[Mpls] Accessory Units - Legalize them

[gemgram]

No, sorry Dan.  The grant from the Met Council is specific to Ventura 
Village Neighborhood.  The other Ventura Village grants are from Ventura 
Village NRP and specific to that neighborhood.  The neighborhood NRP process 
stipulates that Ventura Village NRP funds SHALL only be used for 
revitalization within that neighborhoods boundaries.

Dan is correct about who seem to oppose the accessory housing principal. 
After all, we are talking about private investment, NOT City investment. 
Investment that might be used for a son, a daughter, a mother or father, and 
yes by someone who just might need an "AFFORDABLE" place to live. Perhaps 
the City should not finance carriage houses because there are too many 
rental units as Dennis Plante suggested, but as long as those same city 
officials are claiming there is a housing shortage, then it is ridiculous to 
prevent PRIVATE dollars being spent to create accessory units. Dennis, when 
we "approached" mortgage lenders they loved the idea of financing 
construction of carriage houses. They thought they were the most secure type 
of investment a Bank or Mortgage lender could make. Also, while Dennis is 
correct about "Why zoning laws are in existence" , please do not confuse 
this with wise zoning law.  When it takes $2000 extra "FEE"dollars and 
several months to get through what the City has already declared as 
permissible, then you certainly do not have "wise" zoning law.  What you 
have is a zoning system purposefully created to allow CM's the most 
arbitrary of decision making possible for political purposes, NOT zoning law 
that is sound for our City.

Private individuals in my neighborhood often rent units in their buildings 
for far below the rent levels being charged under the supposed "affordable 
rent" guidelines.  I rent three bedroom units for 550 to 650 a month.  Why? 
In part because my wife believes it is criminal to squeeze poor people for 
more. She thinks the renters become part of our "extended" family, or of our 
"village", and you just do not do that to your own people. Unique 
perspective for some, but very common in my neighborhood for people who 
actually own here, and live, as part of our community.

I was talking to Blake Graham (the former Zoning Code writer and guru for 
Minneapolis) about this issue today, and he says the overlay was written so 
as to have it apply City wide and to appease some CM's who wanted more 
Council control.  But that the language was a mistake when applied to 
Ventura Village where people had already created the program and the 
safeguards. Of course Blake Graham also admits that duplexes should be 
allowed on 5000 sq. ft lots in R2B districts. Unfortunately, a couple of 
young women planners who did not like the carriage house idea and thinking 
they were making points with their bosses sabotaged any chance for an 
intelligent treatment of accessory housing in Minneapolis. I wish we had a 
Mayor and Council Members smart enough, or caring enough, to do what is good 
for Minneapolis rather than playing silly political games. It is time they 
fixed their mess-up.

The present Mayor and Council promised to create an overlay district that 
would allow individuals to build affordable housing units with their own 
money and initiative, instead they allowed a couple of foolish young 
planners to create an abortion of one. And they have not cared enough to 
fulfill promises to fix the damn thing. Like the Stormwatergate, a great 
idea with community support has been allowed to die the death of a thousand 
cuts because of bad City management.  But then who knows, it is an election 
year and perhaps those politicians realize that some people remember 
promises.

As for those SE. folks who hate University students, I would like to ask, 
"why you bother to live so proudly near that University and think of 
yourselves as living in a more intellectual community when it is those very 
same students who actually create and are the university, not intellectual 
snobs who live around it.  Some folks seem to think that the "University" 
would be cool if they would only remove those damn pesky students. Sorry 
folks, "University" means "the universe of the students", NOT "universe of 
pseudo-intellectuals" living around a campus. The amazing thing is that this 
miss-placed student hatred is so intense that some folks would rather not 
allow anyone to have the accessory housing they want because it might become 
so successful and such an evidently good idea that there would be pressure 
to do it in their own area. And thereby add even a couple more of those 
hated students. Rather silly I think, and sort of like the dog in the manger 
who doesn't want or need the hay, but will be damned if he will let anyone 
else who needs it to have any hay.

You folks keep pushing until we have a couple of CM's with gumption and 
wisdom enough to fix the mess they allowed to be created out of sound 
community based planning.  It is time Minneapolis Planning came into the 
modern age and the real world.  If a community does not want carriage houses 
then don't build them.  If an individual does not want a carriage house then 
don't spend your personal investment to get one.  But, get the hell out of 
other people's hay manger, before you get tossed out of the barn. There are 
homeless people sleeping under bridges and under trees tonight. If someone 
wants to build them a "manger" in their own back yard then the neighbors 
dogs and their "handlers" should just get the hell out of the way!

Jim Graham

>"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, 
>you'll have to ram them down politician's throats."


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan McGuire" <sabier at visi.com>

> gemgram wrote:
>
>>   Even though Minneapolis promised to change zoning law to allow such 
>> houses to be built, not one of the Met Council grants have been claimed 
>> due to the incredible red tape one must swim through to build such a unit 
>> in Minneapolis.
>
> Jim,
>    Could I claim any of that Met Council money for the carriage house we 
> built last year?  We have a 80' lot that was originally plotted as two 
> lots so the city thinks of our new "carriage house" as a single family. 
> The zoning folks tried to talk us out of putting it on the back of the 
> lot - "don't you want it in line with the other houses on the block?"

>
> Dan McGuire
> Ericsson
>