DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluating the Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program’S Effect on Neighborhoods

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluating the Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program’S Effect on Neighborhoods Evaluating the Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program’s Effect on Neighborhoods by Richard Holzer A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the USC Graduate School University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science (Geographic Information Science and Technology) May 2017 Copyright ® 2017 by Richard Holzer To my parents Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... x List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... xi Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... xii Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program ....................................................1 1.1.1. Inception ....................................................................................................................1 1.1.2. Implementation ..........................................................................................................3 1.2 Motivation ............................................................................................................................6 1.3 Research Goals .....................................................................................................................8 1.4 Study Organization ..............................................................................................................8 Chapter 2 Background .................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Evaluation of the Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program ...............................9 2.2 Related Work .....................................................................................................................12 2.2.1. Research about Neighborhood Quality ....................................................................12 2.2.2. Assessing the Effects of Community Development Projects ..................................13 2.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................16 Chapter 3 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 17 3.1 Research Design .................................................................................................................17 3.1.1. Data Sources ............................................................................................................17 3.1.2. Indicators..................................................................................................................18 3.1.3. Propensity Score Matching ......................................................................................21 3.1.4. Difference-in-differences Analysis ..........................................................................23 3.1.5. Regression Analysis .................................................................................................24 3.2 Regional Level Analysis ....................................................................................................28 3.2.1. Demographic and Housing Stock Characteristics....................................................28 3.2.2. Neighborhood Opinion ............................................................................................29 iv 3.3 City and Neighborhood Level Data Analysis ....................................................................30 3.3.1. Comparing Minneapolis and St. Paul ......................................................................31 3.3.2. Neighborhood Analysis ...........................................................................................32 Chapter 4 Results .......................................................................................................................... 39 4.1 Difference-in-differences ...................................................................................................39 4.2 Regression Testing .............................................................................................................50 Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusion .......................................................................................... 55 References ..................................................................................................................................... 66 Appendix A: NRP Funding Allocations by Category ................................................................... 68 v List of Figures Figure 1: Neighborhoods by Type During Phase 2 in Minneapolis Source: (Minneapolis, PlanNet n.d.)............................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Phase 1 Funding Allocations by Neighborhood Median Household Income and Type. Source: (Fagotto and Fung 2006) ................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Matched neighborhood pairs resulting from propensity score matching ...................... 22 Figure 4: Neighborhood Opinion from 1 (worst) to 10 (best) using data from the American Housing Survey Source: (U.S. Census Bureau 1992; U.S. Census Bureau 1995; U.S. Census Bureau 2000; U.S. Census Bureau 2009; U.S. Census Bureau 2015) .......................................... 30 Figure 5: Phase 1 Neighborhood Types Source: (Minneapolis, PlanNet n.d.) ............................. 35 Figure 6: Phase 1 Neighborhood Allocations in Dollars per Household Source: (Minneapolis, PlanNet n.d.)............................................................................................. 35 Figure 7: Hot spot Analysis of Income Change from 1990-2014 ................................................. 39 Figure 8: Hot spot Analysis of Home Value Change from 1990-2014 ........................................ 39 Figure 9: Hot spot Analysis of Rent Change from 1990-2014 ..................................................... 39 Figure 10: Hot spot Analysis of Vacancy Rate Change from 1990-2014 .................................... 39 Figure 11: Number of indicators in which each neighborhood showed improvement over St. Paul .................................................................................................................................. 