A "concept plan" as defined by Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) Planning Director Judd Rietkerk at the April 16th Camden Alliance of Neighborhoods meeting is: "an idea document".
In late January, at a MPRB concept review and general planning retreat where all MPRB Commissioners, five staff, and three guests attended, 76 conceptual plans for various projects city-wide were displayed and reflected on in their planning retreat as a “mixture of goals, ideas, needs and concepts”.
Among the seventy-six citywide plans were four plans touching the Camden community. The first: to construct one of six artificial turf fields at Folwell park. Second: Restoration and upgrade Victory Memorial. Third: upgrade Webber Park; with picnic pavilions, beach area, water play feature, pool and restoration gardens. The fourth conceptual plan is “Development of Shingle Creek Community Center and new northside lake”.
Please note: The Shingle Creek Lake "concept plan", or "Neighborhood Revitalization & Shingle Creek Restoration"as it was entitled at the April 16th CAN! meeting in the MPRB Handout has not been approved by MPRB nor are there currently funds for this concept plan. We understand this is just an idea or concept that has not received any approvals by even the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board itself. It would take many community input meetings, many lengthy different agencies approvals, many lengthy feasibility studies, and even then may never happen.
SCNA wishes to thank Commissioner Olson and Mr. Rietkerk for presenting this "concept plan" to the community to begin a dialogue about improving the community. Thanks to Council President Johnson's Aide Sara Goodnough for attending and sharing Council President Johnson's opposition to this concept. (Read her letter).
SCNA is grateful to our facilitators and to those of you from across the community who attended this important first meeting to begin the dialogue about what amenities our community wants and could support with the help of MPRB or other agencies.
The Shingle Creek Neighborhood Association's (SCNA) mission is to protect and promote neighborhood interests and the health, safety and general welfare of the residents within Shingle Creek Neighborhood Associations geographic jurisdiction in a non-partisan, educational, and cooperative manner.
We appreciate the opportunity to continue to keep residents informed and work with the community, Neighborhood Revitalization Program, MPRB, and the City to achieve our overall mission. Thank you for signing up below to keep updated on any future community meetings regarding improvements to our neighborhood. To sign up to be on the SCNA Neighborhood Improvement email list send us your email to: scna@stribmail.com.
For more MPRB information go to: www.minneapolisparks.org or contact Commissioner Jon Olson at 612-230-6443 ext 2.
April 16th Camden Alliance of Neighborhoods Meeting Recap:
As part of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Planning process, a retreat was held January 24th, 2009. In attendance were Commissioners, staff, and three residents to review 76 "concept plans" across the city.
The Shingle Creek Neighborhood Association first learned of this retreat and concept plan through another resident from across the river in late January. SCNA contacted MPRB Commissioner Olson and MPRB Planning Director Judd Rietkerk to learn more in February. In March 10th 2009, SCNA invited Commissioner Olson and staff to give a presentation at their monthly meeting. SCNA, invited the neighborhood to attend (see March Newsletter front page/March Camden News ad) Seventeen people were in attendance. At the SCNA March meeting, Commissioner Olson asked what residents thought of the concept. SCNA residents gave some comments and asked Commissioner Olson to attend the April Camden Alliance of Neighborhoods meeting and again give the presentation, Commissioner Olson agreed.
April 1, SCNA Camden News article again invites residents from across Camden to attend. One hundred and fifty people attend (10 were from outside the Shingle Creek neighborhood) the April 16th meeting to hear about the "concept plan" from MPRB Commissioner Jon Olson and Planning Director Judd Rietkerk. A a two page handout entitled "Neighborhood Revitailization & Shingle Creek Restoration" was distributed by Commissioner Olson. A powerpoint presentation was given by Mr. Rietkerk.
After the powerpoint presentation, a letter from Council President Barb Johnson was read by her aide Sara Goodnough. Then thirty one of 97 questions were answered by Commissioner Olson during the evening, a petition was submitted to end the concept plan and open a community dialogue signed by 29 residents of Shingle Creek and Kingsley Commons; a resident submitted a three-page hand written letter; residents at the CAN! meeting were given an opportunity to give a snapshot for the evening of how they felt about the "concept plan".
