Buses
Copyright © 2019 by Dennis F. Paulaha.
All rights reserved. In accordance with the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, no portion of this book may be uploaded, reproduced, or transmitted in any form whatsoever, or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including printing or photocopy, without permission in writing from the publisher, except for short quotes in critical articles or reviews: patronbooks@sbcglobal.net.
First published 2019 by Dennis F. Paulaha.
PATRON BOOKS
All rights reserved. In accordance with the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, no portion of this book may be uploaded, reproduced, or transmitted in any form whatsoever, or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including printing or photocopy, without permission in writing from the publisher, except for short quotes in critical articles or reviews: patronbooks@sbcglobal.net.
First published 2019 by Dennis F. Paulaha.
PATRON BOOKS
Prologue
The great and wonderful plan
Throwing Minneapolis under the bus
The great and wonderful plan
Throwing Minneapolis under the bus
Prologue
When I wrote EQUITY, I assumed the people behind the 2040 Plan, from the Metropolitan Council to the mayor of Minneapolis, the City Council, and the Planning Department, were truly interested in trying to solve the very real and very serious problems of affordable housing, racial inequity, and damage to the natural environment. I was wrong. This book, BUSES, may more accurately describe their true goals.
The great and wonderful plan
Welcome to the Minneapolis 2040 Plan—the smoke and mirrors show brought to you by the Metropolitan Council, the mayor of Minneapolis, the Minneapolis City Council, and the Minneapolis Planning Department.
The plot is simple.
Keep everyone busy debating whether or not up-zoning the city of Minneapolis (which means giving developers the freedom to tear down any and all single- family houses they want and replace them with little apartment buildings with no grass, no trees, and no off-street parking) will help the affordable housing problem (hint: it will make it worse), help solve the racial inequity problem (hint: it will make it worse), and reduce the city’s carbon footprint (hint: it will make it worse).
Meanwhile, after getting everyone to focus on the diversions, keep the real plan rolling forward, keep it as quiet as possible, and use every distraction there is (including hiring an expensive PR firm) to keep smart people and businesses in the dark.
And tell everyone to ignore the bus behind the curtain.
The plot is simple.
Keep everyone busy debating whether or not up-zoning the city of Minneapolis (which means giving developers the freedom to tear down any and all single- family houses they want and replace them with little apartment buildings with no grass, no trees, and no off-street parking) will help the affordable housing problem (hint: it will make it worse), help solve the racial inequity problem (hint: it will make it worse), and reduce the city’s carbon footprint (hint: it will make it worse).
Meanwhile, after getting everyone to focus on the diversions, keep the real plan rolling forward, keep it as quiet as possible, and use every distraction there is (including hiring an expensive PR firm) to keep smart people and businesses in the dark.
And tell everyone to ignore the bus behind the curtain.
Throwing Minneapolis under the bus
Sometimes the truth is so obvious we overlook it.
And the truth about the Minneapolis 2040 Plan is that it was never about the
goals and policies presented to the public by the Metropolitan Council, or in the Minneapolis 2040 Plan, or in the Plans of other cities under the Metropolitan Council’s jurisdiction.
It was always about buses. It’s about trains, too, but it is mostly about buses. They call it Transit Oriented Development.
And it is based on the idea that a city developed around mass transit (and bike
lanes) is better than a city based primarily on roads and private automobiles. As it is now, Minneapolis, like every other city in the country (world), is a mixture of private automobiles and mass transit (and bicycles). And it is easy to make an honest, logical, fact-based argument that says moving more people to mass transit will provide benefits that outweigh the costs, given the construction and maintenance costs and environmental issues of highways and freeways and private automobiles, because, on paper, it is easy to show that the more people use mass transit, the better.
But somewhere along the line, the honest and logical argument was lost in a numbers game.
The governor is allotting $1.5 billion to buy more buses.
And the Metropolitan Council is spending over $2 billion on a new 17.5 Mile light rail southwest of Minneapolis (which, technically, is not part of the 2040 Plan) with about half the funds coming from the federal government.
So the question is: If the Transit Oriented Development people at the top want more people on buses and more development along light rail routes to make the City of Minneapolis and the Metropolitan area better, where are they going to get more people to ride the buses?
The answer is in the up-zoning policy in the Minneapolis 2040 Plan and the industrial development along bus and light rail lines in St. Paul’s 2040 Plan.
In other words, up-zoning is not about solving the racial inequity problem in Minneapolis, it is not about solving the affordable housing problem, it is not about reducing the city’s carbon footprint, it is about one simple objective, which is to increase dramatically and unnecessarily the population of Minneapolis and to center the increase on mass transit routes in order to get more people riding buses and light rail.
To help cover up the real objective, the Minneapolis 2040 Plan includes a fake population forecast written to look like a real forecast that city planners and officials must accommodate in the future. But that is not the case. The number is the goal. The number is a lie. And the reason for the lie is to help justify the expansion of the mass transit system.
And the truth about the Minneapolis 2040 Plan is that it was never about the
goals and policies presented to the public by the Metropolitan Council, or in the Minneapolis 2040 Plan, or in the Plans of other cities under the Metropolitan Council’s jurisdiction.
It was always about buses. It’s about trains, too, but it is mostly about buses. They call it Transit Oriented Development.
And it is based on the idea that a city developed around mass transit (and bike
lanes) is better than a city based primarily on roads and private automobiles. As it is now, Minneapolis, like every other city in the country (world), is a mixture of private automobiles and mass transit (and bicycles). And it is easy to make an honest, logical, fact-based argument that says moving more people to mass transit will provide benefits that outweigh the costs, given the construction and maintenance costs and environmental issues of highways and freeways and private automobiles, because, on paper, it is easy to show that the more people use mass transit, the better.
But somewhere along the line, the honest and logical argument was lost in a numbers game.
The governor is allotting $1.5 billion to buy more buses.
And the Metropolitan Council is spending over $2 billion on a new 17.5 Mile light rail southwest of Minneapolis (which, technically, is not part of the 2040 Plan) with about half the funds coming from the federal government.
So the question is: If the Transit Oriented Development people at the top want more people on buses and more development along light rail routes to make the City of Minneapolis and the Metropolitan area better, where are they going to get more people to ride the buses?
The answer is in the up-zoning policy in the Minneapolis 2040 Plan and the industrial development along bus and light rail lines in St. Paul’s 2040 Plan.
In other words, up-zoning is not about solving the racial inequity problem in Minneapolis, it is not about solving the affordable housing problem, it is not about reducing the city’s carbon footprint, it is about one simple objective, which is to increase dramatically and unnecessarily the population of Minneapolis and to center the increase on mass transit routes in order to get more people riding buses and light rail.
To help cover up the real objective, the Minneapolis 2040 Plan includes a fake population forecast written to look like a real forecast that city planners and officials must accommodate in the future. But that is not the case. The number is the goal. The number is a lie. And the reason for the lie is to help justify the expansion of the mass transit system.
Again, expanding and improving mass transit in order to make it easier for an existing population to use, with the hope of making a city better off, is an honest and logical plan.
Intentionally and unnecessarily increasing the population of a city simply to get more people to use mass transit is bad for everyone, other than those who profit from the demolition of single-family homes and the construction and rental of small apartment buildings.
It also means there is no longer an honest, logical, fact-based argument to support Transit Oriented Development.
The bottom line is simple: The Transit Oriented Development people behind the 2040 Plan are looking at a light rail system that appears, in many ways, to be a success and a bus system that is losing riders.
Which means they need more people in the city and, more important, they need more people who will ride their buses.
And they figured out that one way to get more people into the city and more people using mass transit is with up-zoning.
By letting developers tear down single-family homes and replace them with three- to six-unit apartment buildings, they have more people.
By letting developers build apartment buildings with more units on mass transit routes and within a block of mass transit routes, they have more people closer to transit routes.
