Move forward on a greener Minneapolis

  • Article by: Editorial Board , Star Tribune
  • Updated: May 27, 2013 - 6:18 PM

Collaboration and public-private funding are critical for progress.

  • 17
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
RossbergMay. 27, 13 7:05 PM

"Who will pay to maintain and enhance this new public space?" Just a minute - I see the answer appearing. And it's - another tax on tobacco. Or is it alcohol this time? Or should we just up the sales tax on everything like was done for the Twins? Or should we put epulltabs in schools to see if kids can be interested in potentially doubling their lunch money? It makes little difference. Now that the lunacy in pursuit of unneeded sports venues has been momentarily satiated it's on to ever more ridiculous ideas such as taking more land off the tax rolls in order to recreate the same environment which is available for free just a few miles away. Why? To mask the certain outcome that this stadium, just like the last one, will result in a dead zone for development in the area surrounding it.

12
15
nikkieMay. 28, 1312:13 AM

Can't the redevelopment itself support the the maintenance of a park? Land value and property taxes will go up, so can't that money support the value added services of this green space? That only seems logical to me, but maybe I'm missing something. That's how street improvement projects work, so why not apply those same rules to corporate America?

10
1
owatonnabillMay. 28, 13 5:25 AM

Sure. Green up Minneapolis. But taking potentially lucrative tax-income property off the market and then sticking it to the rest of the State to develop this "green" won't fly. We outstaters are tired of pouring money into the fists of that conglomeration of idiots who comprise the Minneapolitan powers-that-be. Go ahead. Green up Minneapolis. But every dime comes from Minneapolis.

12
17
aarghmebuckoMay. 28, 13 6:35 AM

The metro produces most of the money in this state, which subsidizes ( pours out) to the rest of the state, including Owatonna. Parks are good investments. The proposed land has historically not been lucrative, in part because it has been a wasteland of parking lots. The park is part of the package that makes it work. I'm not sure why the park board can't step up to the plate for maintenance - how would this park be different than the responsibility for maintaining Loring, or a neighborhood park? And for the designers - the park should connect to the Mississippi River.

16
6
BobtheguyMay. 28, 13 7:41 AM

Get rid of parking lots, so fewer cars can park. Of course, because the regulatory overhead and anti - business tax clime drive business out of downtown, fewer cars need to park, except for the games... The vision of an area which restricts automotive traffic by design is anathema to the idea that small business and working people would want to occupy the area. It is time to get rid of the starry - eyed idiots who have these utopian visions which are founded on a wish for Americans to want to be Europeans. We want to move about freely, not be herded into trains and required to use bicycles to go about our business.

10
17
liberaleliteMay. 28, 13 8:02 AM

Actually we still have a severe oversupply of parking due to excessive "regulation" (parking minimums) designed to socially engineer a car-centric utopia. Yet the "free market" has persevered, adding tens of thousands (!!!) of residential units in downtown neighborhoods like the Mill District and the North Loop, where people want to live to avoid driving. It's been decades since the free market build structured parking not mandated by the city through parking minimums, precisely because we have an oversupply.

5
5
twincitizen1May. 28, 13 8:59 AM

Minneapolis should hand over its responsibility for larger parks like Theo Wirth and Minnehaha Falls to the county's Three Rivers Parks system, since those already function as regional parks anyways. That way the Minneapolis Park Board can focus on its neighborhood parks and growing demand for green space downtown.

4
0
cavellMay. 28, 13 9:17 AM

Tear down the strib building after paying strib owners of course and put in a park? Does park improve quality of life for nearby businesses in feb and mar? When we are all outside loving nature?

2
4
vins0010May. 28, 1310:15 AM

@Owatonna Bill... please, Minneapolis subsidizes outstate. However, if you feel so strongly, please pay for all your own highways, schools, and roads. So tired of outstate rhetoric that doesn't match with reality.

14
3
dtmonkeyboyMay. 28, 1312:04 PM

It is anticipated that the park will increase tax revenue through direct investment by more than $3 million a year to the city - net. The problem is that the park itself and the associated parking ramp that would need to be built will cost $60 million. This means it will take 20 years to recoup the cost of the park - but that leaves no money for actually developing the park itself - which is why private funding is also needed.

3
0

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT