urbanMSP

The city council denied the appeal on a 4-3 vote, and will likely get sued. Rightly so.

I certainly hope they get sued, and lose. They deserve to. Zero leadership from the City Council to stand up to misguided opposition.

Alatus hasn't had luck with NIMBY opposition, have they? Here the city leadership really messed up and flagrantly flouted the law to make a grand stand of sorts.

I'm sure they could sue the city for wrongful denial of a conforming site plan and likely win, but do you think they are likely to do that and go ahead with making a very costly investment in a project that the neighborhood is extremely hostile to, and the city council has rejected? AFAIK, Alatus tends to hold their projects for longer-term ownership (rather than being a merchant developer that builds for someone else or quickly sells after completion like North Bay & Reuter Walton tend to do), so that makes them less likely to proceed. It's clear that they could sue to have the city council decision overturned, but I'm not sure they could do something like instead sue for financial damages. They're almost certainly $100k deep into this thing at this point.

I'm sure they could sue the city for wrongful denial of a conforming site plan and likely win, but do you think they are likely to do that and go ahead with making a very costly investment in a project that the neighborhood is extremely hostile to, and the city council has rejected? AFAIK, Alatus tends to hold their projects for longer-term ownership (rather than being a merchant developer that builds for someone else or quickly sells after completion like North Bay & Reuter Walton tend to do), so that makes them less likely to proceed. It's clear that they could sue to have the city council decision overturned, but I'm not sure they could do something like instead sue for financial damages. They're almost certainly $100k deep into this thing at this point.

If I were them, I'd absolutely sue. They are probably out a lot more than $100k at this point (multiples of that). This would be a relatively straightforward lawsuit (as far as lawsuits go), and would be well worth the cost/risk of losing. As far as I can tell, the city is relying on comp plan language, which seems painfully vague. That's probably why the city attorney said there isn't a great legal basis to deny the site plan.

I'm almost wondering if one of the "no" votes (Mitra, most likely) will bring a motion to reconsider (or whatever you'd call that) at the next meeting, after the Council gets an earful from constituents and advice from the city attorney. They could save face on their change of heart by getting Alatus to agree to one more small concession towards affordability, whatever that may be.

^ I could see this, actually. I still think the main reason this was denied (obviously in bad faith) was to draw attention to the real issue of housing costs. Changing the game mid-process was just wrong. Reconsidering if legally possible is actually a bit of a win-win here.

They got advice from the city attorney already, and ignored it to make a stand on policy that is in their control, that they have not acted on. Alatus is not 100k in, more like 500k-1m into the project. There is no negotiating with this the 'community opposition' since they've already set their demands outside of financial feasibility.

Mayor Carter announced that he will be vetoing the Council decision.

If you're like me and confused about how the Mayor could have the power to veto a denial of a denial of an appeal, the answer is that Minnesota law forces cities to approve or reject projects within 60 days of formal submittal, or else they are automatically approved. What the Mayor is doing here is returning the City Council's decision, and unless they muster five votes to deny it without his signature, then the project is automatically approved on April 17th because the 60 days are up.

Alatus does plan to move forward with the project https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/ ... -plan.html

Those opposed seem to think the Mayor's veto is illegal. https://www.hjcmn.org/2021/04/15/mayor- ... j32ObH4c9M

I was surprised by the Mayor's veto, I wouldn't have thought he would have that power either. The memo's first point is fairly persuasive, at least to this non-lawyer.

That being said, the rest of the memo isn't as strong. The memo's third point is deeply cynical. It calls the Mayor's veto "a classic case of an arbitrary and capricious quasi-judicial decision," and criticizes him for relying "exclusively on considerations that are irrelevant to the Zoning Code requirements for site plan approval." This is in fact exactly what the Planning Commission and City Council did. The same rules bind all three.

The memo's fourth point is also plainly incorrect. If you read the statue they cite, it says quite clearly: "Failure of an agency to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the request." If the Mayor does have the power to veto the Council's decision, then the city will have neither denied nor approved the request, and the law seems explicit that that constitutes an approval.

https://www.twincities.com/2021/05/27/s ... t-project/

Looks like this is a done deal, as far as the City Council giving up their fight against the mayor's approval-by-veto. But I wouldn't be surprised to see a lawsuit from the advocacy group that was most vocal about stopping this. Not sure what the window on that is...Alatus better break ground soon (as they should have done on their canceled Minneapolis condo project, 200 Central)

I wonder if the legal challenge would require posting bond? I really hope the opponents regroup and put their efforts to other areas like inclusionary zoning or other affordability measures instead of dying on this hill.

Any update on this project?

So what is happening with this project?

I keep hearing dead, but no one with direct connections.

Alatus sucks.

Wow - tough crowd. Project is closing 11/29/2021 - so long as our debt and equity doesn't back out post-Rent Control...

With the as-right entitlements that ended up being VERY at risk, we didn't risk proceeding with architectural drawings (~$500k) until after the veto - so that delayed us by about two months when we otherwise would have been advancing architectural drawings.