Northside - News & General Topics

[FISHMANPET]

I just hope it doesn't end up like that exploded building on Cedar Ave that is still a crater... what 2 or more years later? Though that's a case where the guy didn't actually have insurance so probably not the same situation. But still, fix it fast!

[dingo]

Saw this great Northside video today... thought I would share it here.

http://www.homesnacks.net/if-youre-from ... ed-121479/

[intercomnut]

A blog post from MinnPost arguing for CM Johnson's amendment to the new parking reduction ordinance, and for more equity benchmarks for North Minneapolis. I've got to say, it's fairly convincing:
http://www.minnpost.com/minnesota-blog- ... ementation

[FISHMANPET]

In the comments on his blog where he originally posted that, even he is slowly coming around to being OK with the ordinance.

[David Greene]

The outreach issue is a real problem. For YEARS I have been telling the counties and Met Council that they need to hold public meetings on transit in places accessible by transit. Yeah, I know, radical, right?

But it STILL doesn't happen. It is absolutely maddening how badly we engage communities. The projects that do it best contract with neighborhood institutions to do the outreach.

[David Greene]

In the comments on his blog where he originally posted that, even he is slowly coming around to being OK with the ordinance.

To me the ability to do smaller, less expensive projects with this ordinance is the key piece for the Northside. Right now big developers are hesitant to put a lot of money into that area. Perhaps they or other groups will be more willing to take a chance on lower-cost investments.

Jeff is a smart guy and really cares about the Northside. I trust what he says about engagement and the sense of the neighborhoods.

[FISHMANPET]

To be honest I'm having a genuinely hard time understanding opposition to this. Are people misunderstanding what this ordinance will do? It will not prevent the construction of offstreet parking. I repeat, it WILL NOT PREVENT the construction of off street parking.

Once you get that out of the way, this becomes a fairly minor and technocratic policy change. Developers can still build as much parking as they want, but they can also now build as little as well. In the CPC meeting, Lisa pointed out that developers aren't really putting in the work to determine how much parking is needed, they're just building to the minimum. So if a developer wants to do that in an area affected by this ordinance, they can still do that. Knowledge of city wide parking minimums doesn't disappear as soon as you build in a transit corridor, you can still use that as a guideline if you don't want to put any more effort into it.

So I'm left with a few possible sources of opposition. First, you think this will prevent the construction of new parking. That's 100% wrong, and I have no idea why a person would think that as it was never the goal and it was never sold as doing that. Second is maybe the idea that "evil developers" will build developments without enough parking? People called this a handout to developers at the planning commission, but Lisa Goodman said at the Zoning & Planning committee meeting that developers aren't asking for this. This isn't being driven by developers. And ignoring that, it seems to be a criticism that comes from the headspace of "developers are evil" because it attributes all sorts of varied and often contradictory motives to developers.

And then we have Jeff's argument. He seems to primarily agree with the ordinance, but has a process complaint. If you think this will prevent the construction of parking (and again, it doesn't, if you think this, you're demonstrably wrong) then sure, there should be lots of public hearings and feedback and input, etc etc. But it's not that. And this is a representative democracy. The actuality of this is that it's a fairly technocratic policy change whose immediate impact will be very minor. We've elected city council members to make decisions on these fairly minor things. Ours is not government by referendum. Civic participation is exhausting, and is a process that favors the more fortunate among us. For example, I was able to leave work early on a Monday to attend the 4:30 PM Planning Commission meeting. If I worked in any job with a fixed schedule rather than my flexible white collar desk job, I wouldn't have been able to make it. We've elected these council members to make these decisions, we should let them do that. Barbra Johnson said that she estimated maybe only 15 people in her ward knew about this. To be honest, that sounds like her problem.

This is a contentious issue, because parking touches that reptile part of our brains. Many of the people that testified against this at the planning commission felt like they were being attacked, as if someone was going to come in with truncheons and take their parking space and beat them personally. I'm not sure a public meeting would provide any valuable feedback on this issue, which is a fairly minor change.

So basically, we've got the (wrong) argument that it will take away parking, the ??? argument that developers won't build enough parking, and then the process argument that this needed endless public outreach things. I don't really buy any of those. Are there other arguments against?

[David Greene]

I think there is a natural human negative reaction to decisions being made that "touch the reptile brain" as you say but aren't vetted by the affected communities.

Yes, people may have the wrong idea about what the ordinance is but that is in fact an outreach problem. It demonstrates a lack of conversation before an important decision is made. It may be a trivial and "obvious" decision to you and I but the feedback shows that is not the case for most.

I agree that Johnson and Yang share a great part of the outreach responsibility. Blong is pretty good about posting updates to Facebook but that's probably not enough for his ward.

Should we defer the ordinance for North Minneapolis? No, I don't think so, because there are real potential benefits to it. But we should take some time to explain to people what is being done.

There will always be naysayers. But in this case, multiple people have raised concerns about outreach in neighborhoods that have traditionally been cut out of decisions that affect them. That gives me great pause.

[MNdible]

While I'm not actively opposed to the proposal, I do think some of the opposition is understandable, and I do think it reaches a little aggressively.

I appreciate that this project will give small projects flexibility, and I think that's great. But using 50 units as the threshhold seems really quite high to me. That's not a small project, especially when you look at the maps and see the context of the areas that will be affected by this provision.

And while I know that nobody owns the parking spot in front of their house, it doesn't seem fair to me that a developer can go in, knowing full well that 80% of their tenants will own cars, and not provide a single parking space, thereby usurping more than their fair share of the public right of way.

[mattaudio]

I can't say I understand the criticism about the *loaction* of the public meeting (a short walk from LRT and nearly all buses from the Northside)... that it lacked abundant, free parking. So the problem is that the Northside lacks walkability and transit equity? Yet the problem with a meeting about this is that it is in walkable, transit-rich location that lacks free parking for those rich enough to drive but not rich enough to put a buck or two into a meter?

[RailBaronYarr]

I guess I think it's a fair question to ask: how big of a change in policy needs to have the full roll-out of citizen engagement? Shouldn't there be varying levels? Massive freeway or rail line? Full on CAC, etc with years of planning and public engagement. New park trail being designed? Maybe hold a charette or two in affected areas. Tweaking parking meter rates? Does anyone need to show up for something like that?

Further, how much of all the community engagement that went into the Comp Plan (and other city doctrines) supports a shift in parking policy such as this one? Goals like directing investment along commercial corridors served by transit, making neighborhoods more walkable, allowing/enticing better urban design, naturally affordable housing in a city where much of the development comes at higher costs than greenfield stuff in suburbs, etc etc. Lowering (and in very rare cases, when you consider how many parcels are zoned high enough to matter, eliminating) parking minimums is a pretty technocratic decision. The one meeting that was held was downtown. Not in North Minneapolis, but also served by transit (I took the train to get there, and biked home!). Yes, as Peter points out it was at a time that may not have worked for everyone. But there is (and should be) a balance of how much staff time and resources are spent on outreach for different initiatives. Especially when the body of theory & evidence shows the long-term benefits a policy like this would have.

I disagree that Jeff's post only takes issue with the process, not policy. The whole section of "How the Proposal Works" calls into question the details and its likely effects on North. He even goes as far as to say what his ideal policy change would be:

I would set benchmarks for walkability and equity around transit and other amenities for north Minneapolis. When we hit those goals, then we can justifiably say that the northside is ready to relax such rules.

I disagree that the impact will be higher than other areas of the city. If vacant land alone were an indicator of development potential, North would be seeing far more than the Uptown area (it isn't). North is also seeing the most transit and bike infra investment in the city over the next 5-8 years (perhaps more than the rest of the city combined). Broadway, Penn, Chicago-Fremont bus/streetcar lines, Blue Line extension, SWLRT (if you count it, which David and apparently many Northsiders he knows do), and many protected bikeways (one of which is in development this year) plus the North Mpls Greenway.

Regardless, it just doesn't feel like this thing was way off base in terms of outreach given how little will change in the next couple years. And for pretty much every neighborhood in the city, the one negative externality of crowded on-street parking won't be an issue for even longer. I'm confused what other impact there could be from this?

[RailBaronYarr]

And while I know that nobody owns the parking spot in front of their house, it doesn't seem fair to me that a developer can go in, knowing full well that 80% of their tenants will own cars, and not provide a single parking space, thereby usurping more than their fair share of the public right of way.

