Expensive Minneapolis suburbs to be blighted by apartment buildings

[ErickAA]

In a misguided move to prevent racism in housing, Minneapolis has done away with "single family zoning", meaning that no neighborhoods can be zoned for single-family houses only.

This will give rise to apartment buildings popping up in these neighborhoods, which will slowly lead to their decline and an overall plummeting of property values there.

The rationale for the decision is that single-family zoning was supposedly borne from racism, after racial zoning laws were made illegal a long time ago. Supposedly it was assumed at the time that zoning neighborhoods as "single family house only" would price out most black people.

Whether or not that story is true is debatable, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is whether single family zoning is racist today, and whether it serves any valid function.

It definitely serves a valid function. Single family home neighborhoods tend to attract not just families, but families with pride in the neighborhood and the desire to set roots in the area for a long time. Apartments, on the other hand, often attract non-families and those who are not looking for a place to live long term. It is not fair to drag down longstanding nice single family home neighborhoods with the construction of apartment buildings.

Furthermore, this looks a lot like socialism to me. Rather than allowing the middle and upper class people to spend their hard-earned money to live away from the criminal elements, the city is forcing the criminal elements back into all neighborhoods.

Basically they're saying, "It's not fair that Minnesota has good and bad neighborhoods, so let's make them all bad."

Details are here: https://slate.com/business/2018/12/m...ng-racism.html ... though note that the article is on left-wing site Slate, which is heavily biased in favor of this decision.

BTW, this is basically the same argument which led to busing students from poorer areas into public schools in richer areas. The result was ruining all of the schools. Los Angeles did this decades ago (and still does), which is why the city school district is considered so terrible, and why a bunch of lousy-but-expensive private schools sprung up, which still succeed to this day.

I read the article...I think Druff is misrepresenting again...while the article discusses real problems of affordable housing vs population density, I don't see Druff's implied claim that big multi-unit high density apartment building will be allowed next to single family homes...rather only triplex housing are allowed; plus casitas and garage conversions are already allowed...and also already allowed is the Armenian mansion workaround strategy--where the home is expanded to a McMansion and three generations of a family move in (with the elders quit claiming all their ownership so they can qualify for Medicaid plus SSI, they worked off books for all their lives so they get no social security) and annoy neighbors by playing their stereo loud and clogging the streets parking their leased BMW's

In So Cal. this has played out in a lot of different places over the last 60 years or so, where former single family home neighborhoods were converted to small apartment/triplex housing, and the results are always the same. The middle/upper-class single family homeowners abandon the neighborhoods and they become ethnic ghettos. I am not even saying it is good or bad, it just is what it is. And it happens with very little large apartment buildings being built. Druff's anticipation of how this will play out is very reasonable. Again, I am not even saying it is a good or bad thing. It just is what it is.

This is the America/world we live in now. The rich (in this case the apartment developers) get richer, and everyone else is in a race to the bottom. Multiculturalism in its current inception is just a con of the rich to pit native and immigrant poors against each other, while they clean up. Divide and conquer and take all the resources for yourself.

[MrTickle]

I’m glad Druff is the one one who thinks this is socialism and rest of you see it as deregulated capitalism

[Dan Druff]

I’m glad Druff is the one one who thinks this is socialism and rest of you see it as deregulated capitalism

I can understand the suspicion that this is a trick to allow apartment building owners (and construction companies) to further profit, and sold under the banner of fighting racism.

However, this is occurring in Minneapolis, which is significant.

The Minneapolis area is notorious for its socially progressive attitude, and I can almost guarantee you that this really is what it seems to be on the surface.

Some do-gooder SJW type noticed that black people were forced to live in the bad neighborhoods were multi-family units were allowed, and that the good neighborhoods were mostly only affordable to whitey who could afford to buy/rent single family homes.

Said do-gooder figured, "Hey, let's make it illegal to forbid multi-family structures in Minnesota neighborhoods! This will make the better areas more affordable for these black people, who have been pushed into the ghettos for decades due to these racist laws!"

And so it was done.

Will this result in a gain for certain people/companies in the construction and real estate industries?

Yes. But that's just a side effect from this sad attempt at multiculturalism.

As to why I call this socialism, it's because it's an extension of basic socialist principles.

Here's a textbook definition of socialism:

Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners.

