Minneapolis 2040 Opposition: A Look At The Signs

High property wealth and homeownership is the connecting thread among those strongly opposed to the Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan.

The Strib recently reported on rumors that city planners will scale back on the nationally heralded plan to legalize fourplexes citywide. The new plan could instead allow for triplexes everywhere. This, among other compromises, shifts the plan to satisfy those with concerns about modest (prepare for scare quotes) “density” increases in their traditional single-family neighborhoods.

This is despite the significant public support for the plan. After the closing of the public comment period, director of long-range planning Heather Worthington was quoted in MPR: “For every person that has given us a comment that would be contrary to the current plan, we’ve received several that would be supportive or told us it doesn’t go far enough.”

Meanwhile, the opposition has referred to themselves as a “marginalized group,” while using the phrase: “nothing about us, without us”. They may be in the minority, but it’s a powerful and rich minority that has long had influence at City Hall. Their cries of a corrupted process results from recent elections that have put a more progressive faction in charge of the City Council. Their feelings of disempowerment are all relative; they remain some of the most privileged people in the city. As the map below shows, their position could be characterized as: “nothing for anyone else, without us”.

One highly visible aspect of this debate are the yard signs. You’ve seen them: the red yard signs with the apocalyptic messages, attacking the Minneapolis 2040 comprehensive plan. Even though a scaled-back second draft of the plan is about to be released, the anti crowd is still calling for the whole process to be shut down. But these yard signs provide a unique opportunity to analyze the characteristics of those most strongly opposed to the plan.

Who are the Minneapolis 2040 opponents?

Map shows the locations of anti-#mpls2040 lawn signs, most are in southwest Minneapolis, where shaded property values are higher.

Anti-#Mpls2040 signs & SFH Values. Click for an interactive, zoomable map.

Over the course of the summer, I recruited a team of yard sign canvassers who have been noting the locations of anti-Minneapolis 2040 yard signs during their travels around the city. This includes some concerted attempts at finding signs in North and Northeast in order to eliminate any geographic bias. The address data was connected with Minneapolis property assessor data to provide a look at the type of properties that these signs represent. Of 330 signs, all but one was successfully connected with property records, the exception appears to be missing from the city assessor data.

In the map, the red dots represent the locations of “anti” yard signs. The shading of the city blocks represents the average value of single family homes on that block. Average values range from $0 to upwards of $5 million. A familiar correlation of wealth and politics arises from the combination of these datasets.

To view an interactive, zoomable map with some supporting tables, click here.

Some trends in the signed properties

To save you a pile of boring charts, here’s an overview of trends in the property records that these signs were connected with.

  • 90.9% are homesteaded, a status which provides a property tax reduction.
  • 77.8% are single family homes.
  • The Lynnhurst neighborhood has the most signs of the whole city: 87 signs at (26%).
  • Ward 13 has the most: 164 signs, 49.8% of the whole.
  • Average property value: $532,833.00.
  • Max property value: $2,741,000.00.
  • Min property value: $107,000.00.
  • 18 properties are worth over $1 million.
  • 209 properties are worth over $400,000 (64%). The only wards with average SFH values above this limit are: 10, 13, and 7.
  • Average year built: 1901 (min: 1889, max: 2016).
  • 58% of the properties are 2-2.5 stories tall. A lot of concern has focused on the height of potential 2-2.5 story fourplexes.
  • Most fireplaces: 7, the average property has one fireplace.
  • 1 property on the Vacant Building Registration.
  • 1 sign on a vacant property that turned out to be a recent teardown, and possibly due to a soil pollution and/or erosion issue (judging by 311 records).

Conclusions

If yard signs are any indication, opposition to the plan is not representative of the whole city. The most signs appear in Southwest wards (wards 13, 10, 11, 12 together account for 83% of observed signs). These are the wealthiest parts of town. North Minneapolis, Northeast, and large chunks of Southwest are underrepresented in signs, and no doubt, underrepresented in the process as a whole. The only signs that could be found in North are in Old Highland, an area known for its preservation of historic homes built back in the very early days of Minneapolis.

New construction permits in southwest Minneapolis indicate lots of bulldozing is happening for larger and new Single Family Homes. (Map by Scott Shaffer.)

The average sign-holder enjoys the the best schools, the highest quality of living, cleanest air, abundant grocery stores, restaurants, jobs, and easy commutes to some of the biggest job centers in the state. They also enjoy greater participation in local political processes, having had very little chance at being disenfranchised from it, or disenfranchised from property ownership and the associated wealth. Their neighborhoods have not experienced bulldozing by eminent domain, and will not in the future — something that the yard signs warn us of. On the other hand, they do currently see a significant amount of bulldozing for new single-family mansion construction. They are overwhelmingly white (property records don’t tell us this, but neighborhood demographic data does). They are masters of process, as seen from the disproportionate number of successful appeals for property tax reductions in this part of Minneapolis.

While some sign-holders may certainly have worked hard to achieve property ownership, this is not an option for everyone, and over the past decades it has become exceedingly difficult within the cities. A plan to legalize fourplexes citywide represents a goal toward affordable renting in a city with rising rents, and improved access to ownership, in a city with strong disparities in homeownership. Who could honestly oppose goals like these, unless they are fine with the status quo?

The number one policy goal in the Minneapolis 2040 plan is reduced disparities. It’s important to consider the disparities in access to political participation. Even if the opposition is small, and constrained largely to a segment of well-to-do single family homeowners from Southwest, policymakers appear poised to give this wealthy minority more power in the process than is fair. Even if support for the plan overwhelmingly outnumbers opposition, there are still plenty of people not “in the room” on these decisions. Deciding in favor of a noisy subset of an already small subset of people in the room is not in line with the progressive goals of the plan.

Is there a missing sign?

Fill out the form with the street address, and attach a photo. I will periodically confirm and update the live map.

Streets.mn is a non-profit and is volunteer run. We rely on your support to keep the servers running. If you value what you read, please consider becoming a member.

, , , ,

51 Responses to Minneapolis 2040 Opposition: A Look At The Signs

  1. Bill Lindeke
    Bill Lindeke September 25, 2018 at 10:10 am #

    Impressive collection of data! Not much to say here except that the results fit a very old pattern in Minneapolis politics: https://streets.mn/2016/02/29/map-monday-minneapolis-1932-presidential-election-results/

    • Ryan Johnson
      Ryan Johnson September 25, 2018 at 11:57 am #

      I think for the 2013 municipal election I mapped out where the most delegates at the convention were from, and where political donations were coming in. This pattern matches the biggest political contributions as well– I’m sure it would be the same for the 2017, too.

      • Ryan September 28, 2018 at 9:52 am #

        Very interesting piece of analysis, Ryan. I wonder if I could follow up with you off-line to get more information about the canvasing strategy you used to identify the addresses with signs. My name is Ryan Allen and you can find my contact information on the Humphrey School’s website. Thanks in advance for any time you can spare to discuss this.

  2. Chris Moseng
    Chris Moseng September 25, 2018 at 10:23 am #

    I wish I could cross reference this post to my comment (#7448) on the Comprehensive plan:

    “If city officials decide to ratify historic racial inequity and existing economic disparities because of unfounded fears and political hyperbole driven by thinly-disguised self-interest, they will perpetuate harms that the goals underlying this plan are intended to ameliorate. The city will suffer from ever widening economic disparity, displacement, sprawl, and ecological harm, just like the Bay Area and Seattle, which let their land use decisions be driven by self interested wealthy landowners who benefit from municipal protection against even attenuated threats to their property values over the social good.

    Every neighborhood should be expected to share in the benefits and the burdens of growing and accommodating the population influx Minneapolis will receive over the next two decades. Exemptions or carveouts given that correspond to wealth, or property value, or race, whether those correlations are intentional or not, will sharpen divisions in the city and will be a historic mistake”

  3. Jesse Peterson September 25, 2018 at 10:41 am #

    So, Carol Becker does her bizarre attempt to trademark-troll WedgeLive, and now you’ve gone and created a database of where your political opponents live with exact addresses, huh? Good Lord. Can you YIMBY and NIMBY people at least try to be normal while you’re deciding how much gentrification is acceptable for the rest of us?

    • Shawn September 25, 2018 at 10:50 am #

      That’s politics, isn’t it? Identify your opponents, understand them, their concerns, provide alternatives, and refute their [hopefully false] claims and positions.

    • Anon September 25, 2018 at 10:56 am #

      So, the people who put bright-red lawn signs on their own lawns wanted to keep their views private? The intention of this elegant data aggregation is not to dox political opponents, but to shed light on their true motivations. There is no moral equivalence between this analysis and CB’s questionable DBA application to thwart a media outlet.

    • Chris Moseng
      Chris Moseng September 25, 2018 at 11:26 am #

      Do the “normal” “the rest of us” have an opinion on the Comprehensive plan, or are they all too cool and removed from the effects of land use policy to sully themselves with such things?

    • Matt Eckholm
      Matt Eckholm September 25, 2018 at 12:08 pm #

      Assembling publicly available data to make a point isn’t nefarious, and it certainly isn’t equivalent to fraud.

    • Bill Lindeke
      Bill Lindeke September 25, 2018 at 12:28 pm #

      Moderator’s note:

      Please try to avoid any “you people” statements. They are never productive, in my experience.

    • Justin September 25, 2018 at 3:01 pm #

      They put the signs out in plain view, they presumably want to be known. It’s not like the author of this post assembled the names of anyone living in those places.

  4. Nicole Salica
    Nicole Salica September 25, 2018 at 10:41 am #

    “Average property value: $532,833.00”
    whew.

  5. Adam Miller
    Adam Miller September 25, 2018 at 11:54 am #

    It should probably be noted that these signs do come and go a bit, so they may no longer be there. Which makes me curious as to whether the person who put it up changed their mind or just was done with expressing their opinion via sign.

  6. Troy Davison September 25, 2018 at 12:22 pm #

    Not that it makes much difference but by my eye the year built average is off by quite a bit.

    • Ryan Johnson
      Ryan Johnson September 25, 2018 at 1:54 pm #

      Just realized there’s a potential fluke in the assessor data– I’ve noticed it in property records too. There’s a ton of properties listed as built in 1900, and way more than seems likely, and way more than in 1899 and 1901. Suspecting 1900 was used as a catch-all year at one time for uncertain years, or something. That could explain it.

  7. Mike September 25, 2018 at 1:24 pm #

    Two points – one homestead exclusion vanishes around $400k so most of the homes you profile in SW have no homestead tax exemption. It doesn’t get capped, it gets eliminated.

    Second, you should have overlayed the draft proposed Transit 4 and Transit 6 and adjacent Interior 3 zoning proposals over the red dots. The majority of dots on this map follow the Bryant, Lyndale, 50th, Penn and Linden Hills proposed corridors and their adjacent streets. Not all, but there are strong clusters that align north/south and east/west with those targeted streets.

    People really really didn’t like the lack of any absolute max number of stories on these corridor zoning proposals (which as rumored will be rectified in the next draft) but that and the impact to neighboring blocks with 3 story multi-lot apartment units would be a large factor in sign enthusiasm based on the first draft.

    • Ryan Johnson
      Ryan Johnson September 25, 2018 at 2:00 pm #

      It could be a factor, but it’s not going to explain everything. Looking at the map of Corridor 4, 6 and Interior 3, there would be plenty of areas with that proposed built form without any signs, too.

      https://minneapolis2040.com/topics/land-use-built-form/

      • Mike September 27, 2018 at 7:49 am #

        That would make the proposed build form what we call a sensitive but non-specific indicator. Still valuable info.

    • Alex Cecchini
      Alex Cecchini September 26, 2018 at 6:53 am #

      Homestead status also signifies a greater property tax break at the state income tax level, the likelihood of having taken advantage of mortgage interest deduction at the federal level, and all the other federal benefits at that tax level. The disucussion around homestead status is not exclusively about tax benefits, but they are real nonetheless.

      • Mike September 27, 2018 at 7:52 am #

        Homestead status is best a surrogate for owner occupied. Beyond that linkages to possibly having or not having a mortgage with deductible interest etc…. are speculative at best.

        The article said this status conferred property tax reduction which actually is incorrect for most of the houses discussses here, that’s all.

  8. Aaron Isaacs
    Aaron Isaacs September 25, 2018 at 2:12 pm #

    Valuable data. Hope you share it with city staff. Even minus southwest, huge areas of the city would be opened to new multiple dwellings. But of course southwest should have to take its share.

  9. Ben Osa September 25, 2018 at 3:46 pm #

    There should not be a SW Minneapolis exclusion despite what Lisa McDonald and Linea “hold my finger in the air and see what my constituents on nextdoor.com are whining about” Palmisano want; it’s about creating density in the city so that the city can remain an affordable place to live.

