The activists were running out of options. Negotiations with officials in the city of Minneapolis hadn’t yielded an agreement. They’d lost in court and at City Hall.
They feared the city’s demolition of an old warehouse just off Hiawatha Avenue — still known by the name of its former occupant, Roof Depot — would be an environmental health disaster for the East Phillips neighborhood in south Minneapolis. It’s a claim that city officials, regulators and judges haven’t found persuasive.
So at 7 a.m. last Tuesday, a group of at least 30 neighbors, Indigenous rights activists and environmentalists opened the fence, lit a sacred fire and pitched a dozen tents. They planned to occupy the site, hoping their presence would block the city from razing the property.
“We come in peace,” said Betty Burns, an Ojibwe 25-year resident of nearby Little Earth, a Native-preference public housing community. “We didn’t come to hurt nobody, but you people are hurting us, and you don’t see that.”
“This prayer and this ceremony is for our people and for the community … We’re not going to leave until our demands are met,” said Rachel Thunder, a leader in the American Indian Movement, as demolition opponents put out calls for supplies to prepare for a multi-day act of civil disobedience.
Just 12 hours later, around 90 Minneapolis Police officers arrived to clear the site. They arrested six people, including Thunder.
And the fight over the land is not yet over.
What’s at stake
The short-lived occupation last week was only one of the latest dramatic moments in a saga over this property that has been unfolding over almost a decade.
Minneapolis officials have had their eyes on the Roof Depot site even longer — since at least 2001. The city bought it for $6.8 million in 2016, hoping to expand the neighboring existing public works yard onto the property. The city’s waterworks operation supplies water to 500,000 people in Minneapolis and eight suburbs. Public works officials say the aging water yard in the Marcy Holmes neighborhood, where staff repair and store equipment and vehicles, is in desperate need of replacement.
Residents have their own vision for the property. In 2015, leaders of the East Phillips Neighborhood Institute crafted a plan to build an urban farm in the old warehouse, flanked by residential and commercial spaces — creating a new economic hub for a low-income, majority-BIPOC neighborhood. Residents say they had funding in place, but that the city’s strong-arm tactics prevented them from acquiring the property.
“We had some hope” in the urban farm plan, said Joseph Bester, a lifelong East Phillips resident. “People would be able to grow sustainable foods and have a sense of community and be part of something greater than themself. You’d like a little pride.”
[image_credit]Courtesy of the East Phillips Neighborhood Institute[/image_credit][image_caption]This rendering provides a view of what the Roof Depot site could look like if it were developed in the community vision.[/image_caption]
Mayor Jacob Frey has kept the project moving forward, issuing a pivotal veto in March 2022 after the latest of several council votes to delay the project.
Activists still have some hope after several dramatic twists last week. State lawmakers introduced bills to provide funding that would be a lifeline for the urban farm plan. Then, on Friday, Hennepin County District Court Judge Edward T. Wahl issued an order temporarily blocking demolition to give urban farm advocates time to pursue an emergency appeal.
But Wahl also did not back away from a previous ruling in which he found “insufficient” evidence that the city’s project was unsafe — and some Minneapolis officials, who say state regulators have also reviewed the demolition plans, have grown exasperated at requests for further delay.
“This project will not kill anyone!” City Council president Andrea Jenkins shouted over the din at City Hall on Thursday after a last-ditch motion to block demolition failed and activists in the chamber cried out in anger.
The toxic backstory: Why there’s arsenic under Roof Depot
Understanding the outrage requires understanding the neighborhood’s toxic history — and a racist legacy of overlooking environmental harms to low-income, non-white residents. Urban farm proponents see their plan as an antidote to that toxic past.
“You’re taking this neighborhood and denying them a lot of future economic activity, and the price of the pollution that will come with it — so it’s a double loss,” said Dean Dovolis, board president of the East Phillips Neighborhood Institute.
He added: “They’ve received their unfair share of [land] uses that no one else wanted, that always ended up in the poorest communities, the ones that could defend themselves the least.”
In 1938, right next to the warehouse site, a chemical plant opened that produced arsenic-based grasshopper pesticides. When the plant was in operation, wind gusts would kick up powder-like arsenic trioxide and sprinkle the toxic substance in lawns across the surrounding East Phillips and Longfellow neighborhoods. Among other harms, arsenic causes cancer, respiratory problems and liver and kidney damage.
The plant closed in 1968, but the contamination went undiscovered for nearly three decades, until 1994. A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-funded cleanup of surrounding properties began in 2009, and federal monitoring of the site continued until 2019.
But the neighborhood still lives with the fallout. To this day, East Phillips sees elevated rates of asthma, childhood lead exposure. Nearby highways contribute to slightly higher rates of air pollution. Activists have also called for the closure of two other nearby industrial polluters currently in operation: the Bituminous Roadways asphalt plant and Smith Foundry ironworks.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Kyle Stokes[/image_credit][image_caption]On Tuesday, Feb. 21, roughly 30 East Phillips residents, Indigenous rights activists and environmentalists occupied city-owned property that residents hope to develop into an urban farm.[/image_caption]
Burns developed asthma in 2004 — not long after she moved to the neighborhood.
If Roof Depot’s demolition goes forward, Burns said, “All of this poison here is going to go to Little Earth over there, and it’s going to kill all of our children. We have enough poison as it is.”
The demolition: Is it safe?
Numerous assessments have concluded there are still “elevated concentrations” of arsenic in the soil beneath the Roof Depot warehouse.
The East Phillips Neighborhood Institute contends that so long as the building’s concrete pad remains undisturbed — as their urban farm plans call for — the arsenic will remain sealed safely underneath. (Aside from that, Dovolis said, the urban farm plan would cost less if they could refurbish the warehouse instead of build a new structure; the city contends the building is “unsalvageable.”)
But Minneapolis officials contend the warehouse’s demolition can proceed safely.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Department of Agriculture have blessed the city’s plan, which calls for tear-down crews to wet all surfaces with water to prevent arsenic-laden dust from kicking up, and dispose of contaminated soil and debris off-site. Six air monitors on the site’s perimeter would sniff for toxic chemicals every second, and send an automated alert if contaminant levels spike. Regulators would also monitor the demolition.
“This is industry-standard for how these types of sites are cleaned up,” said Steve Jansen, a vice president at Braun Intertec, the environmental consulting firm the city hired to draw up the plan. He also noted that arsenic levels of the Roof Depot site are significantly lower than on the neighboring property, where the pesticide plant was located: “I view [arsenic] as a minor issue on this property.”
“Not only can the building be demolished with little to no risk to the community,” read a statement from city spokesperson Casper Hill, “but also the site will be cleaner post-demolition than it was before.”
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Kyle Stokes[/image_credit][image_caption]Protestors setting up tents during an occupation of the former Roof Depot warehouse property on Tuesday, Feb. 21.[/image_caption]
“It is inevitable that demolition will carry with it the unintended consequence of dispersing these contaminants around East Phillips,” Nater said.
But Wahl, the Hennepin County judge, concluded Nater’s testimony was “insufficient” to conclude that “contamination is certain or even likely, particularly given the city’s retention of soil remediation experts to clean up the site.”
This month, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Minneapolis officials’ environmental analysis of the project — produced in response to outcry from East Phillips neighbors — was neither slapdash nor biased, and that city officials do appear to be considering how to handle problems with contaminated soil during the project.
But Dovolis contended these legal losses came after “narrow” rulings in which judges focused on the legal and procedural merits of stopping the project, rather than attempting to weigh the true environmental risks: “It would’ve been a very different analysis.”
[cms_ad:x104]
The City Council’s role: Five years of head-spinning twists and turns
As the activists have pleaded their case over years, Minneapolis City Council members have gone back and forth about how to handle the Roof Depot property. Let’s lay out a few of the inflection points.
- 2016: City acquires the property
Back in 2015, Dovolis said the East Phillips Neighborhood Institute had lined up $5.7 million in funding commitments to buy the Roof Depot site and move forward with the urban farm plan — but then city officials swooped in with an offer of $6.8 million for the property.
At the time, council members Andrew Johnson and Alondra Cano said city staff had done more than out-bid the neighbors: They alleged staff had dangled the threat of taking the property through eminent domain if Roof Depot’s owners sold it to the neighborhood group.
“I have serious concerns,” Johnson said in February 2016, “about considering eminent domain as a tactic to essentially intimidate them into working with us.” (City spokesperson Hill said Johnson’s characterization wasn’t accurate.)
The sale still went through on a 9-4 vote. The four votes against the deal? Johnson, Cano, Cam Gordon… and then-council member Jacob Frey.
- 2021: Council throws the brakes
Despite neighbors’ misgivings, Minneapolis’ plans for the public works campus essentially churned ahead until April 2021 — six months after the neighborhood groups sued the city — when council members voted to suspend work on the project, recognizing the city’s stated policy of “declaring racism a public health emergency.”
Here, city officials offered what they framed as a compromise: set aside one-third of the Roof Depot property — roughly three acres — for community development, maybe even by the East Phillips Neighborhood Institute. In October 2021, the city council voted narrowly, 7-6, to resume the project based on this offer.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Kyle Stokes[/image_credit][image_caption]Activists from environmental and Indigenous rights groups attending the rally against the demolition of the Roof Depot property on Sunday, Feb. 19.[/image_caption]
Dovolis said group members were conceptually willing to share the property, but they wanted a say in how an expanded public works yard would operate. He said the city wasn’t willing to back off plans that would bring 360 new vehicles to the site, along with heavy machinery and a diesel refueling station.