42 Figure 12: Income Difference-in-differences Value by Neighborhood ........................................ 43 Figure 13: Home Value Difference-in-differences Value by Neighborhood ............................... 43 Figure 14: Rent Difference-in-differences Value by Neighborhood ............................................ 44 Figure 15: Vacancy Rate Difference-in-differences Value by Neighborhood ............................. 44 Figure 16: Hot spot Analysis of Difference-in-differences Values for Income ............................ 46 vi Figure 17: Hot spot Analysis of Difference-in-differences Values for Home Value ................... 46 Figure 18: Hot spot Analysis of Difference-in-differences Values for Rent ................................ 47 Figure 19: Hot spot Analysis of Difference-in-differences Values for Vacancy Rate ................. 47 Figure 20: Neighborhood Barriers and Difference-in-differences Values for Home Value ........ 59 vii List of Tables Table 1: American Housing Survey (AHS) Indicator Values for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area 1989-2013....................................................................................................... 29 Table 2: Median Household Income for Renters and Owners in Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area 1989-2013....................................................................................................... 29 Table 3: Population and Area of Minneapolis and St. Paul in 1990 ............................................. 31 Table 4: Comparison of Median Neighborhood Normalized Indicator Values in 1990 ............... 32 Table 5: Change of Mean Neighborhood Normalized Indicator Values from 1990-2014 ........... 32 Table 6: Average Indicator Values by Neighborhood Type ......................................................... 33 Table 7: Moran’s I Spatial Autocorrelation Results for Change in Indicator Value .................... 36 Table 8: Difference-in-Differences Summary Statistics ............................................................... 40 Table 9: T-Test Comparing Minneapolis and St. Paul by Indicator Value .................................. 40 Table 10: Moran’s I Spatial Autocorrelation by Indicator Difference-in-Differences Value ...... 45 Table 11: Mean Difference-in-differences Value by Neighborhood Type ................................... 48 Table 12: Mean Difference-in-differences Value per Dollar of Funding per Household by Neighborhood Type .....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nokomis East Station Area Plan
    NOKOMIS EAST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT STATION AREA PLAN Adopted by City Council HAY DOBBS 165 US Bank Plaza ARCHITECTURE 220 South Sixth Street URBAN DESIGN 12 January 2007 PLANNING INTERIORS Minneapolis, MN 55402 WWW.HAYDOBBS.COM T. 612.338.4590 F. 612.337.4042 Document Prepared by: Hay Dobbs, P.A. Minneapolis, Minnesota Acknowledgments to: Nokomis East Neighborhood Association Station Area Plan Steering Committee Residents of Nokomis East City of Minneapolis, Department of Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) Hennepin County, Department of Housing, Community Works & Transit Table of Contents Section 1 Executive Summary 1-1 Section 2 Planning Framework 2-1 Section 3 General Recommendations 3-1 Section 4 Public Participation 4-1 Section 5 Appendix 5-1 - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) 101 - Transit Station Areas (TSA’s) - Urban Analysis - Transportation Recommendations - Economic Research SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS HIAWATHA MISSISSIPPI RIVER LRT LINE 50th STREET LRT STATION * VA LRT STATION * MALL OF AMERICA Partial Aerial view of Minneapolis. The blue lines illustrate the Hiawatha LRT Line NOKOMIS EAST LRT STATION AREA PLAN 1-1 1.1 Purpose Hennepin County, in partnership with the City of Minneapolis and community stakeholders, initiated a planning study in November 2005 to identify transit-oriented DDowntownowntown development opportunities near the 50th Street and VA MMinneapolisinneapolis Medical Center Light Rail Transit Stations. This study creates a vision for the future of the area and recommends land use and urban design changes in support of this vision. HHiawatha LRT Line i a Dedicated, fi xed-route transit service represents increased w a t levels of accessibility for downtown Minneapolis and the h a L neighborhoods that are served.
    [Show full text]
  • References & Appendix
    References & Appendix 6. Daniel B. Shaw and Carolyn Carr (for Great River Document References Greening). 2002, Mississippi River Gorge (Lower Gorge): Ecological Inventory and Restoration Manage- 1. Aaron Brewer (for the Seward Neighborhood Group). ment Plan 1998, The Ecology and Geology of the Mississippi River Gorge 7. Metropolitan Council. 2015, Thrive MSP 2040: Regional Parks Policy Plan 2. Carolyn Carr and Cynthia Lane (for Friends of the Mississippi River). 2010, Riverside Park Natural Area: Ecological Inventory and Restoration Management Plan 8. Metropolitan Council. 2016, Annual Use Estimate for the Regional Park System for 2016 3. Close Landscape Architecture (for The Longfellow Community Council and MPRB). 1997, A Concept Plan 9. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2007, for the Mississippi River Gorge Trail Planning, Design and Development Guidelines 4. David C. Smith. 2018, Minneapolis’s Amazing River 10. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2015, Parks: West River Parkway Mississippi River Trail Bikeway U.S. Bicycle Route (USBR) 45 5. David C. Smith. 2018, Minneapolis’s Amazing River Parks: East River Parkway 11. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2016, Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) MISSISSIPPI GORGE REGIONAL PARK MASTER PLAN REFERENCES AND APPENDIX 8-1 12. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. 2007, 2007 – 28. City of Minneapolis. 2001, Southeast Minneapolis 2020 Comprehensive Plan Industrial (SEMI), Bridal Veil Refined Master Plan 13. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. 1982, Missis- 29. City of Minneapolis. 2007, Seward Longfellow Green- sippi River Master Plan way Area Land Use and Pre-Development Study 14. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. 2007, Mis- 30. City of Minneapolis. 2006, Mississippi River Critical sissippi River Gorge Slope Stabilization Inventory and Area Plan Analysis 31.