A show of hands poll was taken of those in the room ranking from 1 to 5, to reflect how people were feeling that evening about the concept plan.
54% ranked the concept the lowest ranking basically stating they prefer the plan not be pursued. 8% of the audience thought the plan should continue to be on the far back planning burner.
15% were in the middle but needed alot more information. 21% of the audience liked bits and pieces and believed there should be more conversations and only 1% showed support for the concept as it was presented.
Residents were also invited to give further comments on four questions. Below are the questions and their responses:
|
1. What do you like about this concept? (20 responses)
|
|
*Absolutely nothing
*Nothing
*Great vision to enhance the neighborhood-where better to invest. I’m hoping to buy a
house in the neighborhood and this is a huge positive to me. Great for community
development. Moving forward not stagnating.
*I’m glad the Park District is working to clean the water & asking for our input
*At least someone has a vision for our community. It gives people an opportunity to talk
about things.
*I like the idea of beautifying the neighborhood, particularly a body of water.
*It would give my house a chance to recoup.
*Great idea! Improves our neighborhood I’d rather see a park than vacant & crumbling school.
*I appreciate this chance to meet our neighbors and this time to meet the park board people.
*Thanks Jon, nice job!
*Build a community center & pool the north commons
*We need to make our neighborhood better for our community this would be a “plus”
*Clean up & improve what we already have we have some great stuff in our neighborhood. But its been neglected.
*Water quality & environmental restoration are not synonymous with the environmental
degradation of your plan ReDo!
*Thanks to Jon Olson for present this in these conditions-hot, crowed, mostly hostile crowd. You did well.
*Northside could use some positive amenities-probably not a lake but we could improve the whole creek site and make Shingle Creek school into a community center. We need to improve all our Northside neighborhoods-but not by flooding residential aves. We love our community!
*Concept should also include additional Improvements to Webber Park. I support this concept. It will offer stability to housing population and attract business to entire area adjacent to Shingle Creek. A permanent plus!
*Thanks for asking! No Mpls needs a lift---parks and water improvements are worth considering.
*I like the bird sanctuary and wetlands.
*This is a great idea to unite our community and improve it for the future.
|
|
2. What don’t you like about this concept? (21 responses)
|
|
*My house will lose. I say not to this plan.
*Nothing!!
*Everything
*nothing
*Don’t take affordable houses away from this area-Don’t raise taxes they are too high now.
*everything! Step 1 should be: Ask the citizens here what they want. (in alignment with desired objectives!)
*Could have been introduced better
*Why would you replace green space w/water?
*The mayhem on the meeting!! Send flyers out so people can write down things before the meeting.
*Losing my home after fighting a year on foreclosure to save it.
*Losing so many homes
*No affordable housing should be eliminated. Don’t flood the neighborhood. Improve the existing creek side sites.
*You need a better sound system for a meeting of this size.
*We will be losing good neighbors along with the homes.
*Don’t condemn homes when market values have fallen precipitously & residents lose equity!
*You did not poll citizens
*Where were the environmental studies prior to “pulling a rabbit idea out of a hat?”
*You did not use your human resources wisely—the community knows their land, needs, etc.
*This is a very nice area with well built affordable homes-why should we take down nice houses-why not look at an area where there is blight and many boarded up homes. This would be an improvement to this kind of area. I moved here because homes are affordable and I don’t want my value to go up just to get higher taxes!
*Don’t take out our good memories around here!!
*Don’t take my friend away!
|
| 3. For you what are some Key Considerations: (20 responses) |
|
*Take no one’s Home
*Can you use the dying mall and school and leave the houses?
*Can it be explained more thoroughly to residents that by giving us the power to design/draft our own “ideal” plan, one that works around all of the existing housing stock, no one will lose a
home? The community could benefit from some “cleaning up” & more access to amenities the
whole population can come together to enjoy.
*Owens Corning = Pollution
*All Camden neighborhoods could use some amenities for the benefit of the residents.
Don’t flood out Shingle Creek neighborhood. Don’t take away good affordable housing.
*Fix what we have. Spend some $ on the area but keep the houses!
*People who are for the concept---is your house one that is being eliminated?