    Right now, the city is struggling to keep pace with replacing our sewer infrastructure and has had to increase utility billing by close to double in 5 years.

    http://www.startribune.com/average-minneapolis-homeowners-utility-bills-rising-to-near-property-tax-levels/494082821/

    The city need more residents to share the burden and potential new residents are more than happy to do so. If we get more amenities on these corridors, like 50th St. and Lyndale, all the better in Lynnhurst.

    It would be really screwed up if Southwest throws a big enough tantrum so that the counsel says, “Ok, everywhere except ward 13 and 10.”

    I really don’t want to be associated with this group in Lynnhurst anymore (SFH owner). I’ve already had to frequenting Nextdoor due to how toxic the boards are on this subject.

  10. Peter Tharaldson September 26, 2018 at 3:51 am #

    Kudos to you Ryan for a wonderful piece of analysis. I’m actually serious here. Melding multiple data collection means like this is magical and something I always aspire to as an analyst.

    I think the thing missing here (that’s ok) is a normalization for political activity, which can be proxied through voter turnout rates. I think it would be quite easy to prove the hypothesis that greater voter participation means greater voter activity, which is correlated with yard sign presence. That spacial correlation is pretty clear looking at SW MInneapolis on the voter turnout rate map for the city (I found 2013 but 2017 is almost the same) http://vote.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@clerk/documents/webcontent/wcms1p-126706.pdf

    Once you normalize for voting turnout, the neighborhoods that seem to be over-indexing on yard signs appear to be in ward 5 in particular, on the north side. I think one could write a very different story when realizing that…not one of entitlement in southwest but of fear on the north side. That shift in narrative has MASSIVE consequences.

    Personally I strongly support density. I lived in Loring Park for over a decade and recenlty moved to St. Paul 🙁 when I got married (well worth living in St. Paul lol). I have to travel a lot for work (digital analytics) and one of the best model cities I’ve seen for Minneapolis (and it seems to be following that pattern) is Toronto. We may find that like Toronto, that our density is first delivered in corridors of height rather than infill in residential neighborhoods.

    • Peter Tharaldson September 26, 2018 at 4:15 am #

      Correction- the north side does not over index on signs (i was scrolling up to two different maps and misread that). The southwest however, most clearly did, and that is just as correlated to political activity as it is to housing value, so that remains a strong third explanatory variable.

  11. Erik Randall September 26, 2018 at 11:25 am #

    I would not be at all surprised to find the same trends for signs promoting school tax levies, promoting gay marriage, anti-trump, anti Iraq war (back in the day), etc., etc.

    If that were the case, I would certainly not conclude that it is reflective of wealthy homeowners being more in favor or more in opposition to those issues than the city at large.

    I would probably conclude that wealthy homeowners tend to be have more time to get informed and decide they do or do not like those issues and, oh by the way, don’t give a second thought to spending $10 for a sign to put in their yard. Basically, on ANY issue, the more people learn about it, the more that both do and do not like it. That probably happens more in areas of wealth and home ownership.

    I’m not claiming there’s a bunch of support for 2040 that this misses, just saying it is a very questionable analysis.

    Do you have similar data for signs supporting 2040? That would strengthen the argument greatly.

    • Adam Miller
      Adam Miller September 26, 2018 at 11:39 am #

      To me, it’s not so much where they are as much as it is where they are not. East of 35W, you will see just as many signs for candidates and all are welcome, love your neighbor, and black lives matter signs as you see in Southwest (unscientifically, a lot more, actually). And yet there are very few red “bulldozer” signs in this vast part of the city.

      No, it’s not just a reflection of political engagement. It is who feels threatened by the potential for change and what messages have been deployed to make them feel threatened.

      Most telling to me is that greater Longfellow, especially on the avenues near bus lines, has been going through an absolute bacchanalia of teardown McMansions and major renovations and yet doesn’t show up much with anti-plan signs. Maybe they’re more comfortable with small multi unit housing (which already exists) and renters (definitely exist) over there?

    • Ryan Johnson
      Ryan Johnson September 26, 2018 at 1:12 pm #

      There are tons of other signs all over town– pick a neighborhood and bike or walk around. I consider myself somewhat of a yard sign connoisseur, so I’ve been paying attention on my travels. I’ve seen lots of other signs in Seward and Cooper: Love Your Neighbor, Black Lives Matter, Angela Conley or Peter McLaughlin for county commission, Defend Glendale, and the ubiquitous “All Are Welcome Here”. I’ve seen so many election signs, an astounding number in 62A– and have not yet found one red anti-comp plan sign there either.

