Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

[alleycat]

The dollar houses of the world are a different animal then these homes. We're talking about city-owned properties that were on the verge of demolition because the city wanted to use NSP funds and inflates rehab costs. Nicole recently got two of these homes in north.

So we've got broken markets like north and the central neighborhood that are having a grassroots response to demos that Nicole has latched on to.

On the opposite side you have the functioning market of Uptown. Whereas the demolished home in north will be replaced with nothing the Uptown lot will continue to be on the tax rolls. At that point the interested party should pay the full price of moving said house. You can't conflate these two issues.

[RailBaronYarr]

I'm confused how anything I just said conflates the 2 issues. As I said, I was making a nod to the fact that she's the one who paid $1 for a house, not stating that she actually would on this one.

My entire point is that there are plenty of houses out there (mainly in North, Central, even NE) that can be saved, by her even, at a profit if the city allows it by selling the house on the cheap. Housing supply vs demand is clearly not a problem in those areas, and if Nicole (or anyone else) wants to work their magic and totally improve a house, bring SF home ownership back in to a block/neighborhood in hopes that is starts a grassroots turn around, great! No one is stopping her or arguing against it. I will point out that she is clearly against for-profit developers and government subsidization (read her posts and responses to other posters on her wall). Yet she ignores the fact that she is not a non-profit organization - she makes $50k or more on these homes. She also ignores that she (and other rehabbers) take advantage of city, state, and federal rehab credits to do the jobs they do, quite often. She also ignores that SF home owners get tax breaks in the form of mortgage interest deductions, property tax deductions, and many low-income/first time home buyers take advantage of federally subsidized FHA loans (low down payments, low interest rates).

So - this house - clearly fits my argument for property owner rights. Especially since it's already zoned for what they've proposed. It also fits the argument of a better social good by increasing housing supply in a desirable area that is clearly lacking in units. Many other houses she has, and will, work on don't fit this bill, and I won't argue with the great work she does. I just want her to stop the hypocrisy and at a certain level cyber bullying by aggregating her fans (many of whom don't live in the MSP area) against developers.

[MNdible]

And the neighborhood shall rejoice because they won't have to deal with any negative "elements" moving in to their neighborhood (racism veiled in concern for maintaining our history or neighborhood character or whatever).

You're playing the race card based on what evidence, exactly? This clearly isn't about the "wrong" elements, as this project will replace a decrepit boarding house charging rock bottom rents with a project presumably commanding very high rents.

I personally believe that there's nothing remarkable about these houses or this blocks that should prevent their demolition, and I suspect that the city council will ultimately agree.

But please be careful in assuming that you understand what motivates people you disagree with. Several of the people that we're throwing insults at are, by all evidence, genuinely passionate about preserving historic structures. We may disagree with them, but that doesn't make them racists.

[RailBaronYarr]

Go on to Nicole Curtis' facebook page and read some of the comments in opposition. I'm not saying every opponent of development or the loss of historic homes is racist. I'm saying there's a heck of a lot of the undertone when people use the word "element" (which is done quite often on her page). There's a reason the term "white flight" exists, and the same sentiment is often found in people living in high-value neighborhoods that want to keep people out.

[MNdible]

I don't have HGTV or DIY, so I haven't the slightest idea who this Nicole Curtis person is, or how she's germane to this location. I'll underline that the objections to this location have nothing to do with race, or even class.

[RailBaronYarr]

https://www.facebook.com/nicolecurtisre ... ct?fref=ts

Her April 15th post regarding this house explicitly calls on her followers to harass the property owner as well as email Meg Tuthill to save the property. Many people did, with a lot of them not being Minneapolis or even MN residents. Here is a sampling of some of the comments that pertain to race/class:

"Let it go...build rent free housing an supply the food and cash for crack" - Class, borderline racial undertones
"they just care about money money money... that's why we have ugly strip malls and horrible urban blight! It takes regular people to stand up and fight city hall - and they can do it! To keep developers from ruining your town!" - An example of vilifying a developer for only caring about money
"Even if this house became a restaurant, B&B, boarding house or dance hall, it would still make more money, be more stable and BE than another ugly stupid apartment building for transients" - Fear of an apartment being for "transients"
"As someone who lives in Minneapolis , we need to push people away who can't afford it. If we don't, all we create is another section 8 ghetto apartment. We need to save these houses and get some quality people in Minneapolis." and "Instead these people choose to stay on welfare and make these apartment complexes drug deal hot spots. Fix that problem before you build anymore apartments."

