Upper Harbor Terminal: An Economist’s Viewpoint

By Dennis Paulaha, PhD- Great River Coalition, Photo by Tom Reiter for Friends of the Mississippi River

I must admit I am coming late to the table at which the Upper Harbor Terminal development is being discussed. My first thought, as an economist, is that the most important thing an economist can bring to any discussion is to make it clear it is a mistake to make any decision, especially a big decision, without looking at the alternatives.

Although some people have supposedly been working on plans for the 48 acre Upper Harbor site with one mile on the Mississippi River for 20 years, the barge landing wasn’t closed until 2014, and the reason for closing it was to prevent the spread of the invasive Asian carp.

Reading through the materials provided by the Minneapolis Park Department, the City of Minneapolis, and developers, as well as articles written by others, the one thing that jumps out is that the city has decided, without looking at any alternatives, to turn over more than half the land to private developers to do whatever they want with it and to build an amphitheater on park land paid for by the city and run for profit by First Avenue Enterprise Limited.

The planners will no doubt claim that is overstating the lack of intended oversight by the city and the lack of input from the community, but there is no reason to assume this plan will be handled differently from the 2040 Plan when the city, the city Planning Department and the City Council kept the public uninformed while ignoring its input.

So it is not only the amphitheater that is a questionable decision, because of the problems such a venue will create for the neighborhood, because the preliminary plan allows closing park access to the public during events, and because of the environmental problems it will create by being so close to the river, but because there needs to be an honest discussion as to how public land and public money should be used, and whether it should be used for the general welfare or to benefit a few private businesses.

To begin with, I cannot find anything offered by the city, the Park Department, or the development companies explaining the purpose or goals of the plans they are putting together. In fact, the plans are not really plans, as of yet, which means I am not the only one who seems to be late to the table.

The Upper Harbor 48 acres is, or may be, the last significant piece of land the city and the Park Department can use for a purpose or purposes that will benefit…And that’s the question. Who and what do the City Council and the Park Board want to benefit? If the plan is to help increase the economic and financial well-being of current North Minneapolis residents, there is nothing in the plan that will do that. If the plan is to increase the economic growth of Minneapolis itself, there is nothing in the plan to do that either. The city of Minneapolis is at the beginning of a transition forced into existence by the Minneapolis 2040 Plan.

So one of the questions is: Is the unspoken purpose of the Upper Harbor Terminal Plan to add to the gentrification built into the Minneapolis 2040 plan? Very simply, the decision makers involved have to think about what they are doing.

This is a piece of land that offers fantastic opportunities for the city, but none of those opportunities can become a reality without careful thought, not only regarding the goals, but how the land and river frontage can be used to reach those goals. So far, from everything that has been made public, the city and the Park Department have decided to leave the thinking to developers and private businesses.

That is not why we have city officials. And I doubt anyone could successfully argue the current plan is the best thing that can be done with the tremendous opportunity the city and the Park Department have in front of them.