$600,000 in Tax Assessments for Decorative Street Lights in Minneapolis (St. Paul: 2014, renters)

[moving123456]

$9000+ per light. Anybody here live in that area? Thoughts? One person that owns four properties in the area will be hit with a $49,000 bill.

Originally Posted by KSTP

Sixty-six "decorative" street lights will go up next spring on Penn Avenue South between 54th Street and Highway 62.

The existing street lights work fine, but the city is still moving forward with the fancier street lights, and they are assessing 100 property owners on those eight blocks a total of $600,000 in new taxes to get it done. Many of the property owners don't want the decorative street lights and would prefer keeping the existing ones.

The city sent out ballots to all 100 property owners on those blocks. If 70 of them voted "no" the project would be killed. Sixty-three did vote "no." Three voted "yes" and 34 did not respond. The city counts the 34 non-responses as "yes" votes which means the project moves forward.

More here...

Minneapolis Spends $600K on 'Decorative' Street Lights | KSTP TV - Minneapolis and St. Paul

[northsub]

There has to be more to this story. At least I hope there is.

[1stpontiac]

That sounds pretty ridiculous, especially the 'no vote = yes' part.

[Slevin Kelevra]

They need to install these in the downtown core, not way out near 54t. What are they thinking?

[uptown_urbanist]

We don't live there now, but I'm sure there's more to the story. I know they're doing the new lights now because that entire stretch of street is being redone. There have been a number of well-publicized public meetings about the project, so those opposed to the lights had ample opportunity to learn about it and to return their petitions. I do remember reading somewhere that the new lights would provide more consistent light, and since part of that stretch of Penn goes over the creek (and is, therefore, darker), perhaps people felt safer at night with less spotty light coverage. I believe there will be more of them, too, and of course they do look nicer. I don't know the whole story, but if the city is considering upgrading lighting, this was definitely the time to do it, as the street will already be closed and torn up. Not sure if I agree or not that the 70% number is fair, but I do think it's fair to consider that the non-respondents were essentially voting "yes." Most people are spurred to action only if they don't want something, so those non-respondents probably either wanted them or (more likely) didn't care either way. In any case, this project is folded in with the reconstruction project, so that's why this upgrade was offered now and for that stretch of road.

[1stpontiac]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

We don't live there now, but I'm sure there's more to the story. I know they're doing the new lights now because that entire stretch of street is being redone. There have been a number of well-publicized public meetings about the project, so those opposed to the lights had ample opportunity to learn about it and to return their petitions. I do remember reading somewhere that the new lights would provide more consistent light, and since part of that stretch of Penn goes over the creek (and is, therefore, darker), perhaps people felt safer at night with less spotty light coverage. I believe there will be more of them, too, and of course they do look nicer. I don't know the whole story, but if the city is considering upgrading lighting, this was definitely the time to do it, as the street will already be closed and torn up. Not sure if I agree or not that the 70% number is fair, but I do think it's fair to consider that the non-respondents were essentially voting "yes." Most people are spurred to action only if they don't want something, so those non-respondents probably either wanted them or (more likely) didn't care either way. In any case, this project is folded in with the reconstruction project, so that's why this upgrade was offered now and for that stretch of road.

I understand the need or urge for assuming silence is acceptance sometimes, but when something is going to cost $5k out of pocket, and isn't actually necessary, then I think making sure people are actually on board should be required.

A 63% response rate that voted 95% 'no' should be enough to at least re-examine the situation.

If this were a more minor cost (say, a couple hundred dollars) or was actually a critical issue, then I could have a different opinion.

[Glenfield]

There is a good deal of information about this project on the city's website. It is not just a lighting project, but is being done in conjunction with the street resurfacing. It is the area south of the creek. The area north of this, including the part of Penn over Minnehaha Creek is scheduled to be done in 2014. Importantly, there will be no assessments until after a city council committee meeting in 2013. It seems to me that residents were given input and a voice, but too many were apathetic. The 70% cutoff seems to be a city policy. It sounds like some residents wanted an exception to the policy, but i can understand why the city didnt want to go there. I suppose one could argue about whether or not that's the right number or not, but we have a representative government and not a direct democracy.

This is from the city's website:
Penn Ave S Paving - City of Minneapolis

Here are the notes from a meeting in July, which seems to have been the third meeting held.

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/gro...s1p-096695.pdf

[MnMomma]

I went to the first two meetings, but was out of town for the third. I am just outside the assessment area.

A large percentage of the properties on Penn from 54th to 62 are rentals. Many of the homeowners that reside in their homes were opposed to almost the entire project--not just the lighting. The road needs to be redone, and now is a logical time to make improvements. Property owners are getting hit hard--the lighting costs and road reconstruction assessment are really high relative to the property values, in my opinion. If I were being assessed, I'd be upset too. But, there was plenty of time for feedback and, I feel that the engineer in charge did a great job of communicating with owners.

I would guess that the non-resident landlords didn't bother responding. Many of them have property management companies and don't even really care what their tenants are like. Maybe this issue will finally bring the attention to the absentee landlords that need to be held accountable for their tenant decisions and lack of connection to the community. For example, at one meeting someone proposed that a cut-out be added in front of one address for emergency response vehicle because 911 is called there so frequently that it causes regular traffic issues. Seriously??

It will be interesting to see what the response rate and yes/no votes are for the second half of the project (50th to 54th). That area is more owner-occupied or have landlords that actually know and care who is living in their property.

[uptown_urbanist]

Oops, I skimmed over this and didn't realize initially that this was ONLY the 54th to 62 portion, and not the entire project area. We lived a few blocks from the stretch in question, but moved the meetings started in earnest. It would definitely be interesting to know who was voting for what; there are definitely some problem absentee landlords along that stretch, and I'd like to know whether they were the non-voters, or if they voted against it (because they'd have little incentive on neighborhood/street upgrades). Does anyone know what the story is with all the group homes (?) on the stretch between 55th and 56th? I'm guessing that that's the block with the heavy ambulance calls. I'd heard that there's at least one hospice there, but there also seem to be group homes of some type there. That was also the block where last year a registered sex offender was living briefly until he was sent back to jail on robbery charges. In a neighborhood that is otherwise very safe and quiet, that particular block seems to have the problems. (and as a renter, I also really resent landlords who don't screen their tenants -- they give rentals a bad name, and are part of the reason I always felt like renters -- all renters -- were seen as a "problem" in Armatage and elsewhere.)

I agree with MnMomma that I'd be upset if I was hit with that light cost, too; those houses are probably the cheapest/least desirable in the neighborhood, and these assessments likely are very high compared to what the property is valued. I'm also guessing that many owners who live there probably aren't rolling in money, and will feel feel the pinch of those assessments. And presumably renters will also see the assessment reflected in future rent hikes. But there was a process, and no one can claim that they weren't given a chance to make their views known.

[Mdcastle]

As a data point renting a wood pole 150 watt street light from XCEL costs $5.54 a month, including maintenance and electricity. Minneapolis figures that decorative lighting system will last 20-30 years. Using that figure each fixture costs around $25-$35 a month, not including maintenance or electricity (I'm assuming they will use 70 or 100 watt lamps.)

Wood pole light may look ugly but they're extremely cheap since the fixtures are utilitarian, the wiring and posts already exists, and they use higher wattage (thus more efficient) lamps. A 150 watt high pressure sodium lamp puts out almost double the amount of light as a 100 watt with only half again as much energy usage.