Uptown Hotel Discussion

[grant1simons2]

I just think we need to fix the fact that young people, like me, feel like they can't speak up for the issues in their neighborhoods. When I was in the hallway outside the chambers I heard some very nasty things said about people I know personally. I heard crazy conspiracies such as, Lisa Bender is being paid by developers. And that the people on the planning commission don't even live in the city. If I were someone who was just going to this meeting to see what public hearings are all about, I'd just be shocked. It would make me not want to come to the meetings again because of the toxicity of my neighbors. I wouldn't want to to be pointed at and laughed at. I wouldn't want to hear whispers of people telling me I'm wrong or shaking their heads in disgust. I want a fair and respectful system.

[FISHMANPET]

The center of all those is that people be required to physically gather at a single place at a single time. Do I have to spell it out for YOU?

All these meetings require an immense investment of time. Well off people, who will generally be whiter than average, can do this easily. They'll have jobs that let them leave early to attend meetings, or may be retired so have nothing but free time. A poor person who woprks multiple jobs or odd irregular shifts cannot reliably carve out the free time to attend these meetings. A single parent would need to hire a babysitter, requiring an actual monetary cost. You also have to speak the correct language. I mean, are you insane? You think a system that is so obviously biased to favor those with the most privilege is basically a good one? You're suggesting ideas that might make the meetings marginally better, but at the core you appear to still think that a community meeting is the best form of public engagement, and just needs to be tweaked rather than scrapped.

Unless you can convince me that public meetings somehow aren't exclusionary to the marginalized groups whose voices are most desperately needed in this process, I'm going to be continue to believe that you are in favor of further marginalizing marginalized groups, which brings your entire portfolio of social justice work and motivations into question. Do you earnestly believe this current process is fundamentally a good one for marginalized groups?

[David Greene]

In response to Grant:

The role of the chair is to keep the discussion fair and respectful. In my experience, neighborhood chairs are far too wimpy or outright hostile to the idea that they are responsible for making sure all voices are heard.

No one can really help hallway conversations but I totally agree that once in the room, a strong hand is needed to guide things.

In the end, in any community process, people have to show up. It takes real courage to use your voice. That's why organizing matters.

[David Greene]

The center of all those is that people be required to physically gather at a single place at a single time.

And I have repeatedly agreed that that is a problem. Hence my reference to John's ideas.

The question is, how do we get there and what do we do in the meantime?

Remember, you're talking to the guy that has said, repeatedly and publicly at public transit meetings, that public transit meetings need to be accessible by transit and at times convenient for 2nd/3rd shift working people.

[FISHMANPET]

Yet you still advocated for meetings as if the fundamental concept of meetings wasn't the problem, rather than their implementation.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[grant1simons2]

Uh this wasn't at a neighborhood meeting, this was at city hall. I saw Linden Hills folks literally pointing and laughing at chair Brown while he was on TV in the halls, saying he doesn't do anything but keep things in line. They claimed he is working against the neighborhoods by giving them too little time. They called Magrino and Rockwell unqualified for their positions.

When I was actually inside the chambers I saw a lot of head shaking and a woman trying to loudly whisper to staff saying "you're wrong, you're wrong".

[David Greene]

Yet you still advocated for meetings as if the fundamental concept of meetings wasn't the problem, rather than their implementation.

Holding a physical meeting doesn't preclude other structures to gather community input. Maybe for some people, an actual physical meeting is the only way they can/are best able to participate. Why would we close off that avenue or participation?

[Anondson]

Ah, the heckler's veto. So classy.

[Condo_Dweller]

My neighbor went to the Whittier meeting after I encouraged him to attend. He's never been to one of these before. He was upset that it was not well managed and that it was 2 1/2 hours long, people arguing, and being asses. My neighbor is a guy who works nights and just happened to have the evening off. How can we encourage neighbors to attend this stuff when this happens?

Boards need strong board chairs who conduct the meetings well and keep things humming.

[Chef]

I would love to attend Whittier meetings but I work nights so they always conflict with my schedule. There are a huge number of restaurant industry people living in Whittier but we are essentially cut out of the process because we are always at work when the meetings happen. Most of us are renters too, so the fact that the system is predicated on the idea that everybody works 9-5 Mon-Fri biases the results towards the interests of homeowners.

The current system is profoundly undemocratic because it presumes an equality of free time.

[TroyGBiv]

What would the difference be between the interests of home owners versus renters?

[Wedgeguy]

What would the difference be between the interests of home owners versus renters?

While many home owners would possibly have a spare room for guests, renters do not. Having a hotel that is close by or walking distance away from where you live would be much more convenient than shipping guests downtown or the burbs over night. Closest hotel I can think of is the Midway Sheraton and that hotel is quite busy with the Abbott/Northwestern guests of patients and many times it full when you want a room.

[TroyGBiv]

What would the difference be between the interests of home owners versus renters?

While many home owners would possibly have a spare room for guests, renters do not. Having a hotel that is close by or walking distance away from where you live would be much more convenient than shipping guests downtown or the burbs over night. Closest hotel I can think of is the Midway Sheraton and that hotel is quite busy with the Abbott/Northwestern guests of patients and many times it full when you want a room.

I was asking this based on Chef's comment. I am not sure what the difference is between renters and home owners interests are ... I have been both here in Whittier and I my interests haven't changed from one status to another.

[FISHMANPET]

Homeowners in general have an interest in keeping property values high while renters in general have an interest in keeping rents low. Property values and rents are at least a little bit related, so there's a conflict there.

[thatchio]

I think homeowners vs renter perspectives often are proxy for other issues. For example, in my stint on the CARAG board around 2005, a large percentage of home owners who spoke at meetings tended to be against certain business license proposals or development proposals with a lot more comments about parking and noise impacts. They tended to be people older than the renters who showed up and spoke up, who also tended to support those requests, usually for ideological compatibility or because they saw it as an added area amenity.

Either way, we should all strive to say what we really mean.

[TroyGBiv]

Renters come and go and they don't care about their neighborhood but homeowners have to live with bad developments for many years to come? Maybe? I hear the arguments here but I have to say that I am not sure I buy any of them. I own but I love the variety of renters on my block. I think renters want affordable apartments but I am not sure that homes owners really play a big role in that unless they block affordable developments... This might be the case... but then it falls apart when it comes to this hotel issue... The home owners may not want a big hotel on their block but this position does not seem to affect a renters point of view... anyways... I think thatchio is right - we should all strive to say what we really mean... And the renters versus owners seems like it might be about something else...

[FISHMANPET]

In this case, a lot of it is crusty old people who want all the car convenience of Blaine while still being in the middle of it all (as long as it doesn't get too loud...) versus people who understand what Uptown actually is.

When you've got people making arguments that Lake St isn't actually a commercial corridor, what the hell do you do with that?

As to the original question about homeowners vs renters? The system is setup to favor a certain kind of person who tends to have a lot of free time in the evenings. Because of a whole host of things that I cant't really unpack when I'm typing with one hand, those people tend to be homeowners. The people the process excludes tend to be renters. I think it's hard to pin down a single reason why these organizations end up serving homeowners. Perhaps in the broadest sense, homeowners feel like they're protecting an investment, be it financial or emotional or whatever, and they do that by keeping things the way they are. Renters are certainly invested in a neighborhood, just not in the same way, and I think generally in a way where new things don't threaten that investment.

I will say that, in general, I think the renter/pro side tends to say what they really mean, and the anti everything homeowners say all sorts of things but I don't really think they're usually being open an honest about what they're saying. Look at this comment:

What are the odds this is a genuine concern vs a scare tactic?

[Wedgeguy]

All this now is kind of a mute issue. The city council passed this building did it not? Also they really have very weak legs to stand on as far as a lawsuit. The small area plan is not set in concrete, but a development tool. No one will be deprived of any sun, If Lake Street is not considered a commercial cooridr then there are no commercial cooridors in the city. The apartments on the greenway already block out 95 % of the views towards downtown, if they get that silly.

As far as the stores go, that is a market force. The rent is in those tenants sweet spot. Also some of those that were claimed have been here for a number of years anyway in some form or another.

[Silophant]

The Planning Commission approved the project, but opponents can, and undoubtedly will, appeal to the full council. I'm not sure how common it is to have this kind of decision overturned, though.

[Chef]

I think homeowners are more invested in keeping the neighborhood as it is because when they made the decision to buy, it was the neighborhood that existed then that spurred them to buy. Change is viewed skeptically because it is a threat to the lifestyle they thought they were buying and also their investment.

Renters are more mobile, which makes them less tied to a particular spot. Usually though, they stay within Minneapolis (or St Paul) as they move around so they are more likely to prioritize the dynamism of the city as a whole because they see the city though the prism of the whole rather than from their own little patch of it. Also, one group wants higher property values while the other wants lower rents. The nature of home ownership tends to make people change averse, while renters are more likely to embrace it.

There is a notion among homeowners that renters aren't invested, which is false, they are invested but in different ways.