Then until the homeless problem is solved keep your mouth shut!
*MN Deficit +4.5 Billion-Where is the $ coming from?
*Keep what we have—upgrade
*The welfare of the residents must come first. All of the residents.
*May we be allowed to see the other plans that were considered? We only saw 1 plan, the
paper state there were other plans. May we also have opportunity to draw up different plans?
*Keep residents informed of meetings! They are the decision-makers here-not the politicians.
*If lake guaranteed isn’t swimmable/fishable, why bother?
*Public statement of why property values have dropped
*Could we flood near north instead?
*If not for the Camden News, would we have heard about this, and would we be having these meetings?
*Could the empty land near Osseo Rd be used somehow?
*Thanks Barb Johnson for your comments. It is rare for me to agree with you too.
*Could we relocate the recycling plant and buy the industrial land along the RR(railroad)?
*People who have lived here a long time don’t want to have to start over.
|
| 4. What are the important unanswered questions?(27 responses) |
|
*Who’s going to payoff my house and finance my move!!
*Does the plan include park areas? If so what happened to the original Humboldt Ave Park planned 3-4 years ago?
*How does this help those in Camden who live on the other side of the tracks?
*Have the correct MN fauna and flora been identified? Sheridan and Vincent Plants are NOT correct!!
*How about Ryan Lake, why not start there adn go slower and smaller, don’t get rid of so many houses?
*Scale it way back far too big of a concept---do it without taking hardly any homes.
*Will the lake be a DEAD LAKE?
*What about the cast of security!! Mpls lakes are getting dangerous & City are move the projects out here. Will crime increase?
*What happens to those communities that are down stream from your “trickle” creek after you fill your lake?
*How is it fair that some people get “Lake Side” property with all the benefits & value when resold & other lose their homes at “market value” & will never be able to rebuy a new home at the original value? Are you going to TAX those fortunate lake side homes to the max?
*How much will it cost the 500(sold)/1300 (800 left to pay taxes) or 250 (sold)/ 1500 (1250 left to pay taxes) that are left in taxes after the cost of buying homes, building, loosing the tax base & INSURANCE for the lake? What is the livability?
*How many would lose home?
*Everything!!
*How is the Mpls Park and Rec Board collaborating with other city divisions to enhance this community? I’m just a park and rec guy won’t cut it!!
*Why don’t you do something with the closed school & surrounding field so not to take the 250-300 homes?
*What other “plans” are on the table for the neighborhood? Why only this one? What are the options?
*What happens to 52nd Upton Ave N?
*Leave the Houses Use existing park space
*Can we see a plan where they only take the school down but no houses?
*If you take 250-300 (homes) how are those people going to be able to enjoy the lake?
*If you are concerned about property values & homes foreclosing more people will foreclose on their houses because of their taxes going up because of loosing taxes from the 250-300 homes therefore they won’t be able to afford to live there. How does this bring up our values then?
*With Plan on table, what incentive is there to maintain or put money into home improvements?
*Can we sell with a plan like this on the table?
*Will you use EMINANTE DOMAINE?
*Assuming my home is not bulldozed, how will my property value and taxes be affected?
*Mother nature took away alot of dreams in Fargo/Moorhead and created an unwanted Lake, why do some of us have to give away some of our dreams?
*Show the community other plans!
|
Twenty years ago before the birth of the City of Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program(NRP), the City had broad-based planning districts and elected officials were entrusted to make decisions for the benefit of their districts. The Shingle Creek Neighborhood Association(SCNA), a nonprofit organization like many of the six other neighborhoods Camden Alliance of Neighborhoods (CAN!), got its start planning, educating, promoting, advocating for our neighborhoods with help through the NRP program and it’s funding. Viable neighborhood organizations are unique community assets for the City of Minneapolis “serving a basic City service” in helping monitor city planning, processes, and opportunities and helping educate and inform residents. The current independent structure of the Neighborhood Revitalization Program neighborhoods provides a continued structure for resident’s to work with elected officials, city departments, and various other partners to establish neighborhood priorities through their approved action plans; to respond more quickly at a neighborhood level and to remain as vital resources in the heart of the communities they daily most effect.