realrentersofmpls

[realrentersofmpls]

The Sentinel Cometh.

Back in 2018, I participated in conversations with neighborhood associations, the city planners, the Planning Committee, the City Council, and the Mayor, about the 2040 plan.

I posted this on my Facebook page about my experience, responding to someone who said the city did a good job on outreach:

“Over a period of six months, I witnessed neighborhood associations, and representatives from each ward voice opposition on a variety of issues, and demanded greater outreach with the plan. Something the city actively avoiding doing, even though they had greater outreach on things that didn’t even apply to the people they communicated with, like sidewalk snow removal. There were hardly any people of color at those meetings, and many who were were against the plan, much in part because their lives were already getting destroyed by redevelopment, like what’s happening on Nicolette 14th and 15th. Nothing in the plan prevents more of that, and they were blown off. We had 4.5 hours of testimony in front of the planning commission, with about 70% opposition. The planning commission took a 15 minute break to deliberate, and just blew right through at the end, dismissing the majority of what was said. The next day a member related how public outreach was tyranny of the least busy. You can actually see the meeting for yourself, I was their the whole time and testified: https://youtu.be/6wgzpw2-LlE

The only issue anyone hears about is single family housing, because that’s the only issue the city can stand on, but it’s a fraction of the issues people voiced. Weak environmental regulations, no objective analysis on how the plan will impact the environment or affordable housing, no plan for transportation because of the increase in density, rezoning all around the city, nothing to maintain affordable housing in negotiations with developers, no stake for neighborhood associations, etc… The school’s weren’t involved, and the rezoning that’s happening around them looks devistating. I went to talk to the leadership at Minneapolis College about it, because they look like they’re going to be surrounded by non residential buildings, and I was worried because they’re already facing enrollment decline and students with homelessness, the majority of them didn’t know about it. That’s because their hasn’t been any outreach. The Community Development club and myself passed a resolution through the Student Senate specifically about increasing outreach, and sent it to the Mayor, nothing was heard about it from him. In the midst of doing that we just endlessly ran into people who didn’t know about the plan. So when you say that the city did a good job on broadcasting this, you’re a liar, and you don’t have a case for how they did a good job. They did a shit job, and it’s a shit plan. Though I gotta say that they did a good job trying to market what a "success” everything has been now that it’s done and over. If I would have seen that effort go into outreach and the plan initially, I wouldn’t be so anti-2040, because the city would have actually done its job.“

Since then, we’ve learned that the city paid for propaganda about the plan:  https://kstp.com/news/5-eyewitness-news-investigation-minneapolis-hired-pr-firm-to-sell-2040-plan/5223017/

There are redevelopments happening around the whole city, many unfilled because of cost. The redevelopment kitty corner to me starts their studios at $1200, $250 more then my rent for a studio. I live in the Buckingham, and it has recently been bought out by a multi-family conglomerate from New York called Sentinel. A perfect name to represent what is happening here and across the city. In my building all the maintenance people have been fired. The communication system is down. Laundry was down for a week. Digital rent payment is gone, we learned that 3 days before we had to pay out rent. The transition hasn’t been great.

The school is still going through enrollment decline, even though they have been making stellar decisions and improvements. I attribute a lot of that to people not being able to afford having a roof over their head, therefore they’re less likely to make the jump into college costs, even though it’s the most affordable college in the state.

These are the impacts the city has caused by passing the 2040 plan, allowing developers to have free reign. There isn’t a single member who I can vote for, who I think should be able to remain in office. Not the Mayor, not the City Council, and Not my rep on the Planning Commission from the Park Board. Hopefully I can stay in the place I call home, long enough to vote them out.

[realrentersofmpls]

We want your stories!

What is your experience of renting in Minneapolis? Has your rent gone up? Are you worried about what you’ll be able to afford? Submit your story to us! You can use a pseudonym. 

[realrentersofmpls]

History repeats itself: Shades of the Naulhaka Flats

Any of this sound familiar?

"Evicted tenants were outraged. But the city, counting on new residential construction, stood firm -- it needed more housing and property taxes. The buildings went down.

Today, the lot stands vacant."

