Michael Homann wrote: >>"Several members of the Planning Commission felt that public notification regarding these changes (to TMP & zoning) had been inadequate and we voted on more than one occasion to continue discussions at a later meeting while additional public comment was solicited."<<
Thank you Michael for attempting to include more public comment into discussions of changes that may so greatly impact neighborhoods and residents of Minneapolis. Unfortunately the Z&P Committee today did not allow for ANY public input or comment. Some of us had sat through 2 or 3 hours of meeting to get that opportunity. Could it have been because it would be automatically televised and the chair knew he had better get the train out of the station before the public and neighborhood people realized what was being pulled and hopped off. Only Councilperson Lillegren seemed to have any concern about having more citizen input into the process. Thank you Robert, I truly appreciate your concern and effort. What passed today was an attempt to lodge even greater power in the hands of City Council people and to more greatly dis-empower the public. Gosh, we had such high hopes for this City Council and the new Mayor, what happened? I have never been more upbeat about the City than I was one year ago, now I, and a lot of other people are so very disappointed. The people we worked so hard for, and contributed our money to, because they promised us "Community Based Planning" and neighborhood control of NRP and Empowerment, have slipped away into the same old mold. I get e-mails telling me people in many neighborhoods feel betrayed. I truthfully am at a loss when trying to figure out why. Most of us agree with creating housing, so why should the Council purposely alienate Neighborhoods? Former Councilperson Steve Minn nailed it when, after the Z&P meeting, he said he didn't understand why the Council didn't just put some language in that would protect "Impacted Neighborhoods" and not alienate them. Steve has helped draft some of the language to reward developers for building affordable housing and he understands that the place it is needed is in the outlaying "Fortress Neighborhoods". He also seems to not understand why the present council wants to make enemies of the very neighborhoods who started the affordable housing crusade. To bad Steve isn't still a City Council member. Him and Lisa McDonald sure do look good in comparison right about now. Some advice to the Council that came from Minn - use your housing initiative but add a section where "Impacted Neighborhoods" and only "Impacted Neighborhoods" shall have veto power over adding more affordable and supportive housing. Make some friends instead of enemies! The neighborhoods that have fought for affordable housing for over four years are now to be punished for their efforts? Well they say no good deed ever goes unpunished. Ventura Village has lobbied for and approved almost 800 units of mostly affordable housing without this Council's help. Three hundred units of it on Franklin and Portland were described in today's StarTribune. In reward for such long years of hard work, and doing more for affordable housing than any other neighborhood in Minneapolis, we in Ventura Village are rewarded by having the greatest concentration of supportive housing beds in any neighborhood in Minneapolis, and more are being planned. All we have to do is look up to see the Vultures circling. We are also rewarded by having the City Planning Commission, and some City Council Members, ignore neighborhood input on variances for one of their favorite sacred cow non-profits. Here is a secret for the present City Council, we in Ventura Village have gotten all the investment in housing we need, without you! Please help other neighborhoods with their multi-unit affordable housing. Try to get more investment in your "good" neighborhoods. You float the old lie that only by offering "affordable Housing" units can you get investment in impacted neighborhoods, but that ole dog don't hunt for you anymore. You have kicked us and put us up hungry one too many times. Tom Leighton City Planner says, "The City establishes as a goal that at least 50% of new City-produced affordable housing units will be in the areas of the city where it is presently lacking." Does this mean that already heavily impacted neighborhoods will be forced to accept at least 50%? Since it is just a goal, does this mean that "Impacted Neighborhoods" might have to accept 60 or 70%? Since you are making goals shouldn't the goal be 80% into none impacted areas where affordable housing is lacking? After all it is just a goal to shoot for, we know you don't really mean it. The members of the Z&P Committee well knows that the majority of the affordable and supportive housing will be forced into economically disadvantaged neighborhoods with high minority populations. The Council should at least be honest enough to admit this. The reason for weakening community input into the process is so the Council can be even more arbitrary in their decisions. It also means the Council can more easily stuff supportive housing into impacted neighborhoods. In today's discussions it was very clear the present Z&P Committee plans on changing the definition of what a supportive housing project is defined as, so as to more easily stuff more down the throats of the discriminated against neighborhoods. All of the present Council's interest seems to be in large multi-unit developments for favored developers. 80% of the actual affordable housing (affordable at 50% of median income or below) is provided by small rental property holders. The past administration attempted to tear it all down and the present administration is trying to "fix" the problem by giving money and benefits to large multi-unit rental property developers. Why not use the old model that actually provides affordable housing. The duplexes, triplexes, and accessory housing are what actually provide affordable housing. Large multi-unit developments only benefit the large developers and drive up the cost of housing. Also, what ever happened to "Affordable Home Ownership"? Everyone knows it is the best way to stabilize communities, stabilize families, and in the long run the most economical and empowering form of housing. Where is this Council on the creation of that housing? It appears they are nowhere even on the radar. Michael Homann also writes: >>"At our Oct. 21st meeting, the Planning Commission passed several proposed amendments to TMP, including added language (from Commissioner Bradley) intended to restrict the amount of affordable housing added to racially and economically impacted neighborhoods, and thereby disperse more affordable housing into non-impacted areas."<< I was correct Michael; Z&P gutted Randal Bradley's language, without even a pretension of an alternative. In doing so Z&P seems to be giving notice that they intend to continue the pattern of discrimination against racially and economically impacted neighborhoods. The spirit of the Holman Decree seems to be like the spirit of Christmas Past, just a fairy tale! Hopefully the Council's Committee of the Whole will amend the Z&P action so as to solve some of these problems. Lisa Goodman did set a nifty trap for RT Rybak, so he would shoulder the blame instead of the Council. She asked that RT and his staff make the recommendations to remove or not remove the 1/4 mile rule on supportive housing, if he wanted it. If RT falls for the bait the Council can say it just gave RT what he wanted, so they are not to be blamed. Cute move that had me smiling. Jim Graham, Ventura Village - and a state of depression after watching today's happenings. _______________________________________ 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
