Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Does the Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan violate the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, as a lawsuit alleges? ("Court blocks Mpls. 2040 plan, for now," June 16, and "Minneapolis allowed to enforce its 2040 Plan — for now," July 27.)

"No" is the simple answer. One needs to only look at the law, and it is clear that it does not.

Minneapolis 2040 is a policy plan that provides guidance to the reinvestment and change in the city. It was adopted in accordance with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The MLPA was passed in 1976, five years after the state's Environmental Rights Act (MERA), during the height of the environmental movement.

The Minnesota Legislature passed the MLPA to help guide the development of the seven-county metropolitan area and protect the environment. The MLPA established an iterative planning process. Under the MLPA, every 10 years the Metropolitan Council updates population, household and employment forecasts following the most recent U.S. census. Then the council revises regional system plans for transportation, parks and environmental services and overall regional development guidance.

In response to this regional guidance, Minneapolis and all other communities in the region respond by updating their local comprehensive plans. The beauty of the MPLA is that its sets up a two-step process for local governments. First, local comprehensive plans set the policy guidance and clear direction of a vision for a city. Then, specific changes in zoning, subdivision regulations and building controls come into play that influence how projects are designed and built.

Before Minneapolis could adopt its 2040 Plan, it needed to forward the plan to the Metropolitan Council to review for conformity and consistency with council policy and plans directed at balancing public health, safety and welfare with protecting the air, water, land and other natural resources from pollution, impairment or destruction. The Metropolitan Council's evaluation of Minneapolis 2040 did not find that the plan would harm the environment.

Does this mean that the concern for the protection of the environment is over? No! Further environmental review and the application of additional environmental protections will occur with the more detailed planning and environmental analysis that is part of the project and development review process.

Planning is not about community buildout or some end-state rigid scheme; it is about guidance for the next planning period. Specific proposals are judged against the plan and development controls, including any environmental impacts. The 10-year planning cycle allows for flexible, regular evaluation so the region, and communities can respond to changing demographic, economic and environmental conditions. Minneapolis 2040 and its implementation does this quite well.

John H. Kari, of Minneapolis, is a retired Metropolitan Council planning analyst. Brian W. Ohm, is a professor in urban and regional planning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.