State Rep. Steve Elkins ("Twin Cities housing: The 'flaming hoops 'that separate builders and cities," Opinion Exchange, Feb. 16) correctly analyzes regional demographic trends indicating that millennials will have more than enough single-family housing choices in the many suburban homes vacated by downsizing elderly boomers. Also, he draws upon his Metropolitan Council experience to point out the mismatch between sprawling large-lot market-rate development and the unfair hidden subsidy provided by existing property taxpayers for expansion of road, water/sewer and school infrastructure. Elkins makes a good case for upfront impact fees so that new development pays its own way for required infrastructure upgrades. I would posit that impact fees also enhance the ability of municipalities to create and locate new parkland and connecting bike/pedestrian paths to benefit both new and existing residents.
However, Elkins focuses his solutions on permitting as-of-right small-lot single-family units, in lieu of the negotiated Planned Unit Development (PUD) process now used by most suburbs. A more sustainable and, with sincere upfront existing resident consultation, politically acceptable development pattern would be mixed-density "missing middle" units comprising duplexes, triplexes and townhomes, as well as moderately sized apartment buildings. This type of development could be designed to provide housing for a range of age groups and incomes. Such integrated projects could be located near workforce opportunities and/or enhanced mobility choices that include transit now or in the not-too-distant future.
Nonetheless, Elkins has provided a well-thought-out argument for radically altering the development approval process to begin producing affordable housing at a rate we need as a metropolitan region.
DAN CORNEJO, St. Paul
The writer is a consulting city planner and former director of planning and economic development for St. Paul.
MINNEAPOLIS SCHOOLS
Here are the actual objections of opponents to reshuffling plan
As a parent who considers herself an anti-racist activist who is also opposed to the Minneapolis school board's Comprehensive District Design, the framing of the Feb. 16 article "South Mpls. parents denounce schools plan" is an inaccurate portrayal of parents' legitimate concerns with the proposed changes.
By framing south Minneapolis parents as mobilizing against "a school district plan that would bunch magnet schools in the center of the city to address racial disparities," the article uses the same non-sequitur logic the board has intentionally created to divide and conquer its constituents. As we see it, board members are manipulating citizens' desire for a true dismantling of the white supremacist structure of Minneapolis schools to push a series of budget and transit-driven upheavals upon our most vulnerable citizens. A true dismantling of segregation will require an intersectional approach at various levels of government and culture. To pretend otherwise is to ignore history.
To be clear, our opposition is driven by the board's lack of transparent data to justify relocating up to 65% of students in the 2021-22 school year. It is driven by an utter lack of authentic community engagement and an arbitrarily rushed timeline.
Furthermore, the proposed magnet schools — located centrally in the city and nowhere else — will require a capital campaign. "More on that later," we're told, as if it's a legitimate answer. We do not trust the board's motives or process, and that is the real driver of our opposition.
