Category Archives: Misleading Promotion Tactics

One Sided “Journalism” Does a Disservice to the Community.

Last night, residents were enraged when Minnpost published a ridiculously 1-sided article about the greenway.  You can see that article HERE.


As you can see, the article presents a very different picture than we are seeing from local residents. A big part of that is that the people that they quoted, for the most part (Nathan, Alexis, Will) don’t live on the Greenway. In most cases, they don’t even live anywhere NEAR the greenway.  Alexis and Nathan are on the board of the Greenway Council, Will WAS on it before stepping down recently.  They quoted each in such a way to make it seem like they were local to the route. They are not. Will Lumpkin’s association with the greenway council should have been disclosed – this article is incredibly biased and misleading.


So, a few notes. Read more »

Notes on the June Greenway Council “Meeting”

After a last minute cancellation of May’s meeting (Which was to “respect how busy everyone is these days” – just WEEKS before the installation!), June’s meeting was … bizarre.
About a week before the scheduled meeting, one of us happened across information on the Greenway Council website (not on Facebook, not being promoted) that said that the meeting would be starting a half hour earlier than usual, and that this would be done to allow for time to hear resident concerns.
… would have been nice for them to put that out to the public, right?


So, we got the word out. We had many people lined up to attend… and curiously, they never did put out word.


… and then they changed the information on the site back to a 6:30 meeting start.


The day of the meeting, one resident emailed to double check.  She was told that they were initially going to have it at 6:00, they decided to start at the regular time and have the whole meeting be about receiving resident feedback.  Again, this change was not put out to the public, though MANY people would have wanted to know that there would be a whole meeting for resident feedback.  Many of us decided to show up at 6, as the entire thing felt incredibly sneaky and dishonest at this point.

Read more »

Privilege: Racism, Ableism, Classism, and Sexism with the Greenway Project

Rather than recap this month’s Greenway council meeting (Which can be summed up as “More of the same disorganization, lack of direction, ‘I didn’t bring that information with me’, etc”), I’d like to address a major problem with this entire project – privilege.

This greenway manages to be a perfect storm of many of the biggest forms of privilege/isms, all in one.  The entire project is based in privilege: Classism, racism, ableism, and sexism. It’s to the point where I’ll feel the need to yell “bingo!”, should homophobia present itself at some point.

Where should I start?  Let’s go alphabetically.


Read more »

Greenway Council Meeting Notes – 3/8/16

Several homeowners got together to attend a Greenway Council meeting this week.  

At first, they seemed happy to have new people there – board member (now secretary) Nate Pentz was all smiles… until he overheard us talking, and realized that we were homeowners along the route.  From that point forward, his face twisted into the deepest frown I have ever seen in my life.  So very welcoming!

Shortly after the 6:30 scheduled start time, we were asked to introduce ourselves.  There was a very clear divide between the special interest groups there, and the homeowners along the route.  Most of those on the board were not from the area, all of those opposed lived on the route. Those on the route specified “Homeowner, I live on the proposed route” or some variation thereof. Pro Greenway special interest reps / cycling activists that happened to also live in north (though not on the route) would state “I am also a homeowner”, but without the designation of specifically being along the route affected.

As the meeting started,  we couldn’t help but be shocked at the lack of organization.  The woman running the meeting (Sarah, whose last name doesn’t seem to appear on any of the paperwork. I believe she said she was from the City of Minneapolis? Maybe Stewart?) was almost completely incapable of finishing a thought.  Almost every time she was asked a question, she started a thought, stopped herself, started again, and went off in a completely different direction.  She couldn’t answer even the most basic of questions about the project.

Let me transcribe my notes from the meeting.   I’ll try to group them into relevant categories

Read more »

Apples to Oranges

Another common theme that we’re seeing in those who support/promote/shove this greenway project down our throats, is the constant need to point out examples of why this greenway will work.. that have nothing to do with the situation of this particular greenway.

One favorite is when they trot out the example of the Midtown greenway. Apparently that one did raise home values nearby – see if you can spot what may be different about that one:

Spoilers!  The Midtown greenway is a 5+ mile stretch of former *railroad* corridor.  Not only did it NOT take away parking, access to homes, or in any way negatively impact logistics for the homeowners nearby…

… it replaced a (presumably noisy!) train line with (presumably quiet!) cyclists.  Why *wouldn’t* property values go up, in such a situation?

… it is in no way similar to the proposed North Minneapolis greenway.

Another example is seen below:



In this case, a proponent of the greenway (who, again, doesn’t actually live on the proposed route) is trying to use the example of a planned greenway space, to illustrate the supposed benefit to this proposed greenway space.

When planned from the start, greenways can be beautiful, useful, safe, and yes – increase property value.

When hastily planned, forced upon those who stand to be inconvenienced (at BEST!) by the greenway… that is simply not the case here.

Recent Entries »