Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Parks, Minneapolis Public Schools, Density, Zoning, etc.
User avatar
VacantLuxuries
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 711
Joined: February 20th, 2015, 12:38 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby VacantLuxuries » July 16th, 2018, 8:28 am

It's bad enough on E Democracy Forums, I can't imagine how bad it is on Nextdoor.

On E Democracy, the first post about any meeting is generally a false story about how someone was barred from speaking or how someone from the city yelled at them, and a number of people get whipped up into a frenzy before someone with a more level headed firsthand account comes by to set the record straight.

According to E Democracy, there isn't a housing crisis at all because houses cost the same (on average, with inflation) as they did in 2003, so obviously that means everything can stay the way it is. "We are not Seattle" is a common refrain, while they parrot talking points from Seattle homeowners who, surprise surprise, think there isn't a housing crisis in Seattle either.

mplsmatt
Block E
Posts: 19
Joined: September 23rd, 2017, 11:01 am

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby mplsmatt » July 16th, 2018, 8:51 am

I've waded into a few Nextdoor conversations but less to argue my points and more to direct people to what's actually in the plan (as opposed to whatever apocalyptic scenario they've adopted). It has rarely seemed to make a difference to the posters, but I'm hopeful that another reader will actually go check out the links.

QuietBlue
Rice Park
Posts: 497
Joined: September 14th, 2012, 8:50 am

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby QuietBlue » July 16th, 2018, 9:42 am

billhelm wrote:
July 16th, 2018, 8:16 am
Ever since I got screwed on a real estate transaction during the downturn in 08, I've been very careful not to pin my financial future on my home and I think increasingly younger people will think of their homes not as a wealth vehicle but a place to live with a relatively fixed cost that may or may not increase in value over time. (and if it doesn't, have a backup plan). I know this is a foreign concept to a lot of boomers and even older gen x but I really think it's a better way to think about home ownership, and you get less stuck on NIMBYism as a part of your homeownership.
My attitude towards homeownership is the same as yours, having experienced the same thing.

That said, some of the opposition I've seen has been from younger, more recent homeowners too. I suspect there are a number of people out there who had to really stretch to buy their homes, and are now very worried about a drop in value (though it's probably an unfounded concern) or not being able to buy a home in a different part of the city if they want to move.

User avatar
VacantLuxuries
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 711
Joined: February 20th, 2015, 12:38 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby VacantLuxuries » July 16th, 2018, 9:52 am

I suspect there are a number of people out there who had to really stretch to buy their homes, and are now very worried about a drop in value (though it's probably an unfounded concern) or not being able to buy a home in a different part of the city if they want to move.
They shouldn't so much fear fourplexes as they should financial deregulation and trade wars... Buying at the top of the market while the people in charge are making decisions like its 1926 was always going to end poorly.

billhelm
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 167
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:59 am

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby billhelm » July 16th, 2018, 9:56 am

QuietBlue wrote:
July 16th, 2018, 9:42 am

My attitude towards homeownership is the same as yours, having experienced the same thing.

That said, some of the opposition I've seen has been from younger, more recent homeowners too. I suspect there are a number of people out there who had to really stretch to buy their homes, and are now very worried about a drop in value (though it's probably an unfounded concern) or not being able to buy a home in a different part of the city if they want to move.
I'm sure, I have friends and neighbors who probably think my view is crazy. However, I'm not a risk taker when it comes to my personal finances and I try to educate people that putting too much stock in your home appreciating at the crazy rates it has done so is a fools errand, regardless of what the comprehensive plan ends up being. It's a hard message to hear for those that have homes which have appreciated 100, 200 300% or more over the last 20-30 years and for whose home has become the centerpiece of their estate, and I also see how this could be tough for a recent homeowner who has most of their life savings thus far invested in a property that they probably paid too much for relative to their income.

What it comes down to, is it's hard for me to see how I will ever see eye to eye with these types of people with things like the comprehensive plan.

QuietBlue
Rice Park
Posts: 497
Joined: September 14th, 2012, 8:50 am

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby QuietBlue » July 16th, 2018, 10:17 am

VacantLuxuries wrote:
July 16th, 2018, 9:52 am
They shouldn't so much fear fourplexes as they should financial deregulation and trade wars... Buying at the top of the market while the people in charge are making decisions like its 1926 was always going to end poorly.
I agree. I doubt fourplexes will have much negative impact, if any. But people aren't always rational about things like this, and it's something that they feel they might be able to control or influence, as opposed to larger economic trends and international policy.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1748
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby amiller92 » July 16th, 2018, 10:26 am

min-chi-cbus wrote:
July 15th, 2018, 8:44 pm
I can see why people would be upset: thinking that their property will depreciate if/when the city allows a bunch of renters and absentee landlords put up four-plexus on their block.
Linden Hills and Kenwood aren't going get poor people. They're going to get slightly less affluent people who are happy to live in a luxury 2-4 unit building. What's that going to do to the value of existing home? Probably nothing? I can't say for sure.

