[Mpls] Re: Building Height (exception idea) for taller buildings

[Tim Bonham]

>I propose that the city offer to except the height restriction if the 
>developer limits sale and rental to people that do not own an automobile. 
>For instance you could have enough parking spaces for 10 automobiles (10 
>units), and rent or sell to another 20, 30, or more people that did not 
>own vehicles.

Seems unrealistic.  Just off the top of my head, I can think of several 
ways to cheat on this:
         - Don't "own" vehicles, just lease them.  (Many people do that now 
anyway.)
         - I own the vehicle in my name, my wife rents the apartment in her 
name.  She owns no vehicle.
         - Keep the vehicle licensed in my mother's name.  (An 80-year old 
widow living in rural MN gets much better insurance rates, anyway.)
         - Keep the vehicle licensed in my small business name, not my 
name.  (Again, insurance savings to this already.)
         - Buy a used car, never bother to transfer the title to my 
name.  (Also quite common now.)

These could probably all be caught fairly easily, but who's going to pay 
for someone to 'police' this?  Not the developer; they have no incentive to 
hassle their tenants.  Not the city inspections dept; they are much too 
busy.  Nor our police force; also much too busy.  Possibly a few 
neighborhood associations might have some budding stalinists who would 
enjoy hassling their neighbors.  But any enforcement would seem to be very 
difficult.

And what enforcement could be done after the building is built, 
anyway?  Could you force them to tear down the extra stories on top?  Not 
likely.  Or force tenants to move out, once they've signed a year-long 
lease?  Most developments are done by a shell corporation, which promptly 
sells the building after it's built.  Could you legally enforce this 
provision on a new owner?

This doesn't seem to me to be workable.

Tim Bonham, Ward 12, Standish-Ericsson