housing in impacted neighborhoods, the likely result will be that less affordable housing gets built over the next five years in Mpls. This is due to a number of factors, the main ones being real estate costs in various neighborhoods around town, and local opposition by nearby neighborhood residents. Personally, I feel the restrictive language and less affordable housing overall, is a justifiable trade-off in order to disperse affordable/supportive developments more equitably around town. As usual, the devil's in the details. Currently, some housing development projects that include affordable units, can't get all the required units into the given development for one reason or another-- with some of the affordable units being allocated elsewhere-- to another project sometime in the future (an affordable housing fund with locations, etc., to be determined in the future). I see this as a potentially problematic development strategy-- where will this pool of affordable units end up being located? At a minimum, I'd suggest that mixed-income housing developments that include 20-30 percent affordable units, proposed in non-impacted neighborhoods, not be allowed to re-allocate any of those affordable units elsewhere. If the development is proposed for an impacted neighborhood, then some of the affordable units could be re-allocated to other, non-impacted areas. This concept could substitute for Bradley's language in a compromise, less-restrictive fashion aimed at supporting greater dispersion of affordable housing throughout the city. There are undoubtedly many possible scenarios that could be used to achieve the more-dispersion goal... something for planners and Council members to work out-- unless the issue gets returned to the Planning Commission for further review. I think the important thing to remember (as TMP, zoning and the focus restructuring efforts evolve and move forward), is to keep our eyes on the prize... the overall goal(s), and develop strategies that are effective in reaching those goals in an expeditious, cost-effective manner that also includes social goals in the equation, rather than just succumbing to political expediency, lack of innovation and resolve. At this late date, I'd urge folks with strong feelings and sound ideas to contact their City Council members and the Mayor directly. Michael Hohmann Linden Hills Member, Minneapolis Planning Commission _______________________________________ 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
