Many listmembers are aware of the controversy over the Block E development a few months ago in which the developers didn't quite deliver what the public (who subsidized it) thought had been agreed on. While on a different scale, there is an emerging problem with a big development in northeast Minneapolis in which similar dynamics seem to be at play.
Anyone driving up University Avenue in Northeast will notice the large Bottineau Commons housing development now under construction by Sherman Associates on the former Rainbow/Jubilee Foods site. A 119 unit apartment building is being built as part of a 184 unit development that will include townhomes and lofts. The developer received coveted "TIF" district designation as part of the financing deal. Just to the south of the Jubilee site, parallel to 18th Ave. NE, runs a long-abandoned former Northern Pacific branch line rail corridor. There is a well-established plan to develop a bike trail along this city-owned corridor, running from the river and connecting, via some street running, to the Quarry and bike trails that continue to points east. This is in the city bike plan, meshes well with the Upper River Master Plan as a feeder trail, and has received past support from our 3rd Ward councilmember. Neighborhood groups and an inter-neighborhood bike task force have worked hard to make this 18th Ave. bike path a reality. When the Bottineau Commons project was in the planning stages the city agreed to let them use part of the corridor but with the stipulation that the bike path be incorporated into the plan. Specific maps and plans were presented and approved by a normal citizen review process that showed adequate room being provided for the bike path. But now, if you compare the plans that were presented to the community to what is being constructed, it is obvious that Sherman Associates has seriously encroached on the land that is meant for the bike path. A staffperson at Public Works, when informed of this by residents, took a look and agreed that what is being built is very different from what was proposed. He reportedly thinks there is now "just barely" enough room to squeeze in the bike path right along the south side of the building. What this means, however, is that the bike path will be right outside the windows of the lower floor apartments of the development--literally within a couple feet. This will not be a good situation for either bikers or residents. In fact, bike path proponents are worried that future residents, once they realize how close the path will be to their units, will try to stop its development. Or that Sherman Associates will further encroach in a way that will prohibit development of the path at all. This raises a few questions which the city (city council?, MCDA?, Planning?, Public Works?) and the developer need to answer: What were the exact written terms of the agreement allowing Sherman Associates to use part of the former rail corridor for their development? Why was this change made and who in the city, if anyone, approved allowing Sherman Associates to encroach into the proposed bike path area? Is there a written copy of this approval available to the public? Why were the neighborhood groups who approved the original plan not informed in advance of these changes? If the city did not approve this change, why has Sherman Associates been allowed to proceed in this manner? Who is supposed to be providing the oversight for this city-subsidized development? Should Sherman Associates just be allowed to do this without any penalty? Will Sherman Associates disclose in advance to potential occupants of their ground floor south side units at Bottineau Commons that a bike path is to be built right outside their (bedroom? bathroom? living room?) windows? Perhaps renters will want this reflected in the price of their units? Or maybe, as a good faith measure, Sherman Associates should go ahead and construct the bike path along their portion of the corridor now so that it is obvious to all potential occupants what the situation is before they move in? Is anyone willing to come forward and admit they are responsible for this? After the Block E fiasco I don't think anyone wants to hear MCDA blaming Planning, Planning blaming someone else, etc. etc. OK, this isn't the biggest issue in the world but it still is important to those who have spent time developing the bike path proposal and who want to see better biking options in Northeast. Worse still, it seems to be symbolic of deeper governance problems in our city. Certain favored developers (who also tend to be big campaign supporters of key incumbent city/county elected officials) seem to easily avoid being called to account when something like this happens. Sherman Associates may find, however, that they have lost some needed credibility when they start making promises about how "neighborhood friendly" their proposed Cub Foods development on Central Avenue development would be. Bruce Shoemaker Holland Neighborhood/NE Mpls _______________________________________ 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