Public works director Margaret Anderson Kelliher said that opponents’ fears about high vehicle pollution are overblown, saying most diesel vehicles will be like Bobcat-style skid steers that won’t generate emissions onsite: “The major vehicles that will be coming in and out of the site are both gasoline-powered or electric vehicles.”
- 2022: A pivotal mayoral veto
After citywide elections in 2022, the City Council’s newly-seated East Phillips representative, Chavez, led a new charge to pause, and potentially cancel, the public works project. His motion won the support of an 8-5 majority — which notably included Jenkins, the council’s more-moderate president.
But the mayor vetoed the council’s action, with Frey urging more discussion about alternatives.
That veto spurred a new offer, first approved by a unanimous City Council vote in June: If the East Phillips Neighborhood Institute dropped its lawsuit, Minneapolis would give the group exclusive development rights over the 3-acre set-aside on the property. The deal also promised “good faith efforts” to add electric vehicle and solar energy infrastructure to the site, along with other commitments on issues of traffic, pollution and community outreach.
“This has been a long road,” Frey said at the time, “but over the last few months we’ve had the opportunity to sit down with a group of people and try to find some areas of consensus, but even have a better and improved route forward.”
But after two negotiation sessions, Dovolis said city officials weren’t willing to back these “good faith efforts” with enforceable targets or firm promises. Residents still weren’t won over.
That’s why — to this day — the East Phillips Neighborhood Institute has not accepted the city’s deal.
“It became a lost opportunity for the neighborhood,” Dovolis said, “in addition to adding additional pollution in an area that’s already been impacted.”
What’s next for the urban farm? ‘Wins vs. wins’
Still at an impasse with the neighbors, on Jan. 23, a narrow majority of deal-fatigued Minneapolis City Council members voted 7-6 to proceed with demolition of the Roof Depot warehouse.
Councilmember Johnson, arguably, was the swing vote.
“I have fought for the community to have a choice,” Johnson said, noting his previous votes to bolster urban farm supporters, and his disappointment that there wasn’t enough support on the council to override the mayor’s 2022 veto. But Johnson also argued that the city’s deal was reasonable, and said he believed the demolition would neither pollute the neighborhood nor end all hope of an urban farm in East Phillips.
Which leads to an important point: Despite all the drama of recent weeks, Minneapolis’ offer to split the property remains on the table.
If the residents drop their lawsuit, the city would grant exclusive development rights for that three-acre site — in fact, the part of the property where the occupation took place — to the East Phillips Neighborhood Institute for two years. Even if the demolition proceeds, the urban farm idea is not necessarily dead.
Last week, DFL lawmakers in both the Minnesota House and Senate filed bills that, if enacted, would issue a $20 million grant to fund the urban farm plan. A House committee will take up the proposal this week.
Friday’s court injunction against demolition also offers a glimmer of hope to the residents as they pursue an appeal. But Wahl cautioned that a state appellate court has already ruled against them, and he urged the two sides to resume discussions about an out-of-court settlement.
“We are still hopeful that the members of [the East Phillips Neighborhood Institute] will reevaluate their position,” Anderson Kelliher said.
At this point, what does a win look like to the residents?
Well, it’s “wins versus wins,” Dovolis said — who says his neighborhood group makes decisions by consensus and majority vote.
“What would be the best? We develop the whole seven acres, work with the city, keep the building,” said Dovolis, who’s an architect and designer. (Keeping the building could shave $2 million off the project cost, he said.)
But at this stage, the activists would pay a high price to acquire the property. In addition to the cost of the land itself, city officials say state law would also require the East Phillips Neighborhood Institute to pay back all of the money spent on designing the public works facility: a total of $14 million, or more than twice the property’s value.
Short of taking control of the property, Dovolis said — in an interview before Friday’s court ruling — the group would be open to a deal with the city that allows residents to ensure public works’ half of the property would be “non-polluting.”
“I think the partial dream is achievable,” he said.
But in the broader sense, Dovolis still wondered why the city’s project needed to be placed here in the first place. He thinks the city could’ve pursued other options, like a facility in Fridley, or renovating the current water yard in northeast Minneapolis.
In East Phillips, residents had a vision for housing, commercial space and a new food source in a historically-marginalized neighborhood. Nearly three-quarters of the area’s residents are Latino, Black and American Indian or Alaska Native; one-quarter live below the poverty line. Why should they be forced to scale back their ambitions, again?
“We matter,” said Mike Forcia, an organizer with the American Indian Movement, during a recent rally against demolition. “And it almost seems like we never matter.”
I probably missed something, but isn’t an Urban Farm built on an unreclaimed Super Fund site a less than well thought out plan?