    [Show full text]
  • To Read the Nokomis Messenger Article About Becketwood Composting
    AUGUST 2012 Vol. 29 No. 6 21,000 Circulation Your Neighborhood Newspaper For Over Twenty Years extensive community outreach, soliciting input on redevelopment of the Hiawatha Corridor. ‘Elevated Beer’ to “Not one responder ever said that we need another liquor store,” Krause said, “not one. No INSIDE one feels our community is un- derserviced in that area.” bring craft beer, wine A current ordinance states that no liquor store may operate within 300 feet of a church or Features.........2 school. Krause said the intention to Hiawatha this fall is to separate consumption of al- cohol from children. But that or- dinance does not cover daycare centers, and one is two doors away from the proposed liquor store and will share its parking lot. “The daycare owner is Mus- lim, and had he known a liquor store would be adjacent, he Eco-friendly policies wouldn’t have opened there,” Krause said. at Becketwood “I don’t want or need another competitor, but beyond that, there are better uses for that retail space,” Krause continued. “But as a landlord, the building owner News..................3 has a mortgage to pay and needs to rent to anyone willing to pay rent. I see both sides. No one is evil in this issue.” Another Longfellow business owner said he had concerns with panhandlers and transients in the area, but he blames the city for not including daycare centers under its ordinance. As for Adam Aded, owner of Xcel releases Ruwayda Child Care Center, he Craft beer and wine lovers in the Longfellow area will have another source to choose from when Elevated Beer, indicated that he is not against substation design Wine and Spirits opens this fall at 4135 Hiawatha Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Improvin G Water Quality in the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes and Minnehaha Creek: Stakeholders and Potential Strategies
    NPCR 1053 Improvin_g Water Quality in the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes and Minnehaha Creek: Stakeholders and Potential Strategies A CONSORTIUM PROJECT OF: Augsburg College; College of St. Catherine; Hamline University; Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs; Macalester College; Metropolitan State University; Minneapolis Community College; Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program; University of Minnesota (Center for Urban and Regional Affairs; Children, Youth and Family Consortium; Minnesota Extension Service); University of St. Thomas; and Minneapolis community and neighborhood representatives. CURA RESOURCE COLLECTION Center for Urban and Regional Affairs University of Minnesota 330 Humphrey Center Improving Water Quality in the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes and Minnehaha Creek: Stakeholders and Potential Strategies Report prepared for the Lynnhurst Neighborhood Natural Environment Committee Andrzej Kozlowski Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota February, 1997 -==:. February, 1997 Neighborhood Planning for Community Revitalization (NPCR) supported the work of the author of this report but has not reviewed it for publication. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and is not necessarily endorsed by NPCR. NPCR is coordinated by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of Minnesota and is funded in part by an Urban Community Service Program grant administered by the U.S. Department of Education. NPCR 330 lilI Center 301 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 phone: 612/625-1020 e-mail: [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ................................................................................3 II. The major stakeholders ...................................................................3 III. Preliminary list of potential strategies for improving water quality ................ 16 IV. Summary: discussion of partnerships and areas of future exploration ..............20 V.