It's the same old lies, designed to line developers' pockets. In 1980, the Naulhaka flats, which stood on W Grant Street, were torn down and the tenants forcibly evicted. The flats had stood there since 1900 and provided spacious apartments. If the Naulhaka flats were still standing, they would be providing affordable housing to middle and low-income families. Instead, that spot has landscaping and ugly light poles. The city council has already done the same thing to 1400 Nicollet and is allowing this same ugly pattern to repeat itself all over the city.

One of the YIMBY arguments in favor of new construction is filtering. Filtering happens when new, nicer construction goes up. People with higher incomes move to the new construction, and lower income people take their places in the older buildings. Studies have shown that in gentrifying neighborhoods, filtering doesn’t work. If a neighborhood is the “cool” place to be, wealthier people don’t mind living in the older buildings as long as they get to be close to the action.

As bad as that is, filtering REALLY doesn’t work when the old buildings, which are the affordable ones, get torn down to make way for the new stuff, which will inevitably be more expensive.

The loss of the Naulhaka flats in 1980 is a loss we still feel today, because it is a reminder that we could all lose our affordable, historic homes based on the city council’s whims.

Nick Walton, of the developer Reuter Walton, gave $1000 to Mayor Frey during his 2017 campaign. This is not a secret. This is information available via public record. Is it not clear that our Mayor and city council are looking after moneyed interests? For his 1K, Walton gets to turn our city into his blank canvas.

And the result: it’s Naulhaka over and over and over again. (Image via Star Tribune, 1982)

[realrentersofmpls]

Single-family zoning was defacto redlining — and so is abolishing it

Even if zoning was intended to be de facto redlining, upzoning everything doesn’t mean everyone will magically integrate. What it does mean is that developers can buy older single family homes — which are affordable for lower income people to buy — and replace them with new construction that won’t be affordable. Developers want to make money and they make money on market rate. Public funds for including affordable units are not enough of an incentive. If it were, they would all be doing it. What we will end up with is people being pushed out of areas they could afford — the same de facto redlining that zoning is alleged to have been. The only people who benefit from this plan are developers and politicians who are in bed with them. Jacob Frey can claim he’s not but he took $1000 from Nick Walton for his campaign and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

[realrentersofmpls]

$1,100 per month for 400 square feet is not “living for less.” The sad irony is that a group of Loring Park residents met with the developer and asked them to include affordable units. They refused. They told us that the financial structure of their deal was done and they couldn’t amend it to make some of their units affordable. Advertising it as “for less” is a lie, a bald-faced taunt, a classic bait-and-switch a la Trump. People who worked on this block lost their jobs when the businesses that were razed for the project were forced to close. Most of those people where POCI. Our current government campaingned on equity for POCI.

Those campaigns were financed by developers, like Nick Walton, whose company is behind this project. Check Jacob Frey’s campaign financing report. Nick Walton donated the maximum to his campaign. The person who gets to “have it all” is Nick Walton, and he bought the keys for $1,000.

[realrentersofmpls]

This is a screenshot from the I Love N.E. Facebook page. My sentiments exactly!

[realrentersofmpls]

https://www.minnpost.com/letters/2018/10/letter-submission-keith-olstad-10-31-2018/

The 2040 plan is supposed to be good for the environment. But is it? Construction apparati do produce emissions. Why is that always conveniently left out of the conversation?

[realrentersofmpls]

Editor’s note: This was posted in our submission queue. I am posting it here but including my response. Please read this salon article: https://www.salon.com/2018/11/04/despite-thorough-debunking-neoliberal-housing-politics-prevail-in-the-bay-area/. It has already been proven in other cities that more density does not equal more affordability. In fact, it only means more supply of market rate luxury units at the expense of displaced affordable housing residents. As far as walkable neighborhoods without a car, transit infrastructure has a long way to go before that is a reality. There is no transit plan in 2040, nor is the funding for it figured out.

I'll admit, I'm dismayed by how uncharitably this blog characterizes renters in support of the 2040 plan. Your argument appears to be that one can only support this plan if one is economically stable in their neighborhood with nothing to lose, but that's not the case for me. I moved to Minneapolis six years ago, and have been fortunate enough to find affordable units (under $1200 for 2 bdrms) in the neighborhoods I've lived in, and despite rent hikes I've stayed in place long enough now to become involved in my neighborhood association and volunteer at the local school.