These thoughts are shared by at least some neighborhood activists, Trilby Busch has made some comments of her own:
"The focus is squarely on big business. Planners and city officials alike love to see the $$$ rolling in from these new projects, and eagerly anticipate the revenue generated from it in the future." - Clearly class type argument
"One example was on my block of Emerson Avenue. In the early 1980s, an old couple cashed out their duplex two doors down from my house to a slumlord. The duplex became a drug warehouse, with more than 20 unrelated people inhabiting the lower unit." - This is the type of anecdotal argument used to bring up very strong images of a class of people. Again, I never claimed the people making these remarks used outwardly racist words. The undertone is there just as it was when people took part in white flight, create gated communities, and say things like "there goes the neighborhood" when a family of another race/ethnicity moves in. If you disagree, that's fine.

[seanrichardryan]

Perhaps you should back up your argument with comments from the Strib too.

[RailBaronYarr]

Perhaps you should back up your argument with comments from the Strib too.

Too easy, but thanks for making my point.

[stock345]

[quote="RailBaronYarr"]https://www.facebook.com/nicolecurtisre ... ct?fref=ts



"As someone who lives in Minneapolis , we need to push people away who can't afford it. If we don't, all we create is another section 8 ghetto apartment. We need to save these houses and get some quality people in Minneapolis." and "Instead these people choose to stay on welfare and make these apartment complexes drug deal hot spots. Fix that problem before you build anymore apartments."

Thank you for pointing this out. I'm all about development, but if its going to completely gentrify a neighborhood, or lead to it, I'm always reluctant to support it no matter what.

[robotlollipop]

That facebook page gives me a headache

[RailBaronYarr]

I'm all about development, but if its going to completely gentrify a neighborhood, or lead to it, I'm always reluctant to support it no matter what.

Confused how apartments ranging in size from 525 sqft to 1,200 sqft, 1-3 BR, priced from $900-$1,800 a month (guessing) gentrifies the area? I'm not saying this is the slums of the world living here ($900 for a 1 BR 1 BA would hardly attract crap, but also doesn't gentrify with the couple making $200k/year). Also confused how the alternative, which is restricting housing supply, gentrifies an area any less? The price for housing would only go up if housing is restricted by limiting density, height, requiring parking minimums, etc. It'll just be the REALLY rich people who can afford $500k+ homes instead of the younger crowd who can afford a $1,500/mo 2 BR apartment. And if the city did less restricting/zoning and let it go nearly completely free market, maybe we'd see some more incremental development that doesn't change the character as much - buying 2-3 lots with 2-3 houses on them and putting in 4-6 row houses with the same height as the previous structures, and hopefully fewer parking per unit.

[MNdible]

Oh, come on.

Absurd comments on the Facebook page of somebody who has no real involvement in the project or the neighborhood are simply not relevant.

"The focus is squarely on big business. Planners and city officials alike love to see the $$$ rolling in from these new projects, and eagerly anticipate the revenue generated from it in the future." - Clearly class type argument

Um, really? How, exactly? This is a comment about city finances and city motivations, and has nothing whatsoever to do with class.

"One example was on my block of Emerson Avenue. In the early 1980s, an old couple cashed out their duplex two doors down from my house to a slumlord. The duplex became a drug warehouse, with more than 20 unrelated people inhabiting the lower unit."

I'm not sure in what context this quote was made, or how it relates to the projects under consideration. This sort of thing actually did happen in the Wedge back in the day, but I honestly can't say how this relates to anybody's support or opposition to this particular project. The Wedge has gentrified significantly since its roughest point some decades back, and the people you're bashing are the very ones who didn't flee when things turned south, the very ones who poured blood, sweat, tears, and lots of money into restoring and maintaining many of the historic homes in the neighborhood.

I don't doubt that the sort of race/fear thing you're referring to happens in some circumstances; I just don't see any evidence or any reason why this applies in this instance.

[mplsjaromir]

I feel uncomfortable about letting septuagenarians with too much time on their hands making planning decisions that will make a significant impact on the city for decades.

[twincitizen]

I wish someone would say that at a public hearing.

I have resisted getting involved in the circular argument that's consumed this thread ever since the HPC granted the appeal, but I couldn't resist applauding that particular statement.

In an attempt to bring this whole thing back into focus, apparently the HPC's ruling is final, unless it is appealed. You've got to assume the developer will appeal, given how much time/money/work they've put into it. Does anyone know what happens then? Does the appeal go directly to the Zoning & Planning Committee for a vote? If so, then everyone who supports this development had better start emailing Meg Tuthill, Gary Schiff, and the other 4 members of the Z&P. Probably leave out the septuagenarian part

[WillB]

My understanding is that a ten day appeal period follows a HPC decision. Any "affected person" can file an appeal. So long as proper paperwork is included, the appeal is heard by the Z&P committee, which makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Council then decides whether to accept the recommendation. See the text of section 599.190 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances (below) for more information:

599.190. - Appeals of decisions of the heritage preservation commission.

All decisions of the heritage preservation commission, except decisions to commence designation studies, designations, historic variances and transfers of development rights, shall be final subject to appeal to the city council and the right of subsequent judicial review. Appeals may be initiated by any affected person by filing the appeal with the planning director on a form approved by the planning director and shall be accompanied by all required supporting information, as specified in section 599.160, and fees as specified in section 599.175. All appeals shall be filed within ten (10) calendar days of the date of decision by the commission. No action shall be taken by any person to alter the property in any manner until expiration of the ten (10) day appeal period and, if an appeal is filed pursuant to this section, until after a final decision has been made by the city council. Not less than ten (10) days before the public hearing to be held by the zoning and planning committee of the city council to consider the appeal, the planning director shall mail notice of the hearing to the property owner and the surrounding property owners who were sent notice of the public hearing before the commission. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this section has been made. (2001-Or-029, § 1, 3-2-01; 2009-Or-023, § 8, 3-27-2009)

[David Greene]

If a building is truly architecturally significant - treasured church, the first of its style in an area, designed by a world-renowned architect, or something similar, I can see a case for having rules around preserving them. If it's something a bunch of people just feel really strongly about, then they should collectively buy the property to preserve it (and, incidentally, be forced to update it to code and maintain it as such). If no one out there can pony up the money to save a property from being better utilized to serve the market demand (which has financial and environmental benefits that the preservationists aren't also willing to account for), then anyone willing to buy it can do whatever they want with it.

The issue is much more complex than this. It isn't just about the parcels being developed upon. It's also about how that development affects parcels (and houses) near it. Now in this particular case I believe the project is a win for the neighborhood. But I certainly would have questioned the wisdom of building a 13-story tower along 28th street at the Bennett site. That's an inappropriate location for such a structure.

Likewise, I would question whether we should develop large apartment complexes within the central Wedge, say roughly two blocks in any direction from Lake, Hennepin and Lyndale. There _is_ something of great value in the neighborhood and it has to do with renters in duplexes and families in houses.

I own a house between 27th and 28th. I love what's going on south of 28th. I wouldn't want to see the same north of 28th, though. It was a big mistake to put in many of the ugly '60's-era walkups that exist now. We shouldn't exacerbate that problem.

Some of the old '20's-'30's-era apartment buildings are gorgeous! I would welcome some developments like that in the central Wedge. Small, compact, efficient. Don't put any parking in, I don't care. I provide my own parking on my own property, as it should be.

But I really don't want to see more of these cookie-cutter apartment buildings with the fake, unused trellises on them.

[David Greene]

But making entire neighborhoods a preservation district, even a "Lite" version, means there's a reaction to a clear market demand.

Oh geez. Not *everything* should be ruled by the so-called "free" market.

[David Greene]

That seems to escalate the concept of historic preservation more than appropriate. Isn't the point of historic preservation to preserve examples of certain historically significant structures? I don't think it's an appropriate for HPC or Z&P to prevent an entire neighborhood, except for main corridors, from experiencing incremental and natural growth on historic preservation grounds.

This is probably more the Linden Hills effect than a true desire to preserve specific historic examples, since homeowners realize that if they protect the SFH character of a neighborhood while it simultaneously sees a surge of demand, then supply is constricted and the equilibrium price rises. Hense, housing becomes much more expensive, increasing the investment returns of incumbent landowners and preventing people from moving into the neighborhood.

You're being much more cynical about this than is warranted. Homeowners aren't worrying about cashing in on their homes. And they aren't purposefully limiting who can live in the neighborhood. Hell, the Wedge is taking the most density in the Uptown area by far.

Neighbors mostly just want a nice place to live and see the loss of significant numbers of SFH and duplexes as decreasing the quality of the neighborhood. I tend to agree with them on that. I don't think most people are asking for rezoning for historic preservation purposes. They see it as redressing a wrong done to the neighborhood in the willy-nilly upzoning and teardowns of the '60's.

If we're going to upzone, fine. But let's do it purposefully. What was done to the northern Wedge in the '60's was neither purposeful nor well thought-out. It was done in a panic by a city fearing for its life during white flight.

Let's downzone the Wedge two blocks off the main arteries in toward the core of the neighborhood to R2. Later we can talk about upzoning that area if need be. But I think that need is a long ways off. There are lots of areas of Uptown to develop. The problem is that the current zoning makes the Wedge an easy target for developers looking for a quick buck. Let's all think a little more about what we actually want in this area.

[mattaudio]

But in this case, when otherwise willing suppliers are prevented from satisfying demand in the market, the end result is increased rents. http://www.amazon.com/Gated-City-Kindle ... B005KGATLO

[David Greene]

..preventing people from moving into the neighborhood.

While few will admit this outright, this is a major goal for many people.

Got a source for that? Because I talk to my neighbors all the time and *not once* have I heard even a sideways suggestion about this. I disagree with my neighbors on a number of urban development issues but what you're suggesting is a form of bigotry I just haven't seen in the Wedge.