    [Show full text]
  • Combined NH2020 Public Comment Revised
    109 Duplicate Postcards received via US Mail. 109 Duplicate Postcards received via US Mail. From: [email protected] To: Neighborhoods 2020 Subject: [EXTERNAL] Neighborhood funding Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 12:02:49 PM Hello I heard from my neighborhood association today that their funding is apt to get cut by two-thirds! No doubt the City has incurred more than normal expense this year, but cutting neighborhoods is a terrible way to do it. My association is excellent at keeping us informed of looming events and issues. And it is a wonderful way of connecting neighbors. Let the neighborhoods share some of the budget pain, but do not try to balance the budget on the neighborhood’s back. Al Giesen 45 E Minnehaha Parkway [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the City of Minneapolis. Please exercise caution when opening links or attachments. From: Weinmann, Karlee To: Neighborhoods 2020 Subject: FW: Neighborhood Association funding Date: Thursday, September 24, 2020 7:53:11 AM Good morning, Please add the below comments received by Council Member Schroeder to the public record on Neighborhoods 2020. Thanks, Karlee Karlee Weinmann Policy Aide Council Member Jeremy Schroeder, Ward 11 City of Minneapolis – City Council 350 S. Fifth St. -- Room 307 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Office: (612) 673-2211 Cell: (612) 240-2129 [email protected] she/her/hers Subscribe to the Ward 11 email newsletter here. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 12:19 PM To: Schroeder, Jeremy <[email protected]> Subject: Neighborhood Association funding Hello Jeremy I heard from my Tangletown Neighborhood Association that their funding is apt to get cut by two- thirds! No doubt the City has incurred more than normal expense this year, but cutting neighborhoods is a terrible way to do it.
    [Show full text]
  • Neighborhood Programs
    Neighborhood Programs Annual Report 2014 Neighborhood and Community Relations Department NCR’s five Neighborhood Support staff provided help and guidance to 70 neighborhood organizations, comprised of more than 700 volunteer board members, dozens of staff, and thousands of dedicated volunteers. In 2014, neighborhood organizations took on complex community issues, including land use, transit, housing, crime and safety, and more. They responded to multiple stakeholders, including residents, property owners, businesses, the Met Council and MNDOT, DEED, MN PCA, and City departments such as the MPD, CPED, Public Works, the Park Board, School Board, and others. Details about all neighborhood projects and priorities can be found at www.minneapolismn.gov/ncr. Neighborhood organizations provided 125 home loans and grants in 2014, for a total of $1.8 million! Neighborhood organization housing investments: Type of loans # of Loans Total Amount Increased by more than $521,000 from 2013 to 2014; Deferred Loans 32 $127,150 Increase was due to neighborhood driven housing Grants 14 $86,359 development in Cedar Riverside and East Phillips; Housing Development 3 $921,752 Hawthorne Community Council also reported on their Mortgage Assistance 14 $65,748 partnership with Center for Energy and the Environment Revolving Loans 62 $609,474 to promote energy efficiency. 2014 Total 125 $1,810,483 For 2014, 18 neighborhood organizations reported working to help renters and promote tenant’s rights through: Improving energy efficiency; Creating fairness in utility billing; Eliminating bed bugs; Making housing standards and renter’s rights clear and easy to understand; Supporting tenant groups and hotlines; and Increasing the organizing capacity of renters.
    [Show full text]
  • Recast Resilience 365 Community Voting Process
    ReCAST Resilience 365 Community Voting Process Answer Choices Responses I live in South Minneapolis 31.05% 964 I live in North Minneapolis 34.11% 1059 I live in Cedar Riverside 5.19% 161 I work in Minneapolis 35.39% 1099 I do not live or work in Minnepolis 0.00% 0 I live somewhere else in Minneapolis 6.92% 215 3105 Do you live or work in Minneapolis 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% Responses 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% I live in I live in I live in I work in I do not live I live South North Cedar Minneapolis or work in somewhere Minneapolis Minneapolis Riverside Minnepolis else in Minneapolis Ripple Effect Proposals Projects Answer Choices Responses Budget Project Name: Young Parents Facing Homelessness Project Team: Lutunji Abram, Professor Emerita Sandra McNeel Project Description: Conduct a training for parents that encourages/inspires parents to become increasingly engaged in their children’s IEP’s (Individual Education Plans). Provide a list of resources to assisting parents with elementary and high school aged Family youth. Coordinate MPS representative to assist parents to utilize their child’s parent portal to gain access with teachers regarding their child(ren’s) school progress. Conduct two to three in‐house workshops for Parents which will motivate and inspire parents to be active in creating the educational pathways for their children. (Even through transition) Create a campaign to encourage parents to go back to school or access training. Target Community: Working with teen and young parents including fathers Minneapolis ages 18‐24 40.32% $ 2,250.00 Project Name: Twin Cities Recovery Social Club Project Team: Marc L.
