rpgoldman stated:
Actually, those buildings are all in a different neighborhood, on the
North and West of the lake and don't put stresses on the CARAG
neighborhood (my old neighborhood). I can't speak to the issues of
the neighborhood where those buildings are, but it just isn't the same
one as the new development.
Nick Reponds:
The neighborhood that the Lagoon project is actually in, approved the
project as did its council member. I would think that more wieght should
have been given to their judgement but clearly that has not been the case.
I have a few questions for opponents of this project and other like it (I'm
looking at you Loring Park):
How does the denial of this project serve the public interest of the greater
city?
Could someone pleases explain why a tall building with allowable density
(which can be demonstrated to result in less shadowing than a bulkier,
shorter building) is such a bad thing on a parking lot?
To the extent people argue that it is the character (surely a subjective
thing at best) that would be impacted I would like to know why the character
of a parking lot is considered more desireably than a 13 story building?
For example the MacDonalds is less than 13 stories but I can't imagine that
is what people are talking about when they refer to character.
What justification does the city council have for intentionally keeping a
business and potential residents from locating here in a time that the city
is in financial distress? (that is the known direct result of their actions)
How does the city council plan to make up the difference in tax revenues
that would have been generated under the original proposal and the project
that actually gets built (if any)? If the office component is scaled back
that is a significant reduction in property tax revenues due to the higher
rate offices pay. The only real options would be to raise property taxes or
somehow get more state aid (unlikely at best)
Density is going to have to precede transit in this city (political
reality). To the extent we will not support major increases in density to
increase potential ridership and clustering of uses, how can we justify
transit investment to the legistlature? If we cannot convice the
legislature that there is sufficient reason currently to invest in expanded
transit, what actions are we taking to demonstrate that there is or soon
will be reason? I don't think its a reasonable strategy to hang our hopes
on a dramatic shift in leadership ideology at the state level to help us
out.
I look forward to your responses.
Sincerely,
Nick Frank
Elliot Park
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