If not reclaiming and just ignoring Superfund sites is a reasonable response because it’s just safer to leave lay, we have wasted about 32 billion dollars cleaning them up…
These are people so blinded by their own certainty that they are also trying to close down Smith foundry. A place we actually make things in this country. Where some of the ever rarer decent paying jobs available to non college ed, ex offender, often poc, are available in that area. And, regardless whether Smith has all required environmental certification, these folks have been after them for years. (I’ve toured Smith and had some products speced there. Nothing too scary inside just a run of the mill iron foundry, iron, sand and binders.)
It’s not worth trying to square the circle with folks who breathe the pure utopium.
Also, I’m pretty sure the farm was supposed to be indoor in the building that stands now. One of those fish droppings to lettuces type vertical operations.
Honestly asking: does anyone have an idea of carbon footprint/power consumption/cost input per food volume output unit in a operation like this in a northern climate similar to ours? I know bushel boy and a bunch of green houses in Canada bring indoor grown product to market.
If it is realistically doable why don’t the activists kill two birds? Let the city pay to remediate the remaining arsenic. Then build their farm/community center on the roof of the city facility plus their three acres?
I was thinking the same thing about the contaminated soil. Now that I see the conceptual drawing and read that the plan is to leave the building and concrete in place for indoor farming.
Kyle: Thank you for providing info no other news reports covered!
Yes, a building where toxic processes were once conducted.
We can have a debate about the progress of remediating SuperFund and other toxic waste sites, but there should be no debate that it is essentially a good thing. If the city said to the activists: It’s all yours, do as you will, the first thing they would ask for is to remove the building, remediate the site and then build them the urban farm of their dreams…
Yes, you missed the fact that it would be an indoor farm inside the existing building. They would be growing food in contaminated soil.
Hmm…
Sounds like a safe (er) place for a Grow Op, maybe not food…
Ooop, I meant to say would NOT be growing food in contaminated soil. Damn iPad.
I don’t think growing food in contaminated soil is on the table. The Urban Farm plan would leave the concrete pad intact. My guess is that they either planned hydroponics or raised soil beds, neither of which would result in arsenic-grown crops. I don’t know how realistic that plan is (I have no idea what energy costs would be or whether the warehouse could provide natural light), but I don’t think cleanup is necessary. It’s like if you have asbestos in your home – it’s generally safe so long as you don’t try to remove it. But if you do want to clean it up, it’ll take extraordinary measures to make sure the cleanup is safe.
Yes, hydroponics was on the table at one point.
So I presume that if this were to be and urban garden, they would also remediate the soil? You can’t grow vegetables in ground that hasnt been cleaned up. Right?
There are only so many contractors to do this process, how would their goals for the land produce less?
There only so many sites big enough to handle this kind of water facility and it makes a good sense to clean it up at this time.
Activists don’t get told no very often, this might be a time.
The proposal is a hydroponic farm, as I understand it. And the soil everywhere but under the building has already been cleaned up.
As I was reading through this article, my mind kept coming back to “just take the deal” because a compromise is better than nothing. However, that line near the end honestly made me question my thoughts on this: Why should they be forced to scale back their ambitions, again?
To the activists: This is how this reads to folks like me: You all 500,000 folks water supply could be put in jeopardy, we don’t care, to city and city folks been working on this project since 2001, we don’t care, got no other place for the city to go, we don’t care. If there was another spot perhaps these folks would have proposed it, but, its clear, they don’t care! City has already bent over backwards and then some. Time to move on.
How would housing these trucks elsewhere put the water supply at risk?
“These folks” have proposed expanding at the existing water facility in NE.
See below link: Will answer your question.
I agree that point is not getting addressed. The city needs a place to put waterworks infrastructure. That seems like a better use of arsenic contaminated land than to use it to grow vegetables.
Epic article, Kyle! Nice job.
This site should have been cleaned up years ago. The top 3 polluted areas in Mpls. are the U of M area, Kingfield and Phillips per a report. Even former council member, Phillipe Cunningham noted when he was on the council and voted to have it as the water facility that it is complicated. The city has stated the high financial cost of not having the water facility in the Phillips location. I don’t believe the site is safe for any type of garden or housing and wonder if another assessment can be done for another opinion. If it were turned into housing, wouldn’t there also be a significant amount of cars on the site anyway?
PS: “But in the broader sense, Dovolis still wondered why the city’s project needed to be placed here in the first place. He thinks the city could’ve pursued other options, like a facility in Fridley, or renovating the current water yard in northeast Minneapolis”
That information is all available from the city in the background and scope of the project. Perhaps those folks should do a little reading and listening before going activist!