minntransplant
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 133
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 7:44 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby minntransplant » July 16th, 2018, 11:05 am

amiller92 wrote:
July 16th, 2018, 10:26 am
min-chi-cbus wrote:
July 15th, 2018, 8:44 pm
I can see why people would be upset: thinking that their property will depreciate if/when the city allows a bunch of renters and absentee landlords put up four-plexus on their block.
Linden Hills and Kenwood aren't going get poor people. They're going to get slightly less affluent people who are happy to live in a luxury 2-4 unit building. What's that going to do to the value of existing home? Probably nothing? I can't say for sure.
True. Anything built in Linden Hills will be high end rentals or condos. At worst, there would be a small, short-term hit to valuation. But the idea that Linden Hills will *suddenly* become an unattractive, undesirable neighborhood such that values will plummet strikes me as wrong. Adding some density won't change the fact it is one of the most scenic and best situated places to live in the entire metro (especially if you have and like to spend money).

gpete
Union Depot
Posts: 335
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 9:33 am
Location: Seward, Mpls

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby gpete » July 16th, 2018, 12:05 pm

And for some of the complainers who are older and have lived in Linden Hills (for example) for a long time, the four plex proposal might actually allow them to sell their out-dated house for MORE money than they could currently, since a developer could turn it into four high-end condos instead of just one mansion.

User avatar
VacantLuxuries
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 711
Joined: February 20th, 2015, 12:38 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby VacantLuxuries » July 16th, 2018, 12:07 pm

That's one thing that seems to be completely lost on the hysterical side of this argument - there's an assumption that a single family home is owned and a fourplex is rented. Invitation Homes is clearly proving the former to be incorrect, and there's plenty of reason to think the latter won't be the case either.

gpete
Union Depot
Posts: 335
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 9:33 am
Location: Seward, Mpls

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby gpete » July 16th, 2018, 12:48 pm

It's also kind of funny to me because a lot of these Linden Hills folks also cry the loudest about property tax assessments and how much their homes are worth. It sounds like they're all convinced that frey-plexes will hurt property values, so that should actually be great news for them! [wink]

nordeast homer
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 692
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 11:11 am

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby nordeast homer » July 16th, 2018, 4:41 pm

I'm neither a fear monger, nor am I hysterical, but I do have reservations about allowing buildings of this size anywhere in the city. To be clear, I'm not in favor of tearing down and building mcmansions either.
I live in a neighborhood with several rental homes, apartments, many single family homes, and up until recently a mobile home park. I get the need for multi family affordable housing. Right now we have areas where these types of buildings are allowed, but aren't being built; why is that?
Let's look at ways to promote building them in these areas.
I'm even in favor of expanding the areas where these buildings can be built, but I don't like the idea of building them just anywhere. I think some areas of the city have lots that are too small to accommodate these buildings and other areas that don't make sense.
Mocking people that have fears about their home values isn't funny, for some people it's their only asset, my dad is one of those. Rather than blowing people like that off, maybe have an honest discussion with them, drop your defenses a little and show you're human side.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3804
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: The Gateway

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby Silophant » July 16th, 2018, 6:12 pm

"Buildings of this size" being 2.5 story buildings with no more than 0.5 FAR, which are already allowed anywhere in the city? Those are the massing rules for R1 and R2, and the vast majority of those zones are proposed to be Interior 1, which has the exact same massing rules. The only difference is that you could let two or three or four families live in these large houses, instead of only one.

User avatar
jtoemke
Landmark Center
Posts: 235
Joined: March 5th, 2015, 8:04 am
Location: Columbus OH

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby jtoemke » July 17th, 2018, 6:55 am

nordeast homer wrote:
July 16th, 2018, 4:41 pm
I live in a neighborhood with several rental homes, apartments, many single family homes, and up until recently a mobile home park. I get the need for multi family affordable housing. Right now we have areas where these types of buildings are allowed, but aren't being built; why is that?
Let's look at ways to promote building them in these areas.
I'm even in favor of expanding the areas where these buildings can be built, but I don't like the idea of building them just anywhere. I think some areas of the city have lots that are too small to accommodate these buildings and other areas that don't make sense.
Mocking people that have fears about their home values isn't funny, for some people it's their only asset, my dad is one of those. Rather than blowing people like that off, maybe have an honest discussion with them, drop your defenses a little and show you're human side.
One of the problems I've found in this field is that where apartments are allowed is often on our busiest, most traffic filled corridors which are often not very nice places to live (of course exceptions to this). Most people buying a single family home, which is arguably choosing your "ideal" living environment if you are willing to put up such a large investment, prefer not to live on such corridors, but just off of them.