    [Show full text]
  • Light Rail Transit Resource Guide
    NPCR 1144 Light Rail Transit Resource Guide A CONSORTIUM PROJECT OF: Augsburg College; College of St. Catherine; Hamline University; Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs; Macalester College; Metropolitan State University; Minneapolis Community College; Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program; University of Minnesota (Center for Urban and Regional Affairs; Children, Youth and Family Consortium; Minnesota Extension Service); University of St. Thomas; and Minneapolis community and neighborhood representatives. CURA RESOURCE COLLECTION Center for Urban and Regional Affairs University of Minnesota 330 Humphrey Center Light Rail Transit Resource Guide Conducted on behalf of Longfellow Community Council Prepared by Veronica Mendez, Undergraduate Research Assistant, University of Minnesota March 1-999 -z_..o~O This report {NPCR 114'; is also available at the following internet address: http://www.npcr.org Light Rail Transit Resource Guide Prepared by: Veronica Mendez, Student Intern from the University of Minnesota at Longfellow Community Council February,2000 Neighborhood Planning for Community Revitalization (NPCR) supported the work of the author of this report but has not reviewed it for publication. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and is n<:>t necessarily endorsed by NPCR. NPCR is coordinated by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of Minnesota. NPCR is supported by grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's East Side Community Outreach Partnership Center, the McKnight Foundation, Twin Cities Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), the St. Paul Foundation, and the St. Paul. Neighborhood Planning for Community Revitalization 330 Hubert H. Humphrey Center 301-19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 phone: 612/625-1020 e-mail: [email protected] website: http:/ /freenet.msp.mn.us/org/npcr We at Longfellow Community Council would like to thank all those who helped us gather information to put this project together.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnehaha 46 Housing Project Made Affordable by Design Smaller Units, Fewer Amenities Planned for New 54-Unit Building at 46Th and Minnehaha
    Longfellow neighbor How much traffic Twelve authors helps others at can 46th St. and collaborate on Encampment Hiawatha handle? ‘Lake Street Stories’ PAGE 7 PAGE 8 PAGE 16 November 2018 Vol. 36 No. 9 www.LongfellowNokomisMessenger.com 21,000 Circulation • Minnehaha 46 housing project made affordable by design Smaller units, fewer amenities planned for new 54-unit building at 46th and Minnehaha By TESHA M. CHRISTENSON The new five-story build- ing proposed at 46th St. and Minnehaha Ave. will be afford- able by design, according to de- veloper Sean Sweeney of Hayes Harlow Development. While working for eight years in San Francisco, Sweeney was a part of affordable housing and market-rate projects, and saw the challenges of both, he told citizens gathered at a community meeting on Oct. 9. In Minneapo- lis, he continues to hear that the A new, 38,452-square-foot building proposed at 46th St. and Minnehaha city needs more affordable hous- Ave. will offer studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units with rents ex- ing, but he pointed out that get- pected to range from $900 to $1,200. (Graphic submitted) ting the federal subsidies and tax The existing building at the corner of 46th St. and Minnehaha Ave. offers credits for those projects can be approach a new site, they ask The current plan calls for 54 12 transitional housing units that share four bathrooms with low-cost rents very time-consuming. the following questions: What is housing units spread out over ranging from $450-650 a month. Sweeney said they considered keeping Instead, he has decided to most needed? What is the best five floors, with 2,900 square feet the building, but determined it was too run-down to rehabilitate.