That information 2009-2013 (oldest report available, and probably everyone since) can be found here under WTR-18: https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/media/content-assets/www2-documents/departments/2009-2013-Capital-Budget-Requests.pdf
I don’t know how many times we need to point this out because it’s clearly stated in the article: This would be an INDOOR urban farm, inside the existing building. No one would be growing anything in the contaminated soil beneath the building… the floor remains intact.
As for all this concern about where the waterworks should be yada yada… Well… why don’t we build it in YOUR nieghborhood? Dennis… are volunteering to live next to this thing? Let’s remember the residents in this neighborhood have no where else to go either.
Golly gee, the answer is simple: we don’t have the space available, unless the city wants to tear down couple 10-20-30 dozen houses +/-. And to further the point, they were thinking of building down on Pacific, but, folks don’t want it there because its right next to the river and the city et.al. think that area would be more beneficial for other development, and oh yes it would be cramped quarters, and oh yes its not as centrally located, and oh yes, we have had the existing storage for other city vehicles etc. and northern metals etc. etc. etc. down there for years. And oh yes, read the city proposal, link listed above, did you read it or just go to comment? Evidently a bunch of commenters are way more knowledgeable about Minneapolis infrastructure etc. etc. etc. than the folks that work for the city doing this everyday!
Soooo lucky for you this civic sacrifice of living next this municipal project must be borne by someone else; because there’s no room for it next to your house eh? And you’re not offering to trade places with anyone who will have live across the street from this thing?
Look, whatever, this neighborhood has a much right as Kenwood millionaires to object to projects they have to live with. We’ll see how it works out.
Well nice try at the guilt complex Paul, but we have lived dead center in one of the lowest income, highest crime, minority communities in Minneapolis for near on 40 years, relative to your digs in SLP. Please don’t try to insinuate about our lack of understanding or implied white privilege like we just made these decisions yesterday! Suspect you still did not read the city report, they have been looking at this property for about 20 years, go find a replacement if not this one. Your commentary sounds like a right-wing radical, its my fault because I didn’t chose to live in Phillips 40 years ago, and I am against these folks! The plan was voted on by community appointed members, numerous times, (including representatives from Phillips) but evidently yours is the only opinion that counts the rest of us are brain dead, biased , prejudiced or something of the sort.
I’m not trying to shame anyone Dennis. The point is, regardless of wherever you’ve lived for 40 years… it’s NOT in this neighborhood. You don’t get points for living somewhere else even if it’s not my suburban paradise of SLP.
None of this means you HAVE to live in this neighborhood to have an opinion, or legitimate interest in the outcome; but this impulse towards harsh dismissal of the neighborhood perspective is tilted. My point is it’s awfully easy to ignore or dismiss health and environmental threats if YOU don’t/won’t have to face them yourself… which YOU don’t. The fact that you live some OTHER low income neighborhood doesn’t give you more credibility. The people who live in the affected neighborhood are not invisible or irrelevant.
And when does an all volunteer Civic appointed committee for the city get their say? Or are they 100% answerable only to the loudest yelling activists, no matter what the subject? You know, mob rule like Jan 6!
I personally have no problem living close to there and it will be even better once they clear the remaining contaminated soil from the site. That stuff is not staying locked under that building. Think of the out flow that must happen every time we have heavy rain.
And, to me It makes way more environmental sense for truck traffic to be routed through a central city site with direct highway access vs having to go the full north to south across the city from Fridley.
I think this will have a sizable reduction in truck mile carbon emissions over the years while diesel is still necessary. Not to mention less need for truck travel through any residential area to reach this facility. Can’t think of a better plan and location for this if I’m being honest.
See anything wrong with this picture:
Layer 1: Concrete slab
Layer 2: Arsenic laced soil
Layer 3: Aquifer containing our drinking water
What could go wrong?
It’s a nice article although venues like Minnpost should’ve been covering this in more detail long ago. I know I sent them an e-mail a couple years ago suggesting a story about this.
Here’s a couple things that could be clearer. First, let’s look a little more closely at the financials here- the city purchased this land for $7 million using strong arm tactics to edge out the neighborhood in the first place. Now one of their generous “offers” is to sell it to the community for $7 million PLUS another $14 million to cover the cost of “design” expenses. ($14 million for designs?) So the city wants $21 million from a neighborhood group that could barely raise $6 million. That’s no “deal” for the community. Furthermore, let’s remember that this is a city that routinely doles out tens of millions for other developments so why do these developers have to pay for the cities own costs? For instance the City spent something like $35 million dollars for “site preparation” and just gave it to Target when they built their downtown store and offices; AND they waved the minimum wage requirement. Why does everyone else get a subsidy but this neighborhood group has to cover all the costs? I think they sold the metro-dome site to Wilf for a dollar? But they want $21 million from this neighborhood group?
Second, let’s be clear… these “deals” to “share” the site haven’t simply rejected because the neighborhood wants it all. The biggest reason for rejecting the deals have been a lack of enforceable contractual obligations. The city merely “promises” a bunch of stuff but they cannot be compelled to adhere to any of those promises. Nobody makes multi million dollar deals on the basis of a promise and a handshake, especially when they have centuries of broken promises under their belts. Sure, the city make all kinds promises now about the land use and traffic and blah blah but Kelliher well knows that without enforceable agreements the City can decide to do whatever they want on this site in the future. Let’s not pretend this neighborhood is being “weird” when they expect more than just promises.
Third, the risk of airborne contamination is NOT zero, and monitoring the air be it with a dozen or two dozen air monitors will only tell toxins are in the air AFTER the fact, the don’t prevent that release. And as we’ve seen over at the SWLR tunnel, core samples and drillings and what not don’t always reveal everything you need know in advance.
Finally, getting back to the “deal”, it’s important to remember that all deals and negotiations require a certain level of trust, even when enforceable contracts are on the table. Given the cities past tactics, demands, and herky jerky handling of this property over the years it’s no wonder that the neighborhood doesn’t trust them. Even if the neighbors can get a majority support on the council, the mayor can just veto it. And if the courts won’t recognize anyone else’s legitimate interests you got nothin. Who are you even making this deal with? The mayor, the city council, Kelliher? THIS mayor? THIS city council? THIS public works director? Whatever.
Paul – thank you for these points. I’ll be honest that I don’t have time to verify them, but they absolutely seem relevant. So I would LOVE to get some fact checking. The one thing I’m pretty certain of is that there will, indeed, be increased exposure to the neighboring people during clean up. Leaching of the arsenic at this time would be limited (if negligent) because the concrete pad along with the building does prevent any soaking of the ground underneath. Once in the ground, water really only goes downward with limited capillary expansion horizontally, until it hits the water table or other underground water feature. If the water table is high enough for horizontal flow/transmission and leaching of arsenic into the water table to happen, this mess should have been cleaned up long ago. Though, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that it has been leaching to this point, but none of the rich people needed that water until now, so no one cared if it poisoned the neighborhood… But the moment you take that concrete pad off, not only does water get access for runoff, but the dust can go anywhere. Wetting it down every so often can reduce the dust issue, but not completely mitigate it (anybody who has been to a dusty site where water was used to reduce dust knows that – your nose blows black), and actually probably increases the risk of runoff.
Thank you Rachel. The only fact I’m a little iffy on is the metro-dome sale… I know someone sold it to someone for a dollar but it may not have been the city MPLS. But my point regarding the different standards for different developers and developments stands. Billionaire’s get a deal, but neighborhoods bet a bill.
As to the contamination, all I know is that they can’t REALLY know what they’re going find under all that concrete until they start digging it up. No one will know whether or not their assurances and promises are valid until that happens, and at any rate, the ones making all the promises won’t have to live with anything that goes wrong, they all go home to a different neighborhood at the tend of the day.
I’m curious are you a hydraulic (or whatever type of engineer works with water flow) engineer? Not trying to be snarky, just curious and totally willing to be educated.
My hypothesis is if you place a dry sponge with a small area covevered in a dish with enough water the sponge will eventually become evenly saturated. Then the covered area would be the last to dry. To dry, that area would both leach into the cover if permeable, and leach back out to the uncovered areas as those dry. Thereby sucking the moisture from the still saturated covered part. (Think of the cover as the building in this instance). It would seem this would draw contamination with it into the uncovered surrounding areas.
Many here seem to be arguing that any temporary elevated risk from remediation is a red line. I would posit that leaving the toxic soil for the future vs. completion of the remediation (which has been ongoing since 2009 according to the article) is a better civic solution for future generations. What happens to the neighborhood in the event of any sort of unforseen natural distaer (tornado that levels and rips apart the building, flooding that erodes the bad soil into surrounding areas etc ) on that site if this is left in place?
Again we’ve already completed the majority of the remediation without widespread calamity. My above thoughts are admittedly all hypotheticals based on observation not science. But, all the major state and federal environmental regulators signed off on the science behind the planned remediation. Doesn’t this continued gut level second guessing blur the line between subjectivity and objectivity? And, thereby call into question the validity of the “we believe in science” ethos that many of us purport to live by?
I’m not a hydrologist, no.
WHAT I DO KNOW: The 2020 study commissioned by the City of Minneapolis that identified elevated levels of arsenic at the Roof Depot site found that high levels were apparent near the surface (within the top 2 feet, but actually undetectable in native soil several feet down) and in the ground water. The study also indicated that the ground water was not used for public consumption, and wasn’t even accessible to the public. How high do you ask? Well, the surface “elevated levels” were as high as 8.1 mg/kg, which is the equivalent of 8.1 ppm. That’s high, right? Report in the article, but also here: https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/RCAV2/17587/2-FULL-EAW-FINAL-01.27.21-(Att-B,-Draft-IRAP).pdf
You might say that no amount of arsenic is safe, so yeah, that’s bad…. But, the previous cleanup in *back yards, at schools, at day care centers* only targeted soils that had 25 ppm or greater, or ***4X higher*** than any levels found immediately below the current Roof Depot slab. Report linked in the article, but also here: https://semspub.epa.gov/work/05/937417.pdf. Also of note, since the previous cleanup, the levels of arsenic in the ground water have reduced, suggesting that the surrounding soil that has been cleaned up (which had levels as high as 5600 ppm!!!) was the source of ground water contamination (source: the 2020 study linked above). Which makes sense, since the surrounding back yards, schools, and day cares had a MUCH higher arsenic burden than the soil immediately below the concrete floor of the building. And, in fact, there are likely back yards, and schools, and day cares surrounding the site that still have levels much higher than under the concrete pad, since if the soil levels were below 25 ppm in back yards, or schools, or day cares, it was deemed not worth cleaning up. And nothing below any standing buildings was cleaned up at all, even if the arsenic levels were thousands of times higher than the current contamination.
So, tell me why the City of Minneapolis is so concerned with 8.1 ppm arsenic below a cement pad, when it’s not concerned with levels up to 25 ppm in back yards? Or the fact that the previous cleanup in back yards only targeted mitigation to levels between 16 ppm to 25 ppm, which is at least 2X higher than the most contaminated site below the concrete pad currently?
Interesting thank you for taking the time and looking at all that.
As I understand this it’s not the city that is using the arsenic as it’s reason for the building teardown. It’s that their preferred use for the site is a maintenance facility. The current build isn’t adequate for that purpose.
Epni is trying to use the possible spread of arsenic from the tear down as way to stop the city from doing what epni doesn’t want. They using this tact to question the environmental review that the required authorities have already signed off on.
I didn’t say that the City was using that as a reason to tear it down. They’re using it as a reason to charge the neighborhood through the nose to use even a portion of the land for the urban farm, and as a reason that the neighborhood couldn’t have used the whole site. And frankly, as already said, if the pad stays down, the area needs no cleanup at all, while tearing it down and removing the pad absolutely does pose a risk of making arsenic airborne, which is not a risk right now. I find it to be ecological black mail, especially since it also appears that the City was happy to prevent the community from buying it previously using questionable means.
You, by the way, are the one who made the arsenic under the site an issue. My response was to your justifications for the City’s approach. Ultimately, if the community uses the space, the arsenic issue is moot. It’s only an issue because the City’s planned use will make it an issue, and the City is also going to pretend to offer good will by requiring the community to pay for something they wouldn’t have needed if the City hadn’t used its “authority” to play dirty in the first place.
Now you have me confused. In the article the city says it is giving exclusive development rights to the group for 3 acres of the property. Am I missing something? I read that to be giving not charging. Are you saying that the neighborhood will be charged for the cleanup via assessments or something? I don’t see that in the article. Where is the city having the neighborhood pay through the nose?
Next, my argument is that it is best practice to remove toxic material when we have the chance. It is healthier for the area long term. And, all requisite authorities have vetted the science behind the remediation.
I think far from being moot, any development on top of this risks future sepage, flood, fire, tornado, drought and a windstorm, or who knows what at the building site potentially sending this material into surrounding areas.
It’s a perfect opportunity to fully clean a contaminated and currently vacant site before it’s put to good future use.
I just happen to think the modern facility for municipal water system maintenance is a more important public good than another green institute type endeavor.
Thanks for this, Paul. Your final paragraph admirably sums up why these activists are unwilling to trust in the plan. They’ve been repeatedly screwed over, and if I were in their position, I’d expect the same again. Trust is earned. So is distrust.
Even after the article it seems like this issue is really complicated and difficult to follow. Looking at the plans for the site from EPNI it isn’t really a farm at all, it’s a dozen different things that have little in common (“indoor urban farm, a job training site, affordable housing, a bike repair shop, a cultural market, a rooftop solar array and much more”) which makes their vision confusing and difficult to follow. The signs in their protest above are even more confusing because they have nothing to do with the proposal.
I can’t figure out why this is the only viable option for EPNI, why they’re so against the city cleaning up the pollution onsite (who opposes pollution cleanup?) or what their concerns are for the city’s proposed use of the site other than it wasn’t their idea for the use of the site.
Yeah, EPNI has multiple and diverse options and plans for this property, what’s so difficult to comprehend about that? Why is this the preferred location? Do YOU have a better location in mind? What’s the cities concern other than this isn’t THEIR proposed use of the property? And no, they’re not opposed to cleaning the site up, they’re opposed to the possibility of contamination caused by the cleanup.