I will never be able to afford one of the homes in my neighborhood. I simply won't. If the rent rises in my building enough times, I will probably have to move to the inner suburbs, in one of those apartments built in the armpit of the highways.

I understand that at one point, single family homes in Mpls were an option for young, low income families, but they will not be among the current buyers no matter what the policy. The land values are too staggeringly high. What we *do* have control over is the option to build densely, so that any renters can live in a neighborhood without regular use of a car - as I must - and prevent the upshoot of apartments from sprawling far from the city core into undeveloped land.

Quite frankly, it would take a bit of convincing for me to stop thinking that this plan *won't* do the most amount of good, environmentally and for vulnerable renters. Are there ways we can improve it? Sure. But if Minneapolis is on its way to being a big boy city, we should guide its growth proactively.

[realrentersofmpls]

Who supports Neighbors for More Neighbors?

I was out walking today and I noticed a Neighbors for More Neighbors sign in front of a large house on Emerson Avenue. It’s important to note that Emerson Avenue South and the streets surrounding it in the Lowry Hill area are not being upzoned. Houses there can be no more than 2.5 stories. That neighborhood is a beautiful area where the streets are lined with large, 100-year-old mansions. It’s a lovely place for a quiet evening stroll; I, personally, am very supportive of those homes’ right to exist because I enjoy having something pretty to see when I’m out and about. 

However, I find it bothersome that someone who lives in a house worth more than a half million dollars supports a movement that is causing people who can’t afford such luxuries to lose their homes.

I did a little research and I found out that this house on Emerson Avenue has been owned by the same family for at least 30 years. Two of the people living in the house are younger members of the family. When you have the privilege of living in your grandfather’s 6-bedroom, 5-bathroom house on a street that won’t be upzoned, it’s easy to support N4MN, the 2040 Comp Plan and runaway development. These guys have nothing to lose!

They have no skin in the game, either. 

It is hypocritical for people who live -- quite literally -- in the lap of luxury to force housing policies on people of more modest means. It’s an absolute joke that they tell us it’s for our own good. 

2120 Aldrich

A few moments after I spotted the sign on Emerson, I saw another one in the window of an apartment building on Aldrich. This could be taken as evidence of renters supporting N4MN but what kind of renters are they? 2120 Aldrich is a beautiful building with 1BRs that rent for more than $1,000 per month. What’s more, 2120 Aldrich is not being upzoned. Once again, N4MN is supported by someone of means who has nothing to lose.

Homeowners and renters alike who are more economically vulnerable are the ones who will be most affected by 2040. We cannot let these affluent fauxgressive posers to speak for us! 

[realrentersofmpls]

City pledges money for affordable housing. But where is it coming from?

The city of Minneapolis has pledged to invest in affordable housing. They have pledged to use $20 million dollars to help developers recover costs of including a percentage of affordable units in new buildings. That money is coming out of funds that have already been allocated to the Neighborhood Revitalization Project.

During his campaign, Mayor Frey claimed that tax revenue would pay for affordable housing. If that were true, they wouldn’t need to take money from NRP. Their policy is already failing. Luxury condos generate tax revenue, but they also need services — like sanitation, police and fire — that tax revenues have to pay for. The luxe buildings don’t generate enough to pay for their needs and affordable housing. But mayor Frey wants to live up to his campaign promises and that money has to come from somewhere.

Is diverting that money from NRP the best solution? It seems clear that the city sees neighborhood orgs as impediments to their grand visions. But neighborhood orgs are more than just groups of “old rich white people” who complain about shadows from tall buildings. Neighborhood orgs bring us events like Red Hot Art, a yearly festival in Stevens Square that features local artists and gives artists who can’t afford the steep entry fees for the Uptown art fair a place to show and sell their work. In Phillips, the neighborhood association uses NRP money to fund its annual Clean Sweep, an event in which community members gather to clear the neighborhood of trash. Sure, they could still clean up litter without NRP funds, but they wouldn’t be able to bring in garbage trucks to haul out things like tires and mattresses. NRP pays for things like Somali Radio, Mad Dads and the Heart of the Beast Theatre. Without NRP money, neighborhood orgs will have to be entirely run by volunteers, which is difficult in poorer neighborhoods where people have to work more hours just to stay afloat. In other words, neighborhoods on the Northside and in Midtown — areas with the highest concentrations of people of color — will be hit the hardest.