I'll point out that, in Portland, only 72% of those surveyed in new parking-lite developments owned a vehicle in the household

But beyond that, I'll say that it isn't the developer's job to nanny its tenants even if they do know that 80 or 90% of them will bring a car. Other people in the neighborhood living in old buildings with few or no parking spaces (or who own homes + too many cars to fit in their own garage) have been getting a great deal for over 50 years in that new buildings pay for the lack of parking in other buildings. There's a simple solution to the on-street parking crunch residents don't like to hear.

And, as for the details of the proposal, 50 units is arbitrary, and maybe not "small" (though Lander's 2-lot Colfax development is 45 units on 3.5 stories and I don't think many folks would call it "medium-sized," either). I think we could ask every Minneapolite what the right cutoff is and number of spaces at each graduation and get different results (well, aside from folks who say 1+ space per du). Point being, this strikes a pretty good compromise and cutoff points will always be arbitrary. Portland's policy is perhaps more conservative in general high density areas (0.5 spaces in 4+ units), but more lax on the commercial/transit corridors (CO1, CM, CX, the ones that most directly compare to the transit areas in our proposal) where 50+ units get 0.33 spaces per du compared to the proposed 0.5 with the middle ground being more middle-groundish. And things sound mostly fine out there. I dunno.

[FISHMANPET]

There's an awful lot a developer can do but don't because it would be incredibly stupid, financially. Banks won't finance zero parking development. Builders won't build it because they know 80% or 72% or whatever people will want cars.

There's all sorts of stuff not required by law that developers build anyway, because they know tenants will want it. I don't know why a parking space is any different.

[David Greene]

I can't say I understand the criticism about the *loaction* of the public meeting (a short walk from LRT and nearly all buses from the Northside)... that it lacked abundant, free parking. So the problem is that the Northside lacks walkability and transit equity? Yet the problem with a meeting about this is that it is in walkable, transit-rich location that lacks free parking for those rich enough to drive but not rich enough to put a buck or two into a meter?

Try getting there at the specified time by bus from random places in North Minneapolis.

[MNdible]

There's an awful lot a developer can do but don't because it would be incredibly stupid, financially. Banks won't finance zero parking development. Builders won't build it because they know 80% or 72% or whatever people will want cars.

There's all sorts of stuff not required by law that developers build anyway, because they know tenants will want it. I don't know why a parking space is any different.

No doubt, and I've argued this very point before. And as I said, I'm not opposed to this on its face. But I do think there's probably some middle ground while we move towards our magical car-less future -- a future which our current transit system is unable to support. I'll agree that my objection to 50 units is arbitrary, but in my mind, a small development is more along the lines of 35XX Grand.

Like other things we've seen from the new City Council, this seems to have jumped from "let's implement good public policy" to "let's out-Portland Portland."

[This conversation really doesn't belong in this thread.]

[FISHMANPET]

This isn't an attempt to enforce a carless future. It's one of many small changes necessary to make a magical carless future possible.

[mattaudio]

No guys, anything short of enforcing a car-necessary future is akin to enforcing a carless future.

[PhilmerPhil]

But I do think there's probably some middle ground while we move towards our magical car-less future -- a future which our current transit system is unable to support.

If anything, wouldn't parking-lite development and more on street parking congestion do more to build a strong constituency for and more immediate demand of functional transit than holding onto the status quo and waiting 25+ years for some rock solid transit investments throughout the city?

[MNdible]

No guys, anything short of enforcing a car-necessary future is akin to enforcing a carless future.

Pretty sure I didn't say that somebody was enforcing a car-less future, dudes.

Yep, just re-read my post. It's not there. Just a rhetorical flourish.

But thanks for engaging in the spirit of the conversation, rather than falling back to your prescribed positions.

[MNdible]

If anything, wouldn't parking-lite development and more on street parking congestion do more to build a strong constituency for and more immediate demand of functional transit than holding onto the status quo and waiting 25+ years for some rock solid transit investments throughout the city?

Definitely, but it's clearly a chicken and the egg type thing, which is why one might take deliberate steps forward rather than one big jump.