Many of those uses seem like they could be put in a shopping mall or an office building. I’m pretty sure there is space for rent nearby. The city’s use for the land can’t be put in an office building.
“they’re opposed to the possibility of contamination caused by the cleanup”
“What if?” isn’t really a compelling argument.
Well Dan, you build your community garden and they’ll build theirs. “What if” is plenty compelling and dismissing it has lead to some rather spectacular disasters.
Does the neighborhood have specific complaints about the 2011 cleanup that haven’t been addressed by the city or are they just speculating that something might be done worse this time than it was a decade ago?
The pollution mitigation is a red herring. The real decision is on the best use for the land. Once that is determined the pollution mitigation plan is a result of the decision. I wonder if EPNI was a corporate developer instead of a neighborhood nonprofit would there be a different emotional appeal for their plan.
Dan, this isn’t a debate game. You can keep imagining different scenarios if you want but no one is obligated to respond to them. If you have questions read the article. In the meantime I would just note the fact that you classify documented toxic pollution (no one is denying the site is contaminated) as a “red herring” is simply facile. Previous clean-ups are the red herring here… this is a completely different scenario with a completely different mitigation plan. YOU are in no position to guarantee any outcomes here.
You’re right, this IS about what’s the best use for this land, and who get’s to decide. Your impulse to simply dismiss the neighborhood perspective may not be the “rational” gold standard you imagine it to be. The most “emotional” comments I’m seeing here are being filed on behalf of the city, not EPNI.
I don’t know if they have complaints about the previous cleanup. But maybe they should? The City wants to clean up the site under the Roof Depot, which has levels of arsenic up to 8.1 ppm. But soils in the surrounding neighborhood weren’t cleaned up at all if arsenic levels were below 25 ppm (4X the max under the Depot), and only remediated down to a level of 16 ppm (2X the max currently). And those levels were relevant only to 18 inches down. If you look deeper, soils in residential areas can contain up to 95 ppm arsenic (10X the max under the Depot now!). The 2011 cleanup did not remediate ANY soils that were under a building or pavement at all. So, why is the City using contamination as a way to extort those who would like to put the site to a more community friendly use? The levels found under the Depot right now would not have been eligible for cleanup in yards, even if it weren’t covered by a concrete pad, which would have made it ineligible for clean up at any level.
So anyways, I hope Minnpost does a follow up with the neighborhood community here because this isn’t just story about property rights and pollution, there’s a lot more going on here.
I’m not the one to discuss this but I would encourage someone at Minnpost to sit down with Rachel Thunder or some elders and discuss the how colonization, de-colonization, historical trauma, and even reparations may relate to this dispute. It’s not just about real estate and court orders.
This notion that you see throughout the comments here that native perspectives and concerns, if not the natives themselves, are to be dismissed or ignored out of hand isn’t a “new” reaction to indigenous people. Colonization creates systems of legality and rationality that exclude native peoples and render them invisible. Then the pretense of legality and rationality is used to marginalize those who have excluded.
The city wants to build on land that they already own, and somehow we bring up historical trauma and reparations? Nice leap I say.
Thank you Robert, I couldn’t have asked for a better illustration of my point. As long as we confine reality to colonial mindsets (i.e. this can only be about property rights as defined by narrowly construed legal parameters) no one and nothing else can be recognized as legitimate. This is how we disappear native people from the landscape.
Just to be clear: you are saying that if a native person has a disagreement with a civic project we should proceed in the dispute by being irrational and illegal? Or, is there some other form of culturally specific dispute resolution I’m not familiar with?
And what exactly is your point? Should we give up every single land title? Who do we give it to? Please be specific. Incoherent rumbling don’t mean anything.
I’m going to put this comment separately because I’d like to see someone dig into this.
Upon reading the reports on the earlier cleanup and the most recent contaminant study of the site, I discovered that the highest arsenic levels currently under the concrete pad appear to be 2-3X LOWER than the final concentrations considered sufficient for cleanup in the back yards, the schools, and the day cares of the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, if you dig down more than 18 inches in some yards, so long as the arsenic levels didn’t exceed 95 ppm (10X HIGHER than under the current site), the soil was not further remediated (stick to planting short carrots, people). No areas UNDER homes, businesses, or other paved surfaces were deemed worth remediating at all. So, why is a MUCH LOWER level of arsenic considered problematic under a concrete pad that isn’t housing families or day cares or businesses? Why is there concern over ground water NOW, when arsenic levels in that ground water have actually decreased since (“good enough?”) clean up of the surrounding neighborhood, which suggests that the current soil contamination under the Depot isn’t the source of water contamination?