> on May 20, Shawn Christenson wrote : >> ... I, too, live near the lock and dam and, with yet another condo building going up outside my window, I have unfortunately come to the conclusion that it isn't appreciation for the river as a "wonderful natural amenity" but an appreciation for the property taxes these high priced condos will bring to the City that the river serves these days. ... >> ( http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2004-May/032839.html )
. [ds] I doubt that the installation, or non-installation, of Crown Hydro would have any impact on the downtown riverfront real estate market. Likewise, I doubt if the removal, or non-removal, of the locks and dams in Mpls would have much of an impact on the market. However, higher real estate prices are paid for views of water, and removal of the dams would probably reduce condo views of the river water. Removing the dams would restore the river ecology to a much more natural state, but would cause a lower and narrower river. Local condo owners and real estate investers may be against the removal of the locks and dams for this reason. I have no financial investment in riverfront real estate, and am disturbed that some people would decide to be against the restoration of the river just because it may raise nearby property values. My interest is in improving an aesthetic and natural treasure for the sake of ecological restoration and also for the enjoyment of all people rich and poor. I can not afford to live on Lake Harriet, Lake Calhoun or Minnehaha Creek, but I sure see a lot of low income people enjoying the public park lands on these bodies of water. I can appreciate Shawn's concerns that low and moderate income people may be displaced by the current high priced downtown riverfront condo/loft market. Different neighborhoods around the urban area go through real estate market ups and downs for various reasons. Previous middle income areas have transformed into low income areas, and conversely, other areas have changed from low income into middle or upper income. Changes happen and take on a life of their own, but we should still be concerned as to what extent public policy has an effect on the process. Many get concerned when a middle income area is changing into a low income area, and there are calls for revitalization and redirection. Many get concerned when a low income area is changing into a middle or upper income area, and there are calls to stop gentrification and displacement of the poor. I would sure like to think that there are ways to have livable, friendly, sustainable mixed income neighborhoods. The twin cities is reported to be one of the most, if not the most, segregated large urban areas in the nation. Income segregation is closely related to racial segregation. Is there public policy that can help to mix more low income people into middle and upper income neighborhoods? And are there ways to mix more middle income people into low income neighborhoods? Dave Stack Harrison REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