By not requiring developers to provide off-street parking, they make it more convenient for many people to walk to a bus stop than to a car parked a block or two away on the street. Also, as more and more people move into the new apartment buildings, cars will begin to fill up the streets, and many people will not want to drive to work for fear of not finding a somewhat convenient parking space when they return; others, as the planners hope, may find it too difficult, expensive, and inconvenient to own a car at all.
What about the fact that up-zoning will lead to the gutting of North Minneapolis and force many black families out of the city or into homelessness? That’s good for the Transit Oriented Development idea, because every time a single-family house is replaced with a three- to six-unit apartment building, a family that does not use mass transit will move out and a bunch of younger people who are more likely to use buses and light rail will move in.
What about the fact that up-zoning is likely to lower single-family property values throughout the city and lead many middle and upper middle class people to move out of the city? That’s good too, because middle- and upper-middle class residents do not use mass transit, and the younger people who will replace them are more likely to do so.
In other words, neither the entire 2040 Plan required by the Metropolitan Council, nor the up-zoning policy in the Minneapolis 2040 Plan, was ever about trying to solve the affordable housing problem.
Intentionally and unnecessarily increasing the population of a city simply to get more people to use mass transit is bad for everyone, other than those who profit from the demolition of single-family homes and the construction and rental of small apartment buildings.
It also means there is no longer an honest, logical, fact-based argument to support Transit Oriented Development.
The bottom line is simple: The Transit Oriented Development people behind the 2040 Plan are looking at a light rail system that appears, in many ways, to be a success and a bus system that is losing riders.
Which means they need more people in the city and, more important, they need more people who will ride their buses.
And they figured out that one way to get more people into the city and more people using mass transit is with up-zoning.
By letting developers tear down single-family homes and replace them with three- to six-unit apartment buildings, they have more people.
By letting developers build apartment buildings with more units on mass transit routes and within a block of mass transit routes, they have more people closer to transit routes.
By not requiring developers to provide off-street parking, they make it more convenient for many people to walk to a bus stop than to a car parked a block or two away on the street. Also, as more and more people move into the new apartment buildings, cars will begin to fill up the streets, and many people will not want to drive to work for fear of not finding a somewhat convenient parking space when they return; others, as the planners hope, may find it too difficult, expensive, and inconvenient to own a car at all.
What about the fact that up-zoning will lead to the gutting of North Minneapolis and force many black families out of the city or into homelessness? That’s good for the Transit Oriented Development idea, because every time a single-family house is replaced with a three- to six-unit apartment building, a family that does not use mass transit will move out and a bunch of younger people who are more likely to use buses and light rail will move in.
What about the fact that up-zoning is likely to lower single-family property values throughout the city and lead many middle and upper middle class people to move out of the city? That’s good too, because middle- and upper-middle class residents do not use mass transit, and the younger people who will replace them are more likely to do so.
In other words, neither the entire 2040 Plan required by the Metropolitan Council, nor the up-zoning policy in the Minneapolis 2040 Plan, was ever about trying to solve the affordable housing problem.
It was never about helping black communities.
It was never about helping other minority communities.
It was never about being environmentally responsible.
It was, from the beginning, a plan intended to intentionally, and unnecessarily,
move thousands of people into the city in ways that make it difficult to own cars so they will be forced into using mass transit, especially city buses.
That’s why the mayor, city council members, city planners, and Metropolitan Council Members lied about the population numbers, and made their false numbers sound like an honest forecast that must be addressed.
It’s why, when it was explained to them how up-zoning will increase, not decrease, house prices, they ignored the facts and dismissed the concerns of residents.
It’s why, when it was made clear to them that intentionally moving more people into the city will increase, not decrease, the city’s carbon footprint, and that it was common knowledge they had lied about the scientific studies used to support their false environmental claims, they didn’t care.
It’s why, when it was made clear to them that up-zoning will lead to gentrification on steroids as developers gut North Minneapolis and force many black families out of the city and some into homelessness, they didn’t care.
It’s why the mayor, City Council Members, City Planners, and Metropolitan Council Members refused to even listen when they were confronted with the fact that up-zoning will make every problem worse while guaranteeing that none of the Plan’s stated goals can be reached.
They didn’t listen, because they never cared about the Plan’s goals or solving real problems. Because it was always about mass transit and the Transit Oriented Development idea.
The 2040 Plan is simply a cover to let developers tear down the city’s neighborhoods, add to the city’s carbon footprint, destroy the economy, destroy people‘s lives, and destroy families, in order to get more people riding busses in order to fulfill the dream of transit oriented development.
The new $2.1 billion light rail line that will run southwest of the city for 17.5 miles has been approved by the Met Council and has already been promised federal funding, even though the Metropolitan Council has not conducted studies to estimate how many people are likely to use it. (Some will, of course, but how many?) They based their entire argument on how many jobs are within 1/2 mile of the 16 new stations and how many new jobs are “expected” to be added in downtown Minneapolis within 15 years.
Here are the Met Council’s numbers:
*In 2014, there were approximately 64,300 jobs within 1⁄2 mile of the proposed stations and 126,800 jobs in downtown Minneapolis. By 2035, employment is expected to grow to 80,900 within 1⁄2 mile of the proposed stations and 145,300 in downtown Minneapolis – a 18% increase in employment
It was never about being environmentally responsible.
It was, from the beginning, a plan intended to intentionally, and unnecessarily,
move thousands of people into the city in ways that make it difficult to own cars so they will be forced into using mass transit, especially city buses.
That’s why the mayor, city council members, city planners, and Metropolitan Council Members lied about the population numbers, and made their false numbers sound like an honest forecast that must be addressed.
It’s why, when it was explained to them how up-zoning will increase, not decrease, house prices, they ignored the facts and dismissed the concerns of residents.
It’s why, when it was made clear to them that intentionally moving more people into the city will increase, not decrease, the city’s carbon footprint, and that it was common knowledge they had lied about the scientific studies used to support their false environmental claims, they didn’t care.
It’s why, when it was made clear to them that up-zoning will lead to gentrification on steroids as developers gut North Minneapolis and force many black families out of the city and some into homelessness, they didn’t care.
It’s why the mayor, City Council Members, City Planners, and Metropolitan Council Members refused to even listen when they were confronted with the fact that up-zoning will make every problem worse while guaranteeing that none of the Plan’s stated goals can be reached.
They didn’t listen, because they never cared about the Plan’s goals or solving real problems. Because it was always about mass transit and the Transit Oriented Development idea.
The 2040 Plan is simply a cover to let developers tear down the city’s neighborhoods, add to the city’s carbon footprint, destroy the economy, destroy people‘s lives, and destroy families, in order to get more people riding busses in order to fulfill the dream of transit oriented development.
The new $2.1 billion light rail line that will run southwest of the city for 17.5 miles has been approved by the Met Council and has already been promised federal funding, even though the Metropolitan Council has not conducted studies to estimate how many people are likely to use it. (Some will, of course, but how many?) They based their entire argument on how many jobs are within 1/2 mile of the 16 new stations and how many new jobs are “expected” to be added in downtown Minneapolis within 15 years.
Here are the Met Council’s numbers:
*In 2014, there were approximately 64,300 jobs within 1⁄2 mile of the proposed stations and 126,800 jobs in downtown Minneapolis. By 2035, employment is expected to grow to 80,900 within 1⁄2 mile of the proposed stations and 145,300 in downtown Minneapolis – a 18% increase in employment
*In 2014, there were about 35,800 people within 1⁄2 mile of the proposed stations and 16,400 residents with access to the 5 shared stations in downtown Minneapolis. By 2035, the population within 1⁄2 mile of the proposed stations is expected to grow by 56 percent to 55,800, and the population of downtown Minneapolis is expected to grow by 117 percent increase to 35,600
Of course, none of those numbers has anything to do with whether or not the rail system can or will be used by people to get to jobs that are within a half-mile of the new stations, which could require them to walk up to half-a-mile in business clothes in Minnesota weather.
In order for most people to walk from a light rail station to a job, the job would pretty much have to be less than a few blocks away, which is pretty much the case for someone who uses the light rail system to reach a downtown job.
The same is true when walking from home to a train station, unless there are adequate park-and-ride lots available (and the new route is supposed to have eight new park-and-ride lots), because not many people are going to walk more than a few blocks to a light rail station in business clothes in Minnesota weather to take a train to work. And because the Metropolitan Council knows that is true, it is probably why they avoided doing any studies that would make that truth public.
Which is why the numbers are not only meaningless, they support the argument that the Met Council knows the new track is not as likely to live up to its promises as existing tracks, and that the benefits to the city and the region are likely to be far less than the economic and environmental costs.
The Met Council saying the SWLRT will eventually be good for everyone is not a substitute for an honest benefit-cost study or a real environmental impact statement. Neither is the Met Council’s “promise” that the new stations will spur positive development.
Which is why using up-zoning in Minneapolis to destroy neighborhoods, families, and home values, to force black families out of the city or into homelessness, and to increase the city’s carbon footprint by encouraging developers to tear down single-family homes and replace them with three- to six- unit apartment buildings with no grass, no trees, and no off-street parking, just to get more people to ride buses, is a far cry from transit oriented development that puts the best interests of the city’s economy, natural environment, and residents ahead of special interests.
In other words, are Metropolitan Council Members and Minneapolis politicians so intent on transforming the city with transit oriented development that they are willing to let developers destroy the city of Minneapolis in order to do so?
If so, some of the questions that should be asked are:
Who else, besides developers and investors, stands to profit from a transit oriented development plan based on up-zoning the entire city of Minneapolis?
Of course, none of those numbers has anything to do with whether or not the rail system can or will be used by people to get to jobs that are within a half-mile of the new stations, which could require them to walk up to half-a-mile in business clothes in Minnesota weather.
In order for most people to walk from a light rail station to a job, the job would pretty much have to be less than a few blocks away, which is pretty much the case for someone who uses the light rail system to reach a downtown job.
The same is true when walking from home to a train station, unless there are adequate park-and-ride lots available (and the new route is supposed to have eight new park-and-ride lots), because not many people are going to walk more than a few blocks to a light rail station in business clothes in Minnesota weather to take a train to work. And because the Metropolitan Council knows that is true, it is probably why they avoided doing any studies that would make that truth public.
Which is why the numbers are not only meaningless, they support the argument that the Met Council knows the new track is not as likely to live up to its promises as existing tracks, and that the benefits to the city and the region are likely to be far less than the economic and environmental costs.
The Met Council saying the SWLRT will eventually be good for everyone is not a substitute for an honest benefit-cost study or a real environmental impact statement. Neither is the Met Council’s “promise” that the new stations will spur positive development.
Which is why using up-zoning in Minneapolis to destroy neighborhoods, families, and home values, to force black families out of the city or into homelessness, and to increase the city’s carbon footprint by encouraging developers to tear down single-family homes and replace them with three- to six- unit apartment buildings with no grass, no trees, and no off-street parking, just to get more people to ride buses, is a far cry from transit oriented development that puts the best interests of the city’s economy, natural environment, and residents ahead of special interests.
In other words, are Metropolitan Council Members and Minneapolis politicians so intent on transforming the city with transit oriented development that they are willing to let developers destroy the city of Minneapolis in order to do so?
If so, some of the questions that should be asked are:
Who else, besides developers and investors, stands to profit from a transit oriented development plan based on up-zoning the entire city of Minneapolis?
How do the governor and the DFL fit in?
And is corruption or stupidity behind the transit oriented development idea that has the Met Council, the City Council, the mayor, and the Planning Department willing to burn down the city to get more people on the buses?