      With so many signs around town, it’s pretty clear that the red anti- comp plan signs are not predicted completely by participation in politics, it’s pretty specific to Southwest.

      • Peter Tharaldson September 26, 2018 at 5:02 pm #

        I think we would need some empiricism of the kind you captured above to determine that. All those above have some biases however. Love Your Neighbor and BLM would be perceived more as social and justice points of view verses a specific policy. McLaughlin’s district four also would not cover the entire sample area.

        Again, I like the analysis, but the map of lawn signs also correlate quite strongly to voter participation, which of course can correlate to other things. I do inferential research all day long and if I made a conclusion like this I would expect to be challenged on the segmentation and third causal variables.

        The perfect experiment to prove this would be to provide pro-density signs and see where they land.

        • Adam Miller
          Adam Miller September 26, 2018 at 6:41 pm #

          You have asserted without it evidence that the signs correlate with other things. It’s an interesting idea and is facially plausible.

          I counter with unscientific observation based on something like 2000+ miles biked on city streets this year. There are way more signs elsewhere in the city. The well-trimmed lawns of 49th street have way fewer signs per house than, for example, any given avenue in Longfellow. Both candidate signs and issue signs. My sense, not carefully documented, is that these very fancy neighborhoods are much less likely to have signs of any type, directly in contradiction to your hypothesis, reasonable though it seems in the abstract.

          Part of this has to do with not only neighborhood, but specific properties in these neighborhoods. Some of these signs are on the fanciest properties (for example along Minnehaha Parkway near Harriet) that wouldn’t deface themselves Subject matter sign, but not all of it.

          • Adam Miller
            Adam Miller September 26, 2018 at 6:45 pm #

            Apologies if I’ve conflated comments from Peter and Erik here, but hopefully the point is clear.

      • Erik Randall September 26, 2018 at 5:03 pm #

        Well, your anecdotal evidence to the contrary, I’m going to stick to my guns on the wealthy being more politically engaged: https://tinyurl.com/ycd2fk85 (Washington Post, “The 1 percent is way more politically active than you are”

        And in addition to that, this feels like a base rate fallacy as well (i.e. not sure you intend it, but the presumption seems much stronger than I’d bet it is). That is, if you actually polled people across neighborhoods, I’d probably bet there’d be some stronger bias against 2040 in SW Mpls, but it would be WAY less of a contrast and a LOT greyer than suggested by the sign map.

        Completely made up numbers to illustrate point:

        Assume 10% of those strongly opposed to 2040 get signs.

        There’s 164 signs in Ward 13, so maybe 1640 households strongly opposed. There’s 17,000+ households in Ward 13, or less than 10%.

        That would leave over 90% ‘not strongly opposed’. That may be higher than , say, Longfellow, but it’s still 90% not strongly opposed.

        Combine that with my contention that the wealthy are more politically active (not to mention that the clustering on the map suggests a small number of activists convincing a few of their neighbors to put up signs), and I think it’s a bit of a stretch to characterize the situation as “2040 but for rich SW Mpls folks”

        (I realize you didn’t explicitly state that, but it seems to be the gist of the story, so apologies if that’s a mis-characterization).

        Basically, you can say “The most vocal opponents of 2040 seem to be rich folks that live in SW Mpls, but I think “Rich folks in SW Mpls are opposed to 2040” has a MUCH weaker conclusion. Again, you didn’t explicitly say that, but it’s the point I’m trying to make…

  12. GlowBoy September 26, 2018 at 6:18 pm #

    Here in Diamond Lake, the sign battle seems to reflect Southwest: the red apocalypse signs are absolutely crushing the blue and purple End the Shortage signs (including the one in my yard). Unfortunately in conversations with people, there also seems to be more anti-2040 than pro-2040 sentiment, though maybe not as strongly as the yard signs would indicate.

    I wasn’t even planning on getting a yard sign, until I saw some of my close neighbors planting red ones, and felt the need to at least send the message that the anti-2040 feeling isn’t unanimous.

    What’s funny about people freaking out about more density is that most of the demolitions going on aren’t for multi-unit housing. Most of them are for larger single-family homes, which does nothing at all to increase population density.

  13. Shaina Brassard September 28, 2018 at 10:35 am #

    I removed a red sign in the boulevard in front of a triplex in Marcy Holmes on 5th last week. It’s illegal to use public property for political signs so I helped it find its way to a local dumpster.

    • Brian September 29, 2018 at 9:35 am #

      Be glad I wasn’t that homeowner as I would have you charged with theft of property. Taking a sign is just as illegal as placing it on public property. The owner probably didn’t know they couldn’t place the sign on the boulevard.

      • Nicole Salica
        Nicole Salica September 29, 2018 at 12:35 pm #

        It was abandoned trash – Shaina was being very civic by cleaning it up. Thanks, Shaina!

        • Monte Castleman September 29, 2018 at 12:59 pm #

          Abandonment requires intent. I don’t think it was the owners intent to abandon the sign by erecting it on a boulevard like the owner would abandon garbage by placing it on in a container on the boulevard or alley for trash pickup.

        • Brian September 30, 2018 at 1:08 pm #

          I suspect if the sign was pro 2040 that you wouldn’t be so enthusiastic about it being thrown away. In fact, I suspect that it wouldn’t have been pulled from the boulevard and thrown away if it was pro 2040.

          • Adam Miller
            Adam Miller September 30, 2018 at 3:49 pm #

            I haven’t seen any illegally-placed pro-plan signs.

            I have seen many illegally-placed anti-plan signs, all of which I’ve let be.

            I suspect the difference is that (I understand) that the red sign people gave them out for free, and in some instances put them up where they thought they could, while the pro plan people had to pay for them.

            Which is one of the reasons I’m curious who is bankrolling Minneapolis for “Everyone” and have a hunch that there’s at least one developer doing so.

    • Trent September 29, 2018 at 3:19 pm #

      If you are referring to the tree lawn between the sidewalk and street that is not public property. The city has an easement to use it but it’s the homeowner, they pay the property tax.

      • Monte Castleman September 29, 2018 at 3:57 pm #

        At least in Bloomington it actually is city property, when I pulled a permit to redo my driveway I needed to get a special encroachment permit to work within 6 feet of the curb line. However that doesn’t mean any random passerby can steal a sign that’s on the boulevard any more than they can steal a car that’s parked illegally.

      • Joe October 1, 2018 at 6:06 pm #

        http://www.minneapolismn.gov/publicworks/permits/WCMSP-211391

        It’s Right Of Way, and therefore is closer to public property than private with an easement, it is the exact same as your street itself (legally).

        Essentially, it is the same as Railroads, but public.

      • Bill Lindeke
        Bill Lindeke October 2, 2018 at 10:56 am #

        I see all kinds of signs in the boulevard. Typically they are “don’t block my walk” signs.

  14. MP Johnson October 1, 2018 at 6:35 am #

    Is it just me, or does it seem like a lot of the pro-2040 advocacy is intensely focused on Southwest Minneapolis (which I broadly define as most of the quadrant of the city)? I seldom see people debating 2040 “effects” in the Powderhorn, Nokomis or Longfellow communities.

    I’ll add that the people who seem best informed, those who frequently cite the plan chapter-and-verse using the language of the plan itself seem more geographically neutral and generally less partisan. By my estimation this is also the smaller group of pro-2040 advocates and they mostly seem motivated by fine-detail thinking about density planning.

    Those who use less technical references to the plan tend to be more focused on Southwest in particular, more strident and also tend to display more specific hostility towards people who disagree with them (everybody is a NIMBY) and also more willing to engage in class antagonism, assuming most opponents are very wealthy. These people seem to be more numerous somehow, or at least a lot louder.

    Is this all in my imagination? I kind of expect SW Minneapolis to be more in demand due to the Lyndale and Hennepin corridors, greater general development, the Lakes, and Uptown’s general history for the last 30-40 years as a center of gravity for relatively cheap housing and proximity to an urban lifestyle.

    But too often it feels like the whole debate is only really about Southwest which winds up making it more personal somehow, probably on both sides.

    • Chris Moseng
      Chris Moseng October 1, 2018 at 9:30 am #

      It’s because there’s already a ton of multi-unit housing in neighborhoods like Powderhorn, Longfellow, Seward, Corcoran, Phillips, etc., and the sky obviously hasn’t fallen in those neighborhoods, so it’s pretty clear that what’s really being debated is whether to legalize the same density in the parts of the city where it has heretofore been most effectively excluded.E.g., Southwest.

      It’s not personal, it’s simply a matter of where in the city this density already exists (and somehow people tolerate it and even thrive) and the places it doesn’t.

      • MP Johnson October 1, 2018 at 11:15 am #

        It’s funny, but the population density map shown here:

        https://streets.mn/2017/08/07/map-monday-existing-and-planned-twin-cities-rail-versus-population-density/

        …doesn’t really indicate a major variation in population density between Southwest and the rest of the city. If anything it shows already high density west of Calhoun.

        If there’s already a ton of multi-unit housing in those neighborhoods, wouldn’t it be indicated on a population density map?

        I tried (admittedly not that hard) to find a finer grained density map of Minneapolis but couldn’t find one better than this.

    • Mike October 1, 2018 at 12:05 pm #

      Your sense is correct. In addition you often hear cited historical racial covenants and red lining as the moral justification for why Southwest Minneapolis plan objections are themselves racist at heart. The fact that almost none of Southwest Minneapolis was subject to racial covenants is beside the point, the citywide downzoning that happened in the mid 20th century is used as a proxy.

      For all the assertions that people in Southwest mpls have the privileged of time and energy to protest that others do not, I don’t see any anti-2040 folks organizing a city wide canvas to inventory yard signs, entering them in a database, cross referencing them against the city property info database to create a searchable tool to plot variables against valuation, homestead, number of fireplaces, etc….. writing up a 1st level correlation study about how horrible the people of SW Minneapolis are for not embracing the first draft of the plan, and the publishing the whole thing online. but somehow the people who have the time to show up at a neighborhood meeting are the ones privileged with time and resources……

      • Andrew Evans October 2, 2018 at 11:50 am #

        @Mike

        Although not as targeted, a simple quick survey would have accomplished the same things, along with overlay maps that would be simple enough to mash together (crime, income, density, age, employment, etc…).

        Someone had way too much time on their hands, or saw value in creating the list (which really is what it is) for use or sale later. It’s as if there is a storm brewing, similar to the RINO thing going through the GOP a few years back (and still). Where factions are starting to gather information about who isn’t all on board the local DFL/Progressive bus for each and every issue.

        • Adam Miller
          Adam Miller October 2, 2018 at 11:59 am #

          “Someone… saw value in creating the list (which really is what it is) for use or sale later.”

          LOL. Maybe someone just noticed where the signs were and thought it would be interesting to look into.

          • Andrew Evans October 3, 2018 at 9:48 am #

            LOL

            “Over the course of the summer, I recruited a team of yard sign canvassers who have been noting the locations of anti-Minneapolis 2040 yard signs during their travels around the city. ”

            Then…

            “The address data was connected with Minneapolis property assessor data to provide a look at the type of properties that these signs represent.”

            Yes, someone “just” noticed where the signs were and thought it would be “interesting” to look into. What they really have is more or less (since Mpls votes mostly for the DFL) a list of properties who aren’t totally on board with the progressive agenda. This could easily be cross referenced with a list of DFL party members if it hasn’t been already.

            =)

            Rather than RINO we’re going to have DINO calls pretty soon.

  15. Andrew Evans October 2, 2018 at 10:22 am #

    The lots bulldozed map is misleading.

    Almost all the properties in Hawthorne (North) were replaced with the Green Homes program. I’d be willing to wager that most of the properties in North were part of the same or similar program. These were highly subsided homes, and sold with income restrictions. In fact, IIRC, some of those homes were built on empty lots that had been condemned homes or blocks that were more or less condemned. This is completely different than what is going on in other parts of town, and IIRC, most of that money has dried up as of a handful of years ago.

    As with pervious comments I’ve made, this plan won’t have any effect on property owners in North. The money just isn’t there to build new properties yet, let alone larger duplexes. Once the economics make sense it will happen – OR – once we see an influx of money similar to what built the Green Homes.

    I’m not holding my breath for any new money or substantial property value changes in the next 5-8 years. If anything we’re more or less where east Lake Street was almost 20 years ago, when that large subsidized (I think) apartment building was burnt while in construction.

Note on Comments

streets.mn welcomes opinions from many perspectives. Please refrain from attacking or disparaging others in your comments. streets.mn sees debate as a learning opportunity. Please share your perspective in a respectful manner. View our full comment policy to learn more.

Thanks for commenting on streets.mn!