How does taking resources from the poorest people in our city to ensure that wealthy developers don’t lose money make anything more equitable?

If they really cared about affordable housing they would establish rent control. The frustrating thing (ok one of many frustrating things) is that they love to talk about the housing that was lost in the 1950s. They conveniently forget that what was lost was single family homes that were destroyed to make way for the freeways. The freeways were built to make commuting easier for people who lived in the suburbs. That housing was lost to benefit the people who participated in white flight. (Note: the housing that was demolished to make way for freeways was not high rises. Those were single family homes.) Now those same people are moving back because cities are “fashionable” again. Everyone else’s fate rests on the whims of privileged people who want to make white flight a round trip, while the rest of us get bumped from coach. There has to be some accountability for these people.

That the city council can cloak its policies in the mantle of social justice defies all logic, especially since they espouse a policy that is very right wing. It’s trickle down economics applied to housing. Tax cuts for the rich have not helped my wages increase. Luxury condos for flighty ex-suburbanites won’t help me stay in my humble affordable apartment.

I know some will argue that by saying I don’t agree with the council’s choice to use NRP money, I’m revealing that I’m anti-affordable housing. I’m not; I want my home to remain affordable. What I am against is this bait-and-switch. The mayor said that new developments would fund affordable housing. If that’s the case, why is NRP money being used for it at all? Last year at a mayoral forum, Jacob Frey insisted that luxe developments would fund affordable housing. Nekima Levy-Armstrong (then Pounds) said, “With all due respect, Jacob, I think you’re living in a fantasy world.”

She was so right, and now we have proof. What will it take for Mayor Frey and the city council to finally wake up?

Elizabeth Sowden

Renter

Loring Park

[realrentersofmpls]

Nasro Abshir: “I had to open a second business just to be able to afford rent in Minneapolis.”

I’ve lived in south Minneapolis for as long as I can remember. We lived in a 3 bedroom on Park Ave, spacious and convenient. Then my grandmother got cancer and lived with us during her hospice care. Our apartment that was once filled with family, fun and laughter was now filled with sadness. She died in our living room. We could no longer stay in this 3 bedroom apartment because it felt like death. At this point we had only 1 childcare center in Loring Park and wanted to stay in Minneapolis. Mind you this was in 2013 and I couldn’t find any 3bedrooms. They just were not building them anymore. Everything was 2 bedroom loft style with little privacy. Definitely not meant for families. I could tell they were targeted towards young couples and entry level corporate white people who ride bikes. Despite having our own business we simply could not afford to live in Minneapolis. I had to make the choice of pay more money and stay in the city even though I can’t really afford it or move to the suburbs and get more bank for my buck. So after exhausting search I found 3 bedroom in Richfield, on the border of Minneapolis. I was forced to leave a city I loved and that I worked in and felt connected too. After living in Richfield for about 5 years and after opening up our second location we were able to move back to the city. Just think about that for a second: I had to open a second business to be able to rent in Minneapolis. Of course, the struggles I faced with trying to find apartment had only gotten worse. Now, everything is smaller and even more expensive. Even the places I would have never attempted to stay “remodeled” and were now 2-3 more expensive in just 5 years. Luckily my brother moved to Chicago and we longer needed a 3 bedroom which made my search easier so I thought. Eventually I found a place in Phillips to call home. I know I am one of the lucky ones that can afford to still call Minneapolis home. That’s not fair people are being forced to leave. We need policies that will help keep the people who already call Minneapolis home safe.

[realrentersofmpls]

can a fake renter submit a post thanks

We don’t have to give assurances as if we were lawyers.

Who or what is a fake renter?

[realrentersofmpls]

This graph charts the rent I paid for the unfurnished one-bedroom apartment in Prospect Park that I lived in between 2010 and 2014, against what my rent should have been if it tracked inflation (these numbers - from the Bureau of Labor Statistics - are specific to the Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington region).

For context, my income was constant throughout this entire period (I was a graduate student at the U). While my year-to-year rent did go up, I suppose I should consider myself fortunate that my landlord increased it at a modest rate (under inflation, for my first three renewals). My landlord was also really candid about why: he considered me a good tenant to took great care of the apartment - not just in my unit, but the entire building in general - and always promptly called in problems that needed fixing (he mentioned that most of his other tenants did not do this, and that problems were only fixed when the landlord himself noticed them).

That said, every increase was hard to swallow, since the U did not make any cost-of-living adjustments to the graduate assistantship stipend during this entire time. After 2012, I was pretty much researching other rental properties every spring. When you’re worrying, on an annual basis, about moving vs. accepting the next rent increase … well, that really is no way to live.

Anyone familiar with Twin Cities housing knows that this time frame coincided with a rental real estate boom in neighborhoods bordering the U. In short, being a ‘good tenant’ who helped my landlord with building upkeep and maintenance < jacking up rents because everyone else was doing it. Even then, perhaps I should still consider myself lucky: while my landlord charged me $790 in rent during my last year there, he was charging new tenants $890 for a comparable apartment in the building.

From the personal finance perspective: I was paying 35%* of my income toward rent in 2010; this went up to 40% by 2014.

  *Most budgeting rules-of-thumb recommend rent not being more than 25-30% of your income.

I get that it’s hard to miss out when there’s money to be made, but as a landlord, would you rather have an unknown quantity who can pay your asking price, or someone who you know will pay the rent on time, won’t trash the place, won’t disturb the neighbors, etc.? Perhaps my landlord held out as long as he could, but at some point I’m pretty sure I just became another tenant who wasn’t making him any money - or, rather, not making him as much money as he thought he should be making.

[realrentersofmpls]

The 99%'s housing costs are going up because of trickle down housing policy

I had a spacious awesome 1 bedroom for $630 ten years ago, and now the same thing rents for $2000! That's ridiculous, and way beyond inflation or anything justifiable. The fancy condos and lux apts are NOT bringing down the rents of less fancy stuff, the OPPOSITE is true, they are driving up all rents in the city, because these fancy new housing developments (condos, lux apts, market rates too are totally unaffordable, and the modern fancy fourplexes) raise the property value of everything else for blocks and blocks around, thus they also cause the property taxes to go up since property taxes are based on the property value, and thus the RENT goes up at apartments and the mortgage of a nice little working class house that may be shared by many working class folks or be used by a working class family goes up too! No one is helped by the current Trickle Down Economics housing policy that the city of Minneapolis has in place right, whereby people are told that by building only this fancy new stuff exclusively for the rich somehow the housing for everyone else will become more affordable. Such a trickle down housing policy is obviously not going to work just on the face of it, and its based on rightwing economics, and this is a progressive city supposedly so why does it have an uber rightwing economic policy as its housing policy? But regardless of that, the last ten years show that this supply side economics approach is NOT working in reality. So it doesn't work in reality, its obvious it would never work, Trickle Down has been disproven, its a rightwing ideology for garsh sakes, and in reality its one of the biggest CAUSES of rent and mortgages and all housing getting less affordable. So why is it happening? You tell me. It benefits only the rich who can afford luxury housing and the developers building that stuff. Not only that, but you have propaganda out there that is trying to make working class renters hate working class homeowners, and they are actually natural allies, (heck they BBQ and have parties together). EVERYONE in the 99% in this city is losing because of the housing policy and building only for the rich, all of our housing is becoming extremely less affordable and quickly. The idea that 2040 plan is going to fix that is wrong, its going to exacerbate it by allowing fancy new fourplexes everywhere, and we know that that IS driving up property values and property taxes, and thus driving up rent and mortgages for EVERYONE because of that. There is a heck of a lot of disinformation out there that is intending to divide and conquer the 99%, as usual. Don't fall for it folks. 

[realrentersofmpls]

Feel like a Local being priced out of my Hometown

Rent in Minneapolis is insane! Why is it that all I see are huge, ridiculously expensive luxury apartments/condos going up all over the city...yet rent keeps going UP? I feel like as a blue-collar person who grew up here, I'm being priced out of my own hometown, as more and more East Coast white collar people keep flooding in. It's heartbreaking.

Just 5 years ago, I was able to rent a spacious studio  -- near a lake -- in a neighborhood I love -- for $650. What is going on here?

I grew up on a park and to me it's the parks that make the Twin Cities worth living in. I want to live on a park and I believe I have a right to do that at a rate that is affordable.

Sad and angry,

Spirit