    [Show full text]
  • NRP Projects by Neighborhood Group
    NRP Projects by Neighborhood Phase I Highlights ARMATAGE • Armatage Park/School Complex – Armatage residents invested $717,000 of NRP funds in the $2.8 million Armatage Park and School expansion and enhancement that opened in January 2000. The Armatage Neighborhood Association (ANA) partnered with the School District and Park Board to build a new gymnasium and playground joining Armatage Community School and Armatage Park Neighborhood Center. NRP investments were made in: the feasibility study (1996-97); park and school construction (1998-2000); and a new playground design and installation (1998-2000). AUDUBON • Central Avenue Improvements– Audubon, Holland and Windom Park invested NRP funds in pedestrian safety lights for Central Avenue, a Business Watch Program to keep crime down, and Central Avenue identification banners with a new Central Avenue logo. Perhaps the most visible of the new Central Avenue improvements are the 95 low-level pedestrian scale street lights that span from 18th to 27th avenues NE. The lights create a safe, pedestrian friendly environment and link Central Avenue to rear parking areas. • Home Improvement Programs – The Audubon Neighborhood Association (ANA) invested 60% of its Phase I NRP funds in its housing programs. Over $1.2 million of its NRP funds have been invested in home improvements. BANCROFT • Housing Programs – Bancroft invested more than 64% of its $2 million NRP allocation in a home improvement loan and grant program, a first-time homebuyer program, and a troublesome vacancies housing program. Together, these three programs directly benefited 13 percent of Bancroft’s 1,415 households. • Phelps Park Community Center – Residents in the Bancroft, Powderhorn Park and Bryant neighborhoods worked together to create and invest in a joint-use facility shared by the Boys and Girls Club of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.
    [Show full text]
  • Minneapolis Community Education
    MINNEAPOLIS COMMUNITY EDUCATION Discoversomething different. ADULT & YOUTH CLASSES SPRING/SUMMER 2017 YOGA SUMMER FOR ALL AGES YOUTH DAY CAMPS SPRING & SUMMER SOCIAL HISTORICAL MEDIA TOURS MARKETING REGISTRATION BEGINS MARCH 6 PARK BENCH CRAFTS, CANOES WORKOUT & COOKING mce Minneapolis Community Education New Discoveries Can’t-miss classes this season 1 2 Dog Treats & Natural Remedies Eat Local: Welcome Find out how you can create Spring Vegetables treats and treatments for Fill your recipes with the Fido using simple ingredients flavor of local produce as from home. PAGE 22 you whip up spring dishes alongside a seasoned chef. PAGE 19 Fun with Flowers Family Painting 3 Put brush to canvas and give your creativity a chance to stop and smell the roses. PAGE 68 5 Inside This Issue This Inside Somali Language & Culture Cloud Technologies Immerse yourself in the Somali x for Small Business culture and community while XX Amplify your company’s studying basic phrases andX X technology efforts by mastering grammar. PAGE 29XX 4 these simple but effective best practices. PAGE 11 Inside This Issue… Arts & Entertainment Adults 55+ (continued) Arts & Crafts ........................................ 32 Creative Activities ................................ 61 Life & Learning Dance .................................................. 39 Elder Enrichment ................................. 61 Academic Enrichment ........................... 4 Music & Performance .......................... 41 Defensive Driving 55+ ......................... 60 Business & Consumer/Real
    [Show full text]
  • To Download The
    Davnie, Torres Ray Minnehaha Park board take leadership Academy juniors focuses on roles at Capitol win debate title urban agriculture Page 2 Page 2 Page 7 Longfellow Nokomis Your community MMeessengerssenger newspaper since 1982 January 2013 • Vol. 28 No. 11 www.LongfellowNokomisMessenger.com 21,000 Circulation Residents, public officials call for more transparency over airport noise levels By JAN WILLMS communities across the country A Nov. 19 decision by the have discussed, so far without Minneapolis Airport Commission success.” (MAC) to compromise on RNAV “I think these tracks could flight paths has still left some res- have passed through quietly, if I idents and public officials calling and John Quincy (Ward 11 coun- for more study and transparency cil member) were not watching when it comes to airport noise these issues so closely,” Colvin levels. Roy said. She added that this A standing-room-only meet- issue is connected to the long ing was packed with residents term plans for the airport and who were concerned about how they should be considered to- the proposed changes in flight gether. plans would affect their daily liv- Colvin Roy said she thinks ing. it’s likely this proposal will be The Federal Aviation Admin- back. istration (FAA) proposed using “We have garnered a lot of satellite technology to alter flight support for the city’s position paths to save fuel and promote that additional information is safety. But a spirited response needed, so I’m very hopeful that from affected residents led MAC we will get it,” she said. “The City to only partially use the new sys- and our allies are ready to fight tem, rather than make it effective for this.
    [Show full text]