Upper Harbor Terminal & Affordable Housing
Monday, July 6, 2020 at 5:09AM
By Dennis Paulaha, PhD, Written for The Great River Coalition, Diane Hofstede President
The Minneapolis politicians managing the Upper Harbor Terminal project on 48 acres of city-owned land in North Minneapolis with one mile of frontage on the Mississippi River are asking for ideas from the public as to what people think is the best thing to do with the property.
Unless new ideas are able to change current plans, it looks like more than half the acreage will be used by private developers, or a single private developer, to build somewhere around 300 rental units, with the promise of making some of them “affordable”, along with a number of retail stores and restaurants.
A little less than half the land, the part that borders the river, is to be used as a park with an outdoor amphitheater that would be managed or owned by First Avenue Enterprise Limited.
On the surface, it doesn’t sound like a bad plan, but when you look a little deeper, it looks like one more example of the City of Minneapolis handing the city’s valuable resources over to private developers.
Are There Alternatives?
As an economist, one of my main complaints is that both the city and the private developer are focused on the construction of rental properties as an answer to both the affordable housing problem and the racial inequity problem in Minneapolis.
Given that we now know the single most important cause of racial inequity throughout the country is the differences in accumulated home equity, such a project will continue the rent-for-life downward spiral of African-Americans in Minneapolis.
Looking at what other cities are doing with city land, the current Upper Harbor Terminal Plan seems not only shortsighted, but lacking a goal that would benefit either the African-American community, lower income families in general, or the overall economy and health of the City of Minneapolis.
The Hunters Point Naval Shipyard project in San Francisco is just one example. Instead of building rental units, they built condos, hundreds of which sell for $500,000-$600,000, which, because it is San Francisco, are considered affordable housing. if the Upper Harbor Terminal project followed the San Francisco model, building condos instead of rental units, the prices, because it is Minneapolis, not San Francisco, would be lower. Doing so would allow a number of families who are on the margin to become owners instead of renters. Which would not only help those families, but, according to the research, it would change the entire future of their children, their grandchildren, and add to the economic vitality of Minneapolis.
Doing so would not solve the racial inequity problem, the poverty problem, or the affordable housing problem on its own. It would, however, take at least some steps in the right direction.
Another example of a big city project is the Essex Crossing development in New York City. It is on the lower Eastside. It is also built on the idea of affordable condos. And it has a community garden, which is something North Minneapolis residents have suggested.
In other words, there are legitimate and better alternatives to guide the partnership between the City of Minneapolis and private developers. Condos and community gardens instead of rental units and an amphitheater is just one.