While it's true that none of this has any effect on who owns what, it definitely has the effect (and in fact the intention) of reducing the fruits of the individual's success.

This basically denies the ability for the wealthier people to live among themselves in low-crime neighborhoods, and opens up all neighborhoods to more affordable multi-family housing.

Thus, the neighborhoods of Minneapolis now belong to everyone, rather than just the wealthy who can afford to buy homes in the nicer areas. And that sounds a hell of a lot like socialism to me.

Regardless of the term we are going to use to label it, I think it's pretty clear that this is a horrible idea.

verminaard's post about how this already killed neighborhoods in the LA area is correct.

When people with money notice their neighborhoods increasingly being inhabited by undesirables, they sell their property and move. This brings property values down, and eventually the entire neighborhood goes to crap.

The problem with the modern left is that they approach everything with, "Group A in society has more than Group B. Let's fix that and take away from Group A, so everyone can be equal."

They never bother to stop and consider that perhaps Group A earned what they have, or that perhaps Group B bears some of its own responsibility for its issues, or that attempting to equalize Group A and Group B will have all kinds of unforeseen side effects which are far worse than the inequality issue in the first place.

In general, the left has a very hard time with people being inherently different, which then leads to different results for each one. There's no way to equalize everything. Some people are born smarter, more talented, more athletic, more apt to learn specific skills, healthier, or into a family with existing wealth. In theory it would be great if we were all born under the exact same circumstances, but that will never happen, and even if it did, we would still have inequality due to both luck and different levels of effort people put forth in their life.

There needs to be a degree of compassion for the less fortunate, and a sincere attempt made to help them, but not by ruining what the fortunate already have, which seems to be the approach the left often seems to favor.

[thesparten]

THATS BECOUSE ITS NOT THERE "STATED" INTENTIONS.

AGENDA 21 IS NOT A CONSPIRACY!!!

[MumblesBadly]

Jesus fucking Christ, Druff! Zoning laws that restrict people from being able to turn their *privately* owned property into a multifamily dwelling is socialism for the folks who want a lower density neighborhood, plain and simple! Why? Because those laws restrict the right of individuals who want to use their property whatever fucking way they want! Individual rights are infringed by those laws, and conservatives should suppoet individual rights over government directed limitations on their use!

[devidee]

There is a place where zoning laws won't ever be necessary...

[MrTickle]

I can understand the suspicion that this is a trick to allow apartment building owners (and construction companies) to further profit, and sold under the banner of fighting racism.

However, this is occurring in Minneapolis, which is significant.

The Minneapolis area is notorious for its socially progressive attitude, and I can almost guarantee you that this really is what it seems to be on the surface.

Some do-gooder SJW type noticed that black people were forced to live in the bad neighborhoods were multi-family units were allowed, and that the good neighborhoods were mostly only affordable to whitey who could afford to buy/rent single family homes.

Said do-gooder figured, "Hey, let's make it illegal to forbid multi-family structures in Minnesota neighborhoods! This will make the better areas more affordable for these black people, who have been pushed into the ghettos for decades due to these racist laws!"

And so it was done.

Will this result in a gain for certain people/companies in the construction and real estate industries?

Yes. But that's just a side effect from this sad attempt at multiculturalism.

As to why I call this socialism, it's because it's an extension of basic socialist principles.

Here's a textbook definition of socialism:

Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners.

While it's true that none of this has any effect on who owns what, it definitely has the effect (and in fact the intention) of reducing the fruits of the individual's success.

This basically denies the ability for the wealthier people to live among themselves in low-crime neighborhoods, and opens up all neighborhoods to more affordable multi-family housing.

Thus, the neighborhoods of Minneapolis now belong to everyone, rather than just the wealthy who can afford to buy homes in the nicer areas. And that sounds a hell of a lot like socialism to me.

Regardless of the term we are going to use to label it, I think it's pretty clear that this is a horrible idea.

verminaard's post about how this already killed neighborhoods in the LA area is correct.

When people with money notice their neighborhoods increasingly being inhabited by undesirables, they sell their property and move. This brings property values down, and eventually the entire neighborhood goes to crap.

The problem with the modern left is that they approach everything with, "Group A in society has more than Group B. Let's fix that and take away from Group A, so everyone can be equal."

They never bother to stop and consider that perhaps Group A earned what they have, or that perhaps Group B bears some of its own responsibility for its issues, or that attempting to equalize Group A and Group B will have all kinds of unforeseen side effects which are far worse than the inequality issue in the first place.

In general, the left has a very hard time with people being inherently different, which then leads to different results for each one. There's no way to equalize everything. Some people are born smarter, more talented, more athletic, more apt to learn specific skills, healthier, or into a family with existing wealth. In theory it would be great if we were all born under the exact same circumstances, but that will never happen, and even if it did, we would still have inequality due to both luck and different levels of effort people put forth in their life.

There needs to be a degree of compassion for the less fortunate, and a sincere attempt made to help them, but not by ruining what the fortunate already have, which seems to be the approach the left often seems to favor.

You really don't have a fucking clue, do you? What does this have to do with collective ownership? This is people with PRIVATE property being allowed to build WHAT THEY WANT on THEIR OWN PROPERTY. If this was socialism then people could say "no we dont want that" and it wouldnt happen.

Do you think the rent money is going to the local residents? or private companies?

Once again Druff makes a statement about a political system he knows nothing about, has likely never formally studied or even read any of it's major texts.

Go back to criticising social justice warriors.

(by the way, we all know what you mean by undesirables)

[ErickAA]

I can understand the suspicion that this is a trick to allow apartment building owners (and construction companies) to further profit, and sold under the banner of fighting racism.

However, this is occurring in Minneapolis, which is significant.

The Minneapolis area is notorious for its socially progressive attitude, and I can almost guarantee you that this really is what it seems to be on the surface.

Some do-gooder SJW type noticed that black people were forced to live in the bad neighborhoods were multi-family units were allowed, and that the good neighborhoods were mostly only affordable to whitey who could afford to buy/rent single family homes.

Said do-gooder figured, "Hey, let's make it illegal to forbid multi-family structures in Minnesota neighborhoods! This will make the better areas more affordable for these black people, who have been pushed into the ghettos for decades due to these racist laws!"

And so it was done.

Will this result in a gain for certain people/companies in the construction and real estate industries?

Yes. But that's just a side effect from this sad attempt at multiculturalism.

As to why I call this socialism, it's because it's an extension of basic socialist principles.

Here's a textbook definition of socialism:

Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners.

While it's true that none of this has any effect on who owns what, it definitely has the effect (and in fact the intention) of reducing the fruits of the individual's success.

This basically denies the ability for the wealthier people to live among themselves in low-crime neighborhoods, and opens up all neighborhoods to more affordable multi-family housing.

Thus, the neighborhoods of Minneapolis now belong to everyone, rather than just the wealthy who can afford to buy homes in the nicer areas. And that sounds a hell of a lot like socialism to me.

Regardless of the term we are going to use to label it, I think it's pretty clear that this is a horrible idea.

verminaard's post about how this already killed neighborhoods in the LA area is correct.

When people with money notice their neighborhoods increasingly being inhabited by undesirables, they sell their property and move. This brings property values down, and eventually the entire neighborhood goes to crap.

The problem with the modern left is that they approach everything with, "Group A in society has more than Group B. Let's fix that and take away from Group A, so everyone can be equal."

They never bother to stop and consider that perhaps Group A earned what they have, or that perhaps Group B bears some of its own responsibility for its issues, or that attempting to equalize Group A and Group B will have all kinds of unforeseen side effects which are far worse than the inequality issue in the first place.

In general, the left has a very hard time with people being inherently different, which then leads to different results for each one. There's no way to equalize everything. Some people are born smarter, more talented, more athletic, more apt to learn specific skills, healthier, or into a family with existing wealth. In theory it would be great if we were all born under the exact same circumstances, but that will never happen, and even if it did, we would still have inequality due to both luck and different levels of effort people put forth in their life.

There needs to be a degree of compassion for the less fortunate, and a sincere attempt made to help them, but not by ruining what the fortunate already have, which seems to be the approach the left often seems to favor.

I don't think the people who think like that are really the ones making decisions. I think they are just unwitting pawns. I am sure if you follow the money whoever is behind this law has one main driving interest, and it isn't social justice.

Also, I think there is actually a demand for more "urban" living in progressive areas, especially among upper-middle class young white millennials. Living in heavily guarded expensive multi-unit apartment/condos in urban areas seems to be a thing now for young millennial in their 20s/early 30s who are just starting there careers. Of course eventually all these young adults will get married and start families and relocate to a upper-class white/Asian suburbia with as little poor black and Mexican kids going to their kids school as possible; but given how many educated, middle to upper middle class young progressive people in their 20s/early 30s who are looking for more "urban" areas to live in, it seems like their is a market for this type of thing. I think the way downtown Los Angeles around the Staple Center has gentrified with young adults living in expensive condos/apartments is a pretty good example of this phenomenon.

[sonatine]

However, this is occurring in Minneapolis, which is significant.

The Minneapolis area is notorious for its socially progressive attitude

i lived in minneapolis and i can say from first person experience that this is weirdly insane nonsense.

like maybe compared to your kitchen it is, but mostly its just a lot of dirt poor people trying to survive nightmare winters.

[ErickAA]

However, this is occurring in Minneapolis, which is significant.

The Minneapolis area is notorious for its socially progressive attitude

i lived in minneapolis and i can say from first person experience that this is weirdly insane nonsense.

like maybe compared to your kitchen it is, but mostly its just a lot of dirt poor people trying to survive nightmare winters.

Well, I think he means there are a lot of leftist Democratic politicians (i.e. Al Franken, Ilhan Omar) from Mineapolis/Minnesota who say a lot of far-left things that get a lot of airplay on Fox News and Breitbart. I dunno whether this genuinely reflects the beliefs of the average rank and file Minnesotan, or is just political posturing. I am guessing it is a little bit of both.

[monsterj]

In a misguided move to prevent racism in housing, Minneapolis has done away with "single family zoning", meaning that no neighborhoods can be zoned for single-family houses only.

This will give rise to apartment buildings popping up in these neighborhoods, which will slowly lead to their decline and an overall plummeting of property values there.

The rationale for the decision is that single-family zoning was supposedly borne from racism, after racial zoning laws were made illegal a long time ago. Supposedly it was assumed at the time that zoning neighborhoods as "single family house only" would price out most black people.

Whether or not that story is true is debatable, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is whether single family zoning is racist today, and whether it serves any valid function.

It definitely serves a valid function. Single family home neighborhoods tend to attract not just families, but families with pride in the neighborhood and the desire to set roots in the area for a long time. Apartments, on the other hand, often attract non-families and those who are not looking for a place to live long term. It is not fair to drag down longstanding nice single family home neighborhoods with the construction of apartment buildings.

Furthermore, this looks a lot like socialism to me. Rather than allowing the middle and upper class people to spend their hard-earned money to live away from the criminal elements, the city is forcing the criminal elements back into all neighborhoods.

Basically they're saying, "It's not fair that Minnesota has good and bad neighborhoods, so let's make them all bad."

Details are here: https://slate.com/business/2018/12/m...ng-racism.html ... though note that the article is on left-wing site Slate, which is heavily biased in favor of this decision.

BTW, this is basically the same argument which led to busing students from poorer areas into public schools in richer areas. The result was ruining all of the schools. Los Angeles did this decades ago (and still does), which is why the city school district is considered so terrible, and why a bunch of lousy-but-expensive private schools sprung up, which still succeed to this day.

Terrible take. The previous zoning laws were the problem, not their removal.

[lol wow]

Imagine being in ur early 50s and voluntarily choosing to live in Minnesota sonatine do better

[Dan Druff]

In a misguided move to prevent racism in housing, Minneapolis has done away with "single family zoning", meaning that no neighborhoods can be zoned for single-family houses only.

This will give rise to apartment buildings popping up in these neighborhoods, which will slowly lead to their decline and an overall plummeting of property values there.

The rationale for the decision is that single-family zoning was supposedly borne from racism, after racial zoning laws were made illegal a long time ago. Supposedly it was assumed at the time that zoning neighborhoods as "single family house only" would price out most black people.

Whether or not that story is true is debatable, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is whether single family zoning is racist today, and whether it serves any valid function.

It definitely serves a valid function. Single family home neighborhoods tend to attract not just families, but families with pride in the neighborhood and the desire to set roots in the area for a long time. Apartments, on the other hand, often attract non-families and those who are not looking for a place to live long term. It is not fair to drag down longstanding nice single family home neighborhoods with the construction of apartment buildings.

Furthermore, this looks a lot like socialism to me. Rather than allowing the middle and upper class people to spend their hard-earned money to live away from the criminal elements, the city is forcing the criminal elements back into all neighborhoods.

Basically they're saying, "It's not fair that Minnesota has good and bad neighborhoods, so let's make them all bad."

Details are here: https://slate.com/business/2018/12/m...ng-racism.html ... though note that the article is on left-wing site Slate, which is heavily biased in favor of this decision.

BTW, this is basically the same argument which led to busing students from poorer areas into public schools in richer areas. The result was ruining all of the schools. Los Angeles did this decades ago (and still does), which is why the city school district is considered so terrible, and why a bunch of lousy-but-expensive private schools sprung up, which still succeed to this day.

Terrible take. The previous zoning laws were the problem, not their removal.

How were the previous zoning laws a problem?

[Dan Druff]

However, this is occurring in Minneapolis, which is significant.

The Minneapolis area is notorious for its socially progressive attitude

i lived in minneapolis and i can say from first person experience that this is weirdly insane nonsense.

like maybe compared to your kitchen it is, but mostly its just a lot of dirt poor people trying to survive nightmare winters.

Here's an article with references to what I'm talking about. I just googled it now. I have known this about Minneapolis for a long time. http://www.citypages.com/news/how-mi...sing/454315853

Don't know how long you lived in Minneapolis or paid attention to the politics and attitudes in the area, but it's known as one of the more socially progressive big cities in the nation.

[ErickAA]

i lived in minneapolis and i can say from first person experience that this is weirdly insane nonsense.

like maybe compared to your kitchen it is, but mostly its just a lot of dirt poor people trying to survive nightmare winters.

Here's an article with references to what I'm talking about. I just googled it now. I have known this about Minneapolis for a long time. http://www.citypages.com/news/how-mi...sing/454315853

Don't know how long you lived in Minneapolis or paid attention to the politics and attitudes in the area, but it's known as one of the more socially progressive big cities in the nation.

Jentzen lost that election. Like I said, the national media (both right and left wing) love to promote Minneapolis and its residents as super socially progressive, for their own agenda reasons. But I am not sure reality maps into that narrative completely. I have a feeling there is a loud minority of very progressive activists (many of whom have financial interests in being activists and their motives aren’t as pure as they seem) who get a lot of national media exposure that makes it seem like they speak for the majority, when they don’t.

[monsterj]

Terrible take. The previous zoning laws were the problem, not their removal.

How were the previous zoning laws a problem?

Completely unnecessary. I live in a condo and my next door neighbor has a multimillion single family house. Those complaining about property values need to stop clutching pearls, more people in neighborhoods revitalize them and create value.

[MrTickle]

why should the hurt feelings of a few be prioritised over housing for the many? many american citizens are in dire need of affordable, quality housing.

[Baron Von Strucker]

This kind of thing is happening all around Vancouver as well, biggest problem is the adding of more vehicles onto already congested roads and a lot of the apartments being sold to off shore people who are purchasing them for investment or a place to live if they have to make a quick getaway from the shitty places they live or to avoid getting busted for the shady shit they are involved with. Another issue is when they build these thousands of apartments infrastructure is also added and because a lot of the places stay empty the shops don’t get any business they end up closing and lots of empty retail shops everywhere.
This has gotten so bad the city of Vancouver and areas around B.C. have introduced a heavy tax on empty residents to try and convince owners to rent instead of leavythem empty.

The road congestion here is insane and getting worse, attempting to leave North Vancouver between 2 and 5 pm is near impossible especially if there is a accident or a jumper on one of the bridges.
Have noticed I. The last ten years Lots of apartments going up and thousands more cars on the roads really fucking things up.
Enjoy!

[wrenchjockey]

Ya know how the rest of the country views the state of California?

Yeah, that's how real Minnesotans view Minneapolis.

Nothing new, not a shock to anyone in this state, nothing to see here, let it rot as long as they keep the filth in Murderapolis city limits..

[thesparten]

why should the hurt feelings of a few be prioritised over housing for the many? many american citizens are in dire need of affordable, quality housing.

There will ALWAYS be people in need, the DEMOCRATS make sure too create them or import them..

ZERO SUM GAME, it just ends up destroying everything with nothing accmpished....