Re: Robbinsdale, Crystal & New Hope – General Topics
Posted: August 22nd, 2016, 7:44 pm
A smallish Aldi would seem to fit Robbinsdale well and not be a massive box.
Architecture, Development, and Infrastructure of the Twin Cities
https://urbanmsp.com/
People have wanted a decent grocery store at that location since Rainbow closed. It's a good spot for one. But it doesn't need to come at the expense of the Terrace Theater.So where are the developers clamoring to build a small grocery store? Where are the residents asking for one? Since I doubt residents will pay for something more upscale than Cub, it would have to be cheaper than Cub which is going to be hard to do in a small store (except for apparently Trader Joes.
Right on.Friends of the Terrace group has retained the same lawyer who prevented destruction of Peavey Plaza to file a counter lawsuit halting demolition of the Terrace: http://www.startribune.com/as-robbinsda ... 391110101/
Yeah, and I hadn't previously look at the actual complaint/statute/decision and assumed it was a stretch to interpret it as applicable. Turns out it wasn't.False dichotomy. It was a democratic process which created the historic preservation laws in the first place.
Checks and balances. This is one of those "majority rule, minority rights" type situations. While it is the general ideal, I don't believe every aspect of every process needs to be democratic, and architectural preservation is one of those processes. The majority has had their say, and without a preservation process, we would see a lot more "destruction by mob rule" by people who don't care about any structure or thing more than 30 years old.But you still have an undemocratic preservation process that can't be overturned by the democratically elected government. Which is not really a good thing.
No, it isn't. There's no minority right being protected with preservation. "Liking old stuff" isn't a protected class, nor should it be.This is one of those "majority rule, minority rights" type situations.
No, it isn't. There's no minority right being protected with preservation. "Liking old stuff" isn't a protected class, nor should it be.This is one of those "majority rule, minority rights" type situations.
Historic preservation law IS a balance on a check. Without it, property owners who don't give a damn about art, history, etc. would cause far more notable buildings to fall -- with Penn Station being the epitome of this. We need historic preservation laws. Once a location has been deemed historic, I would expect that it be difficult to remove a designation unless there is a damn good reason for it. Similarly, I expect Constitutional Amendments to also be difficult (if not impossible) to undo.Also, it's the opposite of checks and balances. Minnesota law apparently says there is no check on a historical resource designation once in place.
That would be odd. It is also odd that we apparently protect it now with no override by democratically elected government.It seems odd that we would not protect and respect notable architecture.
Checks and balances usually refers to limits on government power. You're talking about a limit on private property rights. Government action that takes away private rights is exactly what's supposed to be subject to checks and balances.Historic preservation law IS a balance on a check. Without it, property owners who don't give a damn about art, history, etc. would cause far more notable buildings to fall
Okay, tell me how it gets removed where Minnesota law apparently allows a court to override the democratically elected city government from doing so?Once a location has been deemed historic, I would expect that it be difficult to remove a designation unless there is a damn good reason for it.
You didn't just equate non-democratic historical designation with a Constitutional Amendment, did you? Also, you know that there is an express procedure for amending the constitution? What's the procedure for de-designating a historic resource under Minnesota law?Similarly, I expect Constitutional Amendments to also be difficult (if not impossible) to undo.
The "democratically elected government" wouldn't override that. A city government has no place determining whether or not a building gets listed or de-listed from the National Register, nor should it.That would be odd. It is also odd that we apparently protect it now with no override by democratically elected government.It seems odd that we would not protect and respect notable architecture.
Any decent organization or process has checks and balances -- not just government. Historic preservation of notable architecture is a balance on a check of "private property rights" as it recognizes that there are certain instances when a private property owner may not act in the best interest of his property, and that certain property deserves to be preserved and protected.Checks and balances usually refers to limits on government power. You're talking about a limit on private property rights. Government action that takes away private rights is exactly what's supposed to be subject to checks and balances.Historic preservation law IS a balance on a check. Without it, property owners who don't give a damn about art, history, etc. would cause far more notable buildings to fall
No, I did not equate them. Again, it is an analogy-- an example to provide a point of comparison for a specific trait.You didn't just equate non-democratic historical designation with a Constitutional Amendment, did you? Also, you know that there is an express procedure for amending the constitution? What's the procedure for de-designating a historic resource under Minnesota law?Similarly, I expect Constitutional Amendments to also be difficult (if not impossible) to undo.
...and that separate issue should be discussed on a separate thread apart from Robbinsdale development, no?I get that you like this property, and that I suffer from never having seen it in anything but its shuttered state, but that should be a separate issue from whether this system makes any sense.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (September 13, 2016) – Friends of the Historic Terrace had their day in court on Tuesday as the hearing to decide the fate of the Historic Terrace Theater in Robbinsdale was heard by Hennepin County District Judge Michael Browne. Friends of the Historic Terrace, a small grass roots group of predominantly Robbinsdale residents asked the court for a temporary restraining order to halt demolition of the 65 year old theatre.
Friends of the Historic Terrace filed a MERA (Minnesota Environmental Rights Act) lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court on August 23 against property owner Brixmor to save the Historic Terrace Theater from demolition. Judge Browne has taken the case under advisement and is expected to issue his decision within a week. Friends of the Terrace are seeking donations to help pay for legal costs at their website terracefriends.org.
The City of Robbinsdale’s Economic Development Authority (REDA), was not listed as a defendant in this case, yet last week chose to jump into the lawsuit by filing a motion asking Friends of the Historic Terrace for a $3.5 million dollar bond to “protect the public interest”.
Friends attorney Erik Hansen said in court Tuesday that this was the first case he was aware of where a city has come to court to advocate for the destruction of a historic building. And that the bond requests by the City ($3.5 Million) and by Brixmor ($3.2 Million) totaling nearly $7 Million dollars was in direct conflict with the intent of MERA. Hansen explained that the Legislature’s intention in passing MERA was to encourage citizens who lack financial resources to challenge development that would destroy natural, historic and cultural resources.
Hansen also pointed out that by advocating for demolition of the theater, a historic and cultural resource, the city through its REDA was in violation of MERA.
Hansen presented documents from National Register Historian Denis Gardner from the State Historic Preservation Office, stating that the Terrace would qualify for designation on the National Register of Historic Places. Affidavits were submitted to show that others have tried to purchase the theater, but Brixmor never returned their telephone calls. The attorney advocating demolition said Robbinsdale City Manager Marcia Glick and Inland Development CEO Kent Carlson are both working with HyVee to redevelop the property, although HyVee publicly stated on August 19th that it was putting its involvement in the project on hold.
On July 13, 2016 HyVee announced their intentions to demolish the historic theatre and build a 91,500 square foot big box store in its place. The Historic Terrace Theater was built in 1951, and was designed by prominent Twin Cities architects Liebenberg and Kaplan as their crowning achievement and final indoor movie theater. It has been closed since 1999.