Recent pronouncements that the Audubon Chapter of Minneapolis (ACM) legitimately cannot be an environmental organization and a co-plaintiff against the city's Minneapolis 2040 plan at the same time reflect an abject misinterpretation of the lawsuit (Readers Write, "'Environmentalists,' really?" June 24).
In truth, the litigation transpired because the city failed to conduct an environmental review in accordance with state environmental law.
Furthermore, the ACM is not anti-density or anti-development, but supports the goals of the 2040 plan, including climate change resilience, affordable and accessible housing, elimination of disparities, a sustainable and diverse economy, and a "clean environment" with healthy air, clean water and a vibrant ecosystem.
But with its 2040 plan, the city recklessly created a false choice between unregulated development and a healthy environment.
As co-plaintiff Smart Growth Minneapolis explains: City dwellers who live in dense areas still have the right to clean air and water. If we are to have a livable and sustainable city, any responsible plan for greater density must anticipate and identify ways to mitigate unintended harm to already fragile urban water, air, wildlife and ecosystems.
Minneapolis 2040 neither identifies possible negative effects on our environment from up-zoning nor includes strategies to prevent or mitigate that harm. In fact, the plan allows greater density in flood zones, rail evacuation zones and already polluted areas of the city, while creating the legal right to build virtually anything in Minneapolis without environmental scrutiny.
By deregulating development, the plan puts our environment directly at risk through cumulative harm.
As the basis of the lawsuit, co-plaintiffs presented evidence that implementing Minneapolis 2040 would damage the environment. A plan analysis conducted by civil and environmental engineering firm Sunde Engineering demonstrated that Minneapolis 2040 largely ignored the plan's likely environmental impacts, including: