I am happy to see that Sherman Associates is willing to respond to my earlier post on this list.
First, Sherman Associates' view of the role of the Northeast CDC is incorrect. The nine neighborhoods that have agreed to participate have in no way indicated that they are giving up their own citizen review rights and responsibilities as part of joining the CDC. Where did this supposed "authorization" of the CDC to take on the citizen review component of the Cub/Sherman proposal come from? It certainly did not come from the neighborhood organizations. To my knowledge none of the neighborhood groups has ever been informed of any such authorization. Holland neighborhood already had one community meeting in September regarding Cub and it attracted over 100 attendees, the vast majority of whom expressed strong opposition to the idea of a Cub Foods at the proposed site. The developer declined to attend that meeting and the proposal was basically presented by CM Ostrow. Following that meeting HNIA assumed the developer would be in contact to arrange a follow-up meeting/presentation but the developer has yet to make any direct contact to HNIA, Windom Park or other potentially impacted neighborhoods. Instead, the proposal has been presented to the CDC. There are strong elements within the NECDC that apparently do see themselves as a "parent organization" for the neighborhood groups. But they are assuming this role themselves, this has never been agreed to be any of the participating neighborhood groups. If the CDC continues to try to assume such a role they are going find very quickly that they are going to lose whatever neighborhood support they now have. There are a number of factors relating to the current CDC structure that allow a small group to control much of the NECDC agenda, even though they for the most part are not the elected neighborhood representatives. (I will save the specifics of this for a future post). This issue is of increasing concern to a number of the neighborhood groups involved in the NECDC. There appears to be a need to make more formal agreements between NECDC and the neighborhood groups on what their respective roles are to be. I will assume the best intentions of Sherman Associates--that they were unaware of these dynamics and accidently got caught up in this controversy rather than that they intentionally bypassed neighborhood groups in favor or a more amenable organizaton. The first proposals of the CDC for the citizen review process suggested a format that would have resulted in a developer-funded and potentially biased presentation in favor of the project and would not have allowed for alternatives to be presented. In fact, HNIA has been working on a development concept for this block for over a year and already has conceptual drawing prepared and developers interested in a possible housing and commercial development project for that block that may be vastly preferable to the Cub proposal (details later). I also understand there is another proposal as well. But the initial CDC format would not have provided any opportunity to present any alternatives to Cub. I understand that, faced with serious expressions of concern from several neighborhood representatives, that the CDC is now going to re-think all of this. Secondly, regarding the affordable housing issue, what exactly does Sherman Associates mean by not wanting to replace "formal" affordable housing? Does "formal" affordable housing have to have been designated as such when it was built? This would rule out the vast majority of the Northeast housing stock--much of which consists of older homes and apartment buildings. If Sherman Associates is really committed to increasing the supply of affordable housing in Minneapolis, doesn't it seem incredibly wasteful to tear down 25 units of "informal" affordable housing in order to build 37 units, an unknown percentage of which will be "formal" affordable housing? These 25 units do not appear to be in bad shape. If US Bank is ready to sell, why not look at alternatives for housing and commercial development on that site only rather than taking out the whole rest of the block? I am convinced that if a discussion occurs at which all such options are on the table (rather than a rushed process of trying to get the Cub proposal approved as quickly as possible)a viable proposal for the redevelopment of the US Bank site can be found which would be much less controversial, provide much more impact for any subsidies required, and have the overwhelming support of our neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. Bruce Shoemaker Holland neighborhood/NE Mpls > --__--__-- > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:46:43 -0800 (PST) > From: Dave Harstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Mpls] Cub Food on Central, Sherman responds > > Forwarded on behalf of Allison Brueggemann, Assistant > Project Manager at Sherman Associates: > > Sherman Associates, Inc. would like to reply to the > e-mail sent out by Bruce Shoemaker of the Holland > Neighborhood on Thursday, November 7. We want to > clarify assumptions made by Mr. Shoemaker in regard to > our proposed project on Central Avenue. > > First of all, and most importantly, Sherman > Associates, Inc. has no desire to go forth with this > proposed project without the neighborhoods' support. > We are an organization that works with neighborhoods > on a matter of principal and practicality. We have no > desire to force unwanted projects on neighborhoods. > To do so would require us to break one of our > company's most important goals, which is to revitalize > the city in ways that are appealing, suiting and > practical for its citizens. Furthermore, acting > against the wishes of the neighborhoods would only > create innumerous difficulties and barriers, which > would make a project impossible to develop. > > Sherman Associates, Inc. has been working with the > Northeast Community Development Corporation to reach > out to the neighborhoods and hear their opinions about > the proposed project because it is our understanding > that this organization was established to represent > the many neighborhoods of Northeast Minneapolis and > its planning goals. It is our understanding that > going through the Northeast CDC, who has the > authorization to put together public forums to discuss > the proposed project, is the appropriate process. We > are trying to work within the framework Northeast has > set up. Does it not make sense to use an organization > that represents all of the neighborhoods and reach as > many neighbors as possible at once? > > This proposed project, whose current design includes a > Cub Foods store, small commercial retail space, and > housing units, is in the very beginning stages of the > planning and development process. We are trying to > ascertain whether there is support within the > neighborhoods for this proposed project as is. If > there is not, perhaps the proposed project can be > altered to suit neighborhood goals better, or the > proposed project can be dropped completely. We are > not at the planning stage right now to provide figures > for cost. Nor are we at the stage to have had > discussions with "relevant city departments" about the > proposed project. Once again, we wish to stress that > this proposed project is in the very early stages of > planning. It is only an idea at this stage. If and > when the neighborhoods decide they would like to > support the proposed project, financing and other > issues will be openly addressed. > > Lastly, we would like to address the statements > regarding the affordability of our housing projects. > (We cannot respond to affordability of the VOA project > at 19th and Central because we are not the developers > of this project, but we would like to clarify the > affordability of the Bottineau Commons Apartments on > University Avenue.) Out of the 119 apartment units in > that building, twenty-five of those apartments are > fixed at rental rates affordable to families earning > 30% or less of median income. On the other hand, 25 > of those apartments will be rented at market rate. > The remaining sixty-nine apartments are fixed at rates > which are affordable to families earning 60% of median > income or less. > > Sherman Associates creates and develops its housing > projects with a mixed income model, as exemplified by > Bottineau Commons, because we find it is the strongest > and most appropriate social model there is. How > affordable the thirty-seven housing units of the > proposed project on Central Avenue has not been > thoroughly discussed as of yet. Sherman Associates > would certainly never replace formal affordable > housing with market rate housing. This would, again, > go against one of our company's most important goals, > which is to increase the number of quality affordable > housing units available in the Twin Cities and other > metro areas. If we were to go ahead with the proposed > project, we would endeavor to make these housing units > as affordable as possible. And this is where any > public subsidies would go, to subsidize the cost of > the housing. Not to the Cub Foods store. We welcome > any responses and questions. > > Yours truly, > Alison Brueggemann Assistant Project Manager > Sherman Associates, Inc. > _______________________________________ 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
