Metropolitan Council: Thrive MSP 2040 (Minneapolis, Edina: low income, apartments, foreclosure)

[rogead]

State law requires The Metropolitan Council to come up with a regional planning assessment each decade. Currently, they are working on 2040. The plan has been tagged "Thrive MSP 2040". I'm not sure what happened to 2020 and 2030, but The MC is soliciting citizen opinion on what needs to be done to make the seven county region thrive (by 2040).

Metropolitan Council

[golgi1]

I'm bumping this because Minneapolis 2040 will be soon passed in some form.

What does everyone think of the plan as it now stands?

[Glenfield]

Mayor Frye will have paid back all the developers for their donations to his campaign.

[MnMomma]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Mayor Frye will have paid back all the developers for their donations to his campaign.

Yep

[Ghengis]

the people deserve the gubmint they get

[golgi1]

Okay. Here's my take:

Reducing / suppressing single family property value for the sake of multi-family "affordable housing" in prosperous neighborhoods is a ghetto-ization process by another name, regardless of the excuses that they offer.

Price and the following neighborhood quality suppression (less taxes collected-adjusted for inflation over time, more costs for things like crime prevention and school programs, less community coherence and participation- see Robert Putnam, etc) in prosperous neighborhoods is not a wise means of assisting struggling groups.

Its only a means of assuring that more low income people find their way to Minneapolis (best case scenario) as flight to the suburbs takes place (putting more downward pressure on prices) and leads to more homes on the market and more vacancies in general.

Worst case scenario is that neighborhoods start to realize vacant housing over time, as residents move out and new ones fail to move in at the same rate, in a city that has a climate image problem (overly harsh winters) that does serve as a barrier for professionals looking to migrate. We can identify significant vacant housing in affordable housing neighborhoods across the nation.

Housing price trends have a way of perpetuating themselves. City Planners and the mayor will not be held accountable for any long term negative trend (adjusted for inflation) in prices or other metrics. In short, they have no skin in the game (See Nicholas Taleb) especially when some will see (or have seen) a personal upside in financial support from developers (which is the opposite of having something at risk).

This planning commission is trying to socially engineer Minneapolis without regard for the possible / actual risk as to the long term effects. They are akin to someone trying to do brain surgery with a a large rusty blade and no magnification and hoping that it works out just fine.

The reality is that there isn't anywhere in the nation where this type of action hasn't led to problem neighborhoods with time. In urban areas with ultra-high incomes, like the Bay Area of California, sometimes these neighborhoods are subject to a stubborn and contentious gentrification process far in the future. In urban areas without such high income trends, such as Philadelphia, these areas tend to become homogenous ghettos within a couple of decades.

In either case, the end result was never an improvement of the lives of the new residents. It was only community eradication as well as wealth transfer from the original residents to developers, later gentrifiers, and the new residents (though they never hang on to it).

[Cruz Azul Guy]

As long as the plan includes destroying the Lake St K-Mart and re-opening Nicollet Avenue then it has my support

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy

As long as the plan includes destroying the Lake St K-Mart and re-opening Nicollet Avenue then it has my support

That property will be zoned for 8-15 story buildings but I don’t see where the plan specifically calls for Nicollet Ave to be reopened. Further west on Lake St., near Excelsior Blvd., the plan calls for 30 story buildings.

[ArcLyte]

Golgi, I liked your comments. I'll take it a step further though - I don't believe that the affordable housing efforts of the 2040 plan will succeed. Housing is a tricky subject, as markets tend to ebb and flow. When left unchecked, the housing market will be dictated by the price in which individuals are willing to pay for their residences. Any claim in which multiplexes create affordable opportunities for residents is dubious at best, and a lie at worst. Changing the zoning code so that any house in Linden Hills (or pick your favorite Minneapolis neighborhood) can be a triplex will not suddenly create affordability. The people who want triplexes are already building them within the current zoning code (an R2 lot can have 3 residences if you're owner occupying the R2 property. 2 doors = Duplex + 1 door = Accessory Dwelling Unit).

I agree that forced affordability will cause flight. People live in Edina because they choose to live there. Likewise, people live in market-rate apartments because they are surrounded by like-minded individuals. Societies have been doing this since the beginning of time, and no one can force integration in a community. The other thing to keep in mind is that wealthier residents are rapidly transforming other areas of Minneapolis. I've seen several houses which were sold for north of $700,000 in Northeast Minneapolis pop up over the past year in both public and private sales. There was even a new construction duplex that's near Washington St NE which was permitted for over $900,000.

One cannot create affordability simply by removing zoning covenants. My idea of what's affordable may be very different than your idea of affordable. I read an article recently on a different forum where a user complained about the affordability of a studio apartment at $900/month. They thought the rent was too high and was unaffordable, even though the $900/month is a statistic that's apparently? cited by our Minneapolis government as affordable. The reality is that prices are (and will continue) to rise. It should come as no surprise that 10-years from now, that same $900/month studio apartment will be north of $1500/month. Similar models have been tested over time. One could buy a house in Northeast Minneapolis pre-housing recession for under $100k. During the 2008 recession, deals were made and that same house could be found for under $70k (or even cheaper in the case of a foreclosure). Now, it's rare to find anything decent under $250k in Northeast (10 years later).

People who cannot afford a home now will still be unable to afford one 10 years from now unless they make changes in their lives to enable them to afford the residences. It's really a cost of living + personal skill problem (or lack of medium/high-paying specialized skills), and that problem cannot be solved by zoning alone.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

I still like the idea of a developer building a large condo tower with the Ikea-style tiny apartments sold at an affordable price. It could offer something like the following:

240 sq ft studios - $60,000
380 sq ft 1 bedroom - $75,000
590 sq ft 2 bedroom - $100,000

There’s your affordable housing right
There!