urbanMSP

We need to get as many people on this site to write the idiots at CIDNA and to go to the next public meeting before they stop this development or force Trammel Crow to build a another nondescript box. If the jokers at save dinkytown can get so much attention we can too!

this Bob Corrick, Chair of the CIDNA Committee
[email protected]
612-927-5599

I doubt we'll persuade Bob Corrick especially with name calling. That approach might garner sympathy for the CINDA folks when this decision comes to a head at Z&P and the Council.

I didn't mean to for people to write them and call them names, i simply called Bob a name that i think is entirely justified. Especially with quotes like this "We don't oppose everything", and history saying otherwise. But i do think if lots of people write in and voice there support they will understand that lots of people support this project. So if you know anyone who lives in that neighborhood, figure out there stance and if they support it encourage them to write to CIDNA showing their support. Or if they don't want to write a letter, Write one for them have them read it and sign it, that's what Im doing for my sister and my friend who live on calhaun.

If y'all are up for a letter writing campaign, I'd target it to the city council, not to CIDNA.

True that, i was thinking id write Betsey Hodges next and A, see if i get a response and B, see if she really means to grow Minneapolis to 500,000 And do everything it takes to achieve such a goal. But you make a good point about the council seeing as they have the power in this city. But i guess i was assuming the council would be more reasonable than the folks at CIDNA and probbally allow the variance. But might as well send the City council a copy of the letters too.

Part of the role of mayor is booster, and I think the mayor should be getting in front of things like this and saying "this is how we grow the city."

If a mayor is going to talk about growing the population then they're going to have to speak up when citizens get in the way of that.

Two quick thoughts I had when reading this thread.

1. If I was in a meeting and somebody seriously suggested that this project might ruin windsurfing on Lake Calhoun the tirade I would go on could be describe as legendary, hell even Dan Barrerio would have been proud about the meltdown. The shear number of four letter words I would use while berating people and the process in general would make a sailor blush.

2. There is a semi-notable court case about having a view to the sky and "ancient light" doctrine, granted the case centered around the building of Fountaineblueau Hotel in Miami back in 1959. Along with that, the case took place in a Florida state appellate court so I'm not 100% sure of it's precedence here in Minnesota. But the at the core of the ruling was that in the U.S. there is no "right" to have X amount of light coming though your windows, no matter how long the structure had been in place. I would recommend Googleing "Ancient Light" and "Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc." for more detailed information about the case and the legal concept.

There is, however, a legal light to right to light in the UK, though it looks like even there it's being weakened as time goes on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_light

There's also the "fresh air" argument, which Garrison Keillor's neighbors used to complain about his house expansion a few years ago.

That is the concept I was referring to FISHMANPET, it appears that legal concept/thought/doctrine was never established in America.

If y'all are up for a letter writing campaign, I'd target it to the city council, not to CIDNA.

I totally agree with this advice. If you live in CIDNA, it might make sense to write something like "Dear CIDNA leadership, thanks for all your work making sure local voices are part of the development process. I support X project because of Y, and I hope you'll represent my point of view along with the others you're hearing." You may not change anyone's mind, but to the extent neighborhood leaders are speaking 'for the neighborhood' they should respectfully include your perspective. And CCing City Council members on your message certainly makes sense too.

I've been advocating for creating some kind of political body from urbanmsp on various threads. I've heard a few people go to Planning Commission or Z & P or City Council meetings but it's just not enough. The NIMBY's are winning right now and it is because they are a loud minority (in my opinion). Any critical mass for mobilizing the "urbanist" agenda?

Let’s take this one step further. What do we have to do to get some of us on the planning commission or the COW review board? With the new mayor and council members the political winds are changing. I have consider joining my neighborhood group however, I am in Windom Park in NE and nothing ever happens.

You don't need to be on an official body to have an impact. You don't even need to live in the area. You just need people and money. Often you can get along without money. What you absolutely cannot do without is competent organizing.

I've been advocating for creating some kind of political body from urbanmsp on various threads. I've heard a few people go to Planning Commission or Z & P or City Council meetings but it's just not enough. The NIMBY's are winning right now and it is because they are a loud minority (in my opinion). Any critical mass for mobilizing the "urbanist" agenda?

The NIMBY's are not winning right now. I'm not sure where you got that idea. Linden Corner was defeated. As was the apartment building at 24th & olfax. Each for different reasons. In that time, several other buildings have sailed through approval, the vast majority of them with little to no controversy. Even the Dinkytown project passed by a 9-4 vote, and that was with the former council. The new council is even more likely to support dense development over neighborhood objections.

The City Council gets exactly ONE appointment to the Planning Commission (besides the Councilmember themselves). The Mayor, OTOH, appoints 5 people (4 appointees and themself or a designee). The remaining 3 seats are given to reps from the Park Board, School Board, and Hennepin County.

However, the Planning Commission is hardly ever against development. They frequently seem like a rubber stamp actually. These people are generally pretty pro-growth, pro-density. The "problem" is city council members that bend over backwards to NIMBY neighborhood groups, rather than engaging and having difficult conversations with them.

Look, neighborhood groups can bitch and moan all they want, but in the end, what matters is how the City Council votes. My point, I guess, is that you should email your councilmember when you care about something and not worry so much what other people think. If you want to get more involved, join your neighborhood group.

If we start shooting down good proposals left and right because neighborhood organizations are opposed, then maybe we need to have a more serious discussion about organizing a "YIMBY" group. But as it stands, I think the city is doing just fine.

Word.

I think it's pretty revealing that massive campaign waged by Save Dinkytown was defeated by little more organization than me and another poster going to a planning commission meeting and making the decision to speak up after we'd arrived.

I think it's pretty revealing that massive campaign waged by Save Dinkytown was defeated by little more organization than me and another poster going to a planning commission meeting and making the decision to speak up after we'd arrived.

I'm sure Opus may have had something to do with it too.

Not to say we're responsible for its passing, just saying we were the most organized proponents and yet look at the outcome. But other parts of the city, particularly ones where the opposition is well funded, might require more.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

CIDNA wasn't too happy with Marlys' article. Here's their response: http://www.minnpost.com/letters/2014/01 ... -community