Gail Schack called it a reckless gamble on the city's neighborhoods.
Sarah Tschida said it's necessary for accommodating Minneapolis' most vulnerable citizens.
Several accused the city's elected officials of selling out to developers.
Hundreds showed up to City Hall Monday night to speak at the first formal hearing for the Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan, enough to fill the City Council chambers and still require two rooms for overflow, before the Minneapolis Planning Commission voted 8-1 to send an amended version of the proposal to the City Council. Watch the video.
Audience members clapped uproariously and occasionally heckled speakers as the Minneapolis Planning Commission spent four hours hearing public testimony limited to two minutes per person on the 20-year road map for the future. The comments ran the gamut from people asking the city to scrap the entire plan, to those appealing to the commission to amend it for changes on specific properties and some urging city officials to push even further in loosening zoning restrictions to allow for more multiunit housing in Minneapolis neighborhoods.
"We need change," said Ryan Brown. "We need more housing options in all parts of the city."
The hearing brought to surface strong emotions over how Minneapolis should lay groundwork for anticipated growth over the next 22 years and how the long-range proposal should prioritize neighborhood character, racial inclusivity and housing affordability. These and more pieces of the plan have polarized a vocal minority of groups on opposite sides of the debate, leading to pervasive lawn signs on both ends.
Opponents flooded the City Council chambers with signs calling for the city to add mandatory parking spaces to the plan and accusing planners of pandering to developers. "I call this a social experiment of epic proportions," said Schack. "We are people, not a social experiment."