Uptown Hotel Discussion

[kirby96]

Are any of you greater uptown folks on Nextdoor? It's the facebook for neighborhoods. The general consensus on there is that a hotel is good for uptown! but not this lot because it's south of Lake street which is not "uptown."

Looks like I'll be going to the planning commission to add my support.

Yep, I think the consensus can basically be summarized as 'if the developer would simply buy a different lot and build a smaller hotel not marketed to millennials that has more parking everyone would totally be on board!'

Seems pretty straightforward. Someone should really make a phone call.

[grant1simons2]

Uptown business association just sent out an email saying there's going to be a meeting with the ECCO neighborhood about this tonight at 7pm at 3450 S. Irving. St Mary's Greek orthodox church. They also linked the petition to sign in favor of the hotel, but not the one to oppose.

[seanrichardryan]

The developer has another lot, he's building his open private penthouse on it.

[min-chi-cbus]

I guess if I was visiting Mpls from out of town I'd rather stay in a hotel along Lake Street and closer to other main drags and closer to the lake than be more technically in the heart of Uptown.

[grant1simons2]

It passed by planning!

[acs]

*fistbump* Nice job everybody.

[Minneboy]

Glad to hear it.

[Archiapolis]

*fistbump* Nice job everybody.

But, let's remember how vital, useful and efficient neighborhood meetings are. They definitely server a "good faith" purpose and aren't a farce in which the development team ONLY does them because they have to fully expecting a rational planning commission/city council to ignore the loud minority that turn out for neighborhood meetings.

[MNdible]

Stupid inefficient democracy.

[David Greene]

If you want efficient, move to a dictatorship.

[Nathan]

I've heard Singapore is nice this time of year!

[twincitizen]

It might not be the neighborhood process itself that is broken, but the fact that each neighborhood has a handful of really terrible people that ruin the entire concept of neighborhood feedback for everyone else.

Case in point: the Whittier Alliance meeting last night was a grueling 2.5+ hour marathon of unreasonable (and sometimes mentally ill) people hurling verbal abuse at developers. There are people (at least in Whittier, The Wedge) who will never support ANY development ever that is not a single family home. I'm not saying those people shouldn't get to express their opinions (but preferably it would be done alone to the bathroom mirror or under supervised care)

[David Greene]

Then what's the solution? It's not to shut down those folks from participating. It's to allow more people to participate. John has some great ideas I'd love to see implemented.

One very simple thing that could be done is to run meetings according to Robert's Rules or a similar structure. Most of the wasted time comes from people interrupting each other, taking countless turns to speak, etc. Care has to be taken that the rule structure itself doesn't stifle discussion but RR and similar frameworks can help streamline the discussion. Hell, even a "talking circle" with a "speaking token" can help immensely. Mostly it's the chair taking responsibility for moving things along, regardless of hurt feelings.

The idea of neighborhood participation is sound. The execution of it leaves much to be desired.

[Archiapolis]

It might not be the neighborhood process itself that is broken, but the fact that each neighborhood has a handful of really terrible people that ruin the entire concept of neighborhood feedback for everyone else.

Case in point: the Whittier Alliance meeting last night was a grueling 2.5+ hour marathon of unreasonable (and sometimes mentally ill) people hurling verbal abuse at developers. There are people (at least in Whittier, The Wedge) who will never support ANY development ever that is not a single family home. I'm not saying those people shouldn't get to express their opinions (but preferably it would be done alone to the bathroom mirror or under supervised care)

Thank you.

The detractors above (cheeky as they are) are suggesting an ad absurdum binary choice between the farcical process as it currently exists OR fascists marching through the neighborhoods bulldozing the poor and leaving condominiums in their wake.

There is ONLY the existing OR fascism.

I'll just say this for the MILLIONTH time...I have NEVER suggested less input, I have NEVER suggested that community involvement be disallowed.

I have suggested that there be multiple/varied channels allowing for MORE input by people living in the community and beyond through late 20th century technology. If it is necessary to attach names/addresses/ etc to the comments then I support that as well. Put up a website for every project with only verified comments allowed if you like. Transparency for everyone!

I don't know what is fascist about the idea that more input be possible through multiple channels but apparently it is controversial. I've also suggested that city representatives be at these meetings to clarify the city's goals -NOT DEVELOPER'S goals, but city goals for density/population growth etc.

I don't understand what is worth defending in this "neighborhood meeting" process that is clearly not functional - project after project gets DESTROYED at these meetings (see above) and somehow goes through Planning Commission and/or City Council!

Throw all of the barbs you like (opinions are open to criticism) but please offer something more than "If you don't like 'Merica you can geeeeet out!"

[FISHMANPET]

I struggle to call a system where the most privileged people have the biggest input to be democratic. To be honest I'm always pretty shocked to see someone like David, who appears to be an ardent supporter of marginalized groups, to champion a system that is overwhelmingly controlled and used to the advantage of older wealthy white people.

[David Greene]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I do not "champion" a system. I am for community voice and authentic input. Scrapping the neighborhood process would be a step backward to that goal. I want to move forward.

[FISHMANPET]

You've dismissed anything that isn't the status quo as undemocratic, including ideas that would make the system MORE inclusive, claiming they're all "scrapping" this process that is currently trash.

I believe it's you that's said before that it's not intentions that matter, but the outcomes. Look at the outcomes you support. You're intentions are irrelevant here if the outcomes are bad.

And if you can't admit that the current system is fundamentally broken, and dismiss any suggestions as to how to improve it, I'm going to continue to call you a champion. Even if it's not your intention, it's the outcome.

I could probably throw in a reference to MLK in the Birmingham jail and talk about the danger of the white moderate, but that's more typing than I can do with a broken arm.

[David Greene]

You've dismissed anything that isn't the status quo as undemocratic

I have? Check my 11:39 am post.

It seems like you're simply spoiling for a fight and while I love a good fight myself I don't think you're being realistic or accurate about my position.

[FISHMANPET]

Yes yes your solution is to make the process even more formal and rigid! As if finding the free time to attend all these silly meetings wasn't inclusive, you also need an understand an esoteric system for running meetings! How inclusive! Problem solved!

Outcomes!

[David Greene]

Jesus. Do I have to spell it out for you?

John has some great ideas I'd love to see implemented.

One very simple thing that could be done [in the interim until more changes can be made] is to run meetings according to Robert's Rules or a similar structure.

Care has to be taken that the rule structure itself doesn't stifle discussion but RR and similar frameworks can help streamline the discussion.

Hell, even a "talking circle" with a "speaking token" can help immensely. Mostly it's the chair taking responsibility for moving things along, regardless of hurt feelings.