There are many families with children that do rent and would rather not live on a busy street. Some who rent, like young professionals, have no problem with living on Lake Street. But a mom and her two kids might want an interior neighborhood place to rent or affordably own in a -plex. Quieter street, more places to play, but still accessible to the grocery and transit.

I think it's about giving more people access to the quieter interior zones without having to put up such a large sum of money to do so.

Just my thoughts.

gpete
Union Depot
Posts: 335
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 9:33 am
Location: Seward, Mpls

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby gpete » July 17th, 2018, 7:28 am

Nordeast, I wasn't meaning to be dismissive of ALL people who worry about home values. You're right, many people are really counting on the value of their homes for their financial security.

And I confess, I definitely lack empathy for some of the folks in Linden Hills, who live in one of the most desirable neighborhoods, and whose homes have gained incredible value. For example, I have friends who bought a house in Linden Hills for $70k in the early 1980s. It's now assessed at $450k by the city. They haven't done any meaningful upgrades or improvements in that time.

They complain about the taxes, they worry about renters coming in, but they have options due to the incredible value of their home. Those are the types of homeowners who I don't have much empathy for. They are sitting on a gold mine, and even if (If, if, if) their home values decrease a bit, they will be doing just fine.

hiawather
Metrodome
Posts: 55
Joined: February 28th, 2017, 2:10 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby hiawather » July 17th, 2018, 8:30 am

billhelm wrote:
July 16th, 2018, 8:16 am
I've muted all of it on Nextdoor at this point. The same half dozen people repeating the same same ill informed fear mongering talking points over and over. Ire over our council member who was easily voted in.
Yes, well, Nextdoor = "The same half dozen people repeating the same same ill informed fear mongering talking points over and over"

I'm amazed that even when people have to put their real names down, they still lie repeatedly and without apparent shame.

hiawather
Metrodome
Posts: 55
Joined: February 28th, 2017, 2:10 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby hiawather » July 17th, 2018, 8:45 am

I'm worried about my home value as well (it's my second largest chunk of wealth after my 401K) BUT if my neighborhood suddenly sprouted a bunch of 4-plexes it would ONLY have done so if my home value increased because the area was so desirable to live in. As the nay-sayers say (in a different context), "follow the money". Developers will not swarm into a neighborhood where values are already going down (because demand to live in the area is less than the supply)...it would not make economic sense. Only 'hot' or relatively desirable neighborhoods would face this kind of infill dense development. Pretty much the only situation where a neighborhood would see feverish development and then diminishing property values would be if the property values crashed due to broader economic forces that would have nothing to with whether or not the neighborhood saw the development.

Hot neighborhoods that spur the kind of development the 2040 plan allows might see a decrease in their rate of home value appreciation if/when more supply is added to the market via infill. For me, as someone whose wealth is significantly tied up in my home, that's a small price to pay to live in a community that is not de facto gated by economic considerations. I don't want to pull up the ladder and leave other people without the same opportunity to grow wealth (as a side benefit) from some sort of ownership that I had, and the fact is that if we maintain the status quo that's exactly what will happen by a matter of degrees. I look at this kind of density infill and property values similarly to how I view mass transit and traffic congestion: neither is going to turn either dynamic around on its own but both will lessen the rate of growth.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1748
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby amiller92 » July 17th, 2018, 9:03 am

Stop making sense, Hiawather.

billhelm
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 167
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:59 am

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby billhelm » July 17th, 2018, 10:48 am

hiawather wrote:
July 17th, 2018, 8:30 am
billhelm wrote:
July 16th, 2018, 8:16 am
I've muted all of it on Nextdoor at this point. The same half dozen people repeating the same same ill informed fear mongering talking points over and over. Ire over our council member who was easily voted in.
Yes, well, Nextdoor = "The same half dozen people repeating the same same ill informed fear mongering talking points over and over"

I'm amazed that even when people have to put their real names down, they still lie repeatedly and without apparent shame.
I've found it useful in the past for community building and picking up free/used items, however, when the naysayers drown everything else out, it becomes less useful.

hiawather
Metrodome
Posts: 55
Joined: February 28th, 2017, 2:10 pm

Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Postby hiawather » July 17th, 2018, 10:54 am

amiller92 wrote:
July 17th, 2018, 9:03 am
Stop making sense, Hiawather.
It's my way of trolling.


Return to “Minneapolis - General Topics and Citywide Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest