Black helicopters Downtown & Police Militarization

[mplsjaromir]

"i don't understand the rioting" says Kaiyden Fairbanks of Dorkville, MN, where cops help him load groceries into his porsche cayenne.

[Chauncey87]

If nothing else, it could be seen as somewhat tone deaf to be conducting military training maneuvers (whatever the reason) at a time when a community, not unlike some in the Twin Cities or around the country, is under siege.

The training was planed months ago or even longer. The very same training happened if I remember correctly to the month a few years back. What is going on near St. Louis is per coincidence.

[Viktor Vaughn]

Jon Tevlin wrote about the helicopters downtown and related his surreal experience to the events in Ferguson.
http://www.startribune.com/local/272436901.html

He also sheds light on how similar training in 2012 avoided notifying the Minneapolis City Council.

If this week’s maneuvers were similar to those that happened here in 2012, the secrecy was intentional.

The nonprofit watchdog Public Record Media obtained 2012 agreements and mail between the Navy and Twin Cities officials that shed light on what likely happened this week.

The 2012 agreements allowed the military to conduct “low visibility movement, military operations in urban terrain, manual and low weight explosive breaching, low-altitude precision helicopter operations, live fire, simulations; flash bang and surveillance.”

Those documents show that Minneapolis purposely found a way around notifying the City Council by using the city’s water works plant to give permission for the training.

“Documents indicate that the city was sensitive to publicity about the exercises, and sought to enter into a contract without City Council process so as to keep the training out of the public eye,” PRM found.

Navy attorney Billy Holt wrote to Corey Conover, an assistant city attorney: “That’s great news that this will hopefully allow your client to sign without placing this before the City Council.”

Also, here's Glenn Greenwald on Ferguson and the militarization of police. He really lays out the issues alluded to in this thread in his well-linked piece.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014 ... -ferguson/

-------------------------

And finally, I just want to thank everyone for a civil conversation on a confounding topic. This thread is both tangential to the usual conversations around development, architecture, and transit, AND vitally important to the future success of our cities. Thanks for letting the discussion run its course.

[mattaudio]

People wonder in other threads why I see our land use as an emergency and why I'm such a "StrongTowns shill" - well, this is why (mainly about Ferguson). Not eager to reignite that debate in the state house politics thread, but just to give a little context to my concerns about the way we currently do things. http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014 ... ation.html

[David Greene]

It seems to me that post just does the typical thing and turns an issue of race into an issue of economics to avoid talking about how white people are intrically tied to and benefit from systems that oppress people of color.

Economics is important but we have race/poverty issues in traditional densely-developed areas too. The key issue in Ferguson is race, not a suburban development model.

[grant1simons2]

David you were the one who turned it into that...

[David Greene]

David you were the one who turned it into that...

I did not try to turn Ferguson into a suburban development issue.

The whole idea is absurd and is actually harmful to solving the real problems.

[mattaudio]

Maybe suburban development is a race issue...

[David Greene]

Maybe suburban development is a race issue...

It certainly is. The history leaves no doubt. But the people in Ferguson aren't protesting because of suburban development. People aren't angry about parking lots in front of Wel-Marts. The Strong Towns post reeks of opportunism. It's really no different than the anarchists and looters coming in from out of town and causing trouble.

[mattaudio]

Ah yes, us StrongTowns looters.... I'll return here when people post with reasonable arguments.

[David Greene]

Ah yes, us StrongTowns looters.... I'll return here when people post with reasonable arguments.

Please think a little harder. The similarity is outside groups co-opting the issue and disrespecting the actual people directly affected in order to promote their own agenda.

It's just sickening to see *any* group try to turn what happened in Ferguson into some version of their fight rather than respecting what it actually is.

[FISHMANPET]

It's a post about how we've built a system where the "losers" are forced to continue losing. Yes Ferguson is about race, but as Matt says, the development pattern is inherently racist, so maybe let's attack racism on every front, not just David Greene approved fronts.

[mattaudio]

I forgot, you can't advocate for other people and try to make a better world, especially not if you're white and wealthy. David Greene excepted.

[David Greene]

I'm not disagreeing with the "suburbs are racist" idea. They are and there is literature that proves it. We *should* call attention to that and address it. What I'm objecting to is taking this *very specific* issue and making it into something it's not.

[MNdible]

If this really were a development issue, then the wealthy white suburbs of St. Louis with the exact same development pattern should be experiencing the same problems, no?

[mattaudio]

Do you have any examples, or any equivalent MSP examples, to research specifically?
Here's what happens depending on the municipality:
- A place like Ferguson was once "shiny and new" even though it is now "old and blighted." It may not have been wealthy, but it was shiny and new. But it is now a third lifecycle place.
- Most "wealthy white suburbs" are only first or second lifecycle places. That's why you see the massive expansion, then the massive contraction - because "wealthy whites" historically leapfrogged geographically by generation.
- Historically, the toniest of areas have been either urban (think Edina near 50th/France) or rural. Not suburban as much. McMansion-style areas don't count - they're over-leveraged and there's very little private equity relative to public liabilities in that land use. The truly ritzy areas are places like Kenwood, Summit Ave, or other neighborhoods that are rather urban.

Here's the main factor: Places that truly retain their wealth can afford suburbia more than non-wealthy places. Fair? No... but an economic reality. A paved cul-de-sac with sewer and water is not balanced to $200k homes on 2 acre lots. But a paved cul-de-sac with sewer and water is indeed much more financially solvent with $2 million homes fronting it.

[MNdible]

I guess you could compare Golden Valley and Brooklyn Center, which I believe are of comparable suburban vintage.

Similarly, you could compare the Wedge and Hawthorne, which have a comparable urban form.

My point being, I guess, that any neighborhood that suffers from significant disinvestment is going to suffer, regardless of urban form.

[mattaudio]

Very true, but then what is the reason for disinvestment? Lack of revenue compared to liabilities. Proves the point.

[MNdible]

Very true, but then what is the reason for disinvestment? Lack of revenue compared to liabilities. Proves the point.

I think that history is pretty clear that the reason North Minneapolis suffered disinvestment is because of racism, straight up. One could make the same case for Brooklyn Center, I think.

"Lack of revenue compared to liabilities" is a symptom, not a cause.

[EOst]

I think that history is pretty clear that the reason North Minneapolis suffered disinvestment is because of racism, straight up. One could make the same case for Brooklyn Center, I think.

Straight up indeed. Incidentally, if anyone has a good scan of an old HOLC map for Minneapolis (other than the tiny thumbnail one you can find through Google) that'd be fascinating to look at.