76th Street

One of the things I have noticed going to Corridor Housing Initiative meetings on 76th Street is how developer driven the solutions were to our senior housing issues. Yes there was “community input” but I can’t shake the feeling that the community was only given lip service rather than real power. After all I had suggested developing artist work/live housing, something other than senior housing which was the favorite with the developers on the presenting on the panel.

While living in Richfield, all I ever heard was the need to “build” more senior housing and to get seniors out of their homes. Why has there been no solution to help seniors stay in their homes so they can age in place? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that Americans have a constitutional right to be cared for in the least restrictive environment — which means at home.

Maybe the city has programs that I am missing but I one program that is very effective and not in place in Richfield is the Block Nurse Program is a community service program that uses volunteer to help older adults remain in their homes as long as possible. Using a combination of neighborhood volunteers and health professionals, the program provides information, support services and health care to neighborhood residents over the age of 65.

The aging at home option is not (surprise surprise) a solution pushed by the developers. I am not saying that senior housing is not needed or necessary but given the savings to taxpayers and the quality of live issues, I am surprised this is not an option supported by more by the city.

On January 14,2008 the Housing and Redevelopment Authority  and the City Council had a special meeting to discuss senior housing needs in Richfield and Mary Bujold from Real Estate Research and Consultant firm Maxfield Research Inc. was there (the meeting minutes do not report in what capacity she was there – as a neighborhood volunteer, or hired consultant)  to report on the senior housing need in the Twin Cities and to answer questions from the HRA and council. 

She was asked the direct question/s “Does Richfield have too much senior housing but not enough affordable senior housing?”

From the minutes: “Ms. Bujold stated that due to some restrictions in the 1990’s, there is now a need for affordable senior housing.” It is interesting to note that the meeting minutes do not reflect that she had answered the first part of the question “Does Richfield have too much senior housing?” but rather made it an affordable housing issue.

She was also asked “what percentage of residents from the community move into senior housing?”

The question is somewhat confusing as what is really being asked and said. Is the question “Of 100% of seniors what percentage actually move into senior housing before they die (as opposed to die from there homes) or is the question really “what percentage of Richfield senior housing actually have residents that moved there from out side of Richfield?”

Here anwswer appears to answer the latter question in the meeting minutes, “Ms. Bujold stated that generally 85% of seniors from the community are in senior housing. Although, she explained that percentage usually includes residents from adjoining communities.”

So 85% of ALL seniors in Richfield live in senior housing, of that it is still unknown how many were originally Richfield homeowners and how many are immigrants from Bloomington, Minneapolis, Edina, etc…

So the meeting was a waste as it never answered the original question: Does Richfield have too much senior housing?

Night after night, the one problem on 76th Street, that is very clear is the amount of light pollution and light trespassing (which occurs when unwanted light enters one’s property) from the businesses and heavily light roadways along the 494 corridor.
I can remember a time in the early 1970s when there wasn’t a greyish glow coming from 494. But that was when before the Honda car dealership and when the Colonial Motel occupied the spot of where the four story Hampton Inn is now. The brightest things at the Colonial Motel were the entryway lights on each of the cottages. I think they may of had a flood light pointing at a sign but I don’t recall it ever working. If you go across Lyndale Avenue, the light pollution created by lighting at “The Shops at Lyndale” big box retail center is surpassed only by the light pollution created by the city. While I am very happy to see the development and a revitalised business corridor there, the bright glare coming from the over-lit buildings and the parking lots has little to do with security and is more about competitive brightness and marketing.  So what is the limit on brightness? If none, will lights just keep getting brighter and brighter in retailers crazy attempts to lure consumers? A quick google search with the words “light pollution big box retail” helped me realize my neighborhood was not the only one dealing with this problem. The issues facing Richfield about light pollution and light trespassing are not unique to us but are part of a much larger nationwide issue. While many communities oppose the idea of big box retail out of principle, others simply take issue with the effects that big box usually bring including light pollution, but also the problems of traffic, water quality/run off, safety issues etc… Richfield, I suppect is of the latter. From what I have read on the web, communities like Richfield, that have been retrofited for big box retail seem to have the biggest issues. That is probably because in a new development you have more of an opportunity to develop away from residential, in a community retrofitted with big box retail, as in the case of “Shops on Lyndale” that may be impossible.However, what really worries me is not so much the current situation but rather the increasing brightness and glare that will come with future development.
The other light polluting culprits nearby appear to be hotels and car dealerships. The hotels nearby 76th Street are not much of a problem -understandably as they have an insentive to keep their lighting low key. However there appears to be little insentive for car dealers to change. For car dealerships crime and vandalism are big part of the reason for turning night into day in their lots. Other options, such as storing cars inside would be too costly for most. However, for big box retail it appears to be more of a mindset. As mentioned in the Globe and Mail:

No one seems to like high lighting levels more than big-box retailers. Many now use three times the intensity of shopping-mall lighting in the 1970s.”There is a lot of desire to boost up the light levels,” said TonyRutenberg, sales manager at Rutenberg Sales Ltd. of Mississauga, a majorCanadian lighting dealer. “It looks very inviting.” The big-box retailer thinks, ” ‘I’m going to have more people come in,’ ” he said.~Blinded by the light, Globe and Mail http://www.globeandmail.com  

Much of these problems could be dealt with. Fortunately, light trespass is easily controlled by using full cut-off fixtures and reasonable illumination levels. Full cut-off fixtures keep the light down on the ground, where it is needed, instead of being cast to the side or in the sky, where it is wasted.Lights recessed into gas station canopies instead of mounted on the surface (which is typical throughout Richfield) is a good example of how to control light from flooding off to the sides.Excessive, poorly designed outdoor lighting wastes electricity, imperils human health and safety, disturbs natural habitats, and, increasingly, deprives many of us the nighttime sky.Lighting is effective in preventing crime mainly if it enables people to notice criminal activity as it’s taking place, and if it doesn’t help criminals to see what they’re doing. Bright, unshielded floodlights—one of the most common types of outdoor security lighting in the country—often fail on both counts. The bright glare caste by them, in addition to being a driving hazard, can actually inhibit seeing criminal activity with glares and by a creating deep shadows criminals can hide in. I am not saying good lighting has no impact on safety, but like any tool it must be used wisely.