Mythbusting

When the Tentative Developer was announced in January 2023, the City committed to treating existing businesses as partners in creating a development that would benefit all parties. Two years later, our pleas for regular meetings and updates have been ignored, and none of our concerns have been addressed. We had minimal involvement in the community-requested parking study and were not consulted on changes, some that worsened the situation by reducing residential parking.

Saint Paul Brewing fully supports affordable housing and recognizes its importance in our community; in fact, we fully support the 89 units of affordable housing slated for the Hamm’s building. What we don’t support is a development plan that puts the future of long-standing local businesses at risk by eliminating critical infrastructure (like parking) without a workable alternative. We’re not fighting affordable housing; we’re fighting to be included in the conversation so that housing and small businesses can coexist and thrive together. It shouldn't be an either-or choice.

SPB believes the City must honor its long-standing promise that the parking lot would remain a shared amenity for existing businesses. Without access to this essential resource, those businesses will not be able to survive the impact of the proposed development. Per city records, the HRA “has maintained an existing shared public parking facility to support existing businesses and future development."

We are offended by the assumption that city government employees know more about running a business than we do. We've repeatedly expressed concerns that removing the shared parking lot without a plan to manage the increased traffic from the proposed development will negatively impact everyone. We offered to pay for half of a market feasibility study to facilitate fact-based discussions, but the City has ignored our offer.

In reality, neither the TD nor the City consulted us about reconfiguring the new apartment building. The original plan included over 300 structured parking spaces, but once bedrock was discovered 20 ft down, removal costs became prohibitive. The building was then redesigned, partly to retain some parking for the proposed marketplace. The narrative that this redesign benefits existing businesses feels more like a convenient justification than a decision made with our needs in mind.

Our position is simple: the new construction phase of this project doesn’t have to happen on the one piece of land that serves as vital infrastructure for existing businesses. There are many other locations, both nearby and throughout Saint Paul, better suited for new housing without displacing the shared parking that nearly 100 jobs and several small businesses depend on. We support development, but it should happen in a way that adds to the community, not undermines what’s already working.

The City and tentative developer have not acknowledged that every single property owner within the Hamm’s Complex objected to the historic designation. We’ve made it clear that we support the designation in principle and have offered to lift our objections, on the condition that the existing buildings are developed first. Unfortunately, the lack of cooperation from the City has left us with no choice but to use our objection as leverage to advocate for a more balanced and thoughtful approach.

The claim that the City never promised the surface parking lot would serve as a shared amenity for existing businesses is simply false—and contradicted by years of official records, public testimony, and direct conversations.

Rob Clapp has been involved with the Hamm’s Complex since 2013. Over that time, I’ve spoken directly with multiple City project managers, including Gontarek, Howden, Hestness, and Hayneson, ALL of whom clearly stated that the surface lot was always intended to be a shared public parking amenity for both current and future businesses within the complex. This wasn’t just casual commentary, it was consistently presented as part of the development strategy used to attract private investment and encourage business growth. This intent is further documented in HRA Resolution 13-1667, which states: “To coordinate the installation of utilities and provide access for ingress, egress, and parking for all the buildings, the streets and parking lot will remain under the ownership of the HRA.” In other words, the City itself committed to holding and maintaining the lot specifically to support the site’s activation and reuse.

From 2014 to 2024, the City has invested over $1 million in this lot through resurfacing, stormwater upgrades, retaining walls, lighting, fire access lanes, and more, clearly signaling its role as permanent, shared infrastructure. City staff, in multiple HRA presentations and board reports, reiterated this purpose. As recently as 2021, HRA 21-860 noted that the HRA had “maintained an existing shared public parking facility to support existing businesses and future development.” These improvements weren't made for an undefined future. They were made to support real, active businesses like Saint Paul Brewing, 11 Wells, and others who were invited to invest based on this infrastructure.

Yet today, the City and developer claim, without any supporting evidence, that we’ll be “better off” without the parking lot. We have offered to pay for half the cost of a professional market viability or feasibility study to test that assumption. The City has ignored the offer. If they truly believe this plan will benefit existing businesses, why not prove it?

This isn’t about resisting change; it’s about honoring commitments. The shared parking lot is not a temporary convenience. It is critical infrastructure that supports nearly 100 jobs, over $3 million in payroll, and the continued revitalization of this historic campus. Stripping it away without a clear, viable alternative would not only betray the businesses that trusted the City, it would jeopardize everything we’ve worked to build.

The large parcel is owned by Everest, LLC, which has repeatedly told SPB and the City that overflow parking is not for sale or lease, confirming what SPB has stated for over a year. Still, the City suggests SPB could negotiate with Everest. If it’s that simple, perhaps the City or the Tentative Developer (TD) should secure the agreement themselves.

The 15,000 sq ft Powerhouse Building was purchased for future development, possibly as a performing arts venue or rooftop mini-golf. With its 20 parking spaces, it doesn’t address the hundreds needed for the existing and proposed projects. This building is not a parking solution.

It was never an option, but SPB would gladly pay $300,000 which is the same amount that the City proposes to sell it to the Tentative Developer.

SPB relies heavily on the warmer months, when our 250+ seat patio draws guests from across the region. During this peak season, the 148 shared parking spaces are typically full. Cutting that supply by over 50%, while adding 700+ residents with only 147 dedicated stalls—and a 30,000 sq ft marketplace with 30–50 vendors—would overwhelm parking and severely impact our revenue, threatening the viability of the business. This does not even include the expansion plans of SPB that have been in the works for years or 11 Wells’s needs.

We understand the desire to repurpose the surface parking lot, but it was promised as a shared parking amenity and its current role is essential. It is not a vacant lot, in fact it currently supports nearly 100 jobs and over $3 million in annual payroll and benefits by sustaining existing businesses. It’s also critical to future growth, enabling the creation of 50+ additional jobs and supporting the TD’s proposed marketplace, its 30–50 vendors, and their customers and staff. The lot could even serve future sustainability goals, such a neighborhood powerplant with geothermal infrastructure below and a solar array above. For now, it remains vital infrastructure—and the lifeblood of the businesses it supports.

According to Google, the centerpoint of Saint Paul is at 740 Central Ave West. From there, it takes 43 to 55 minutes by public transit—one way—to reach Saint Paul Brewing. That’s nearly two hours round-trip, which few people are willing to spend for a casual visit. While some argue that the site is transit-friendly and doesn’t need parking, the reality tells a different story.

The nearest high-frequency bus routes are over a half-mile away, and the area lacks direct, convenient connections to major residential or commercial hubs. In the evenings, when most customers visit, transit service drops off dramatically, and walking to the nearest stop can feel unsafe or impractical. For many, especially families, older adults, or out-of-town guests, driving remains the only viable option. Until meaningful, high-frequency, and safe transit access exists, parking is not just convenient, it’s essential to the survival of the businesses here.

Saint Paul Brewing became a brewpub in 2021, which means we’re a full-service restaurant that also brews beer, just like dozens of other places with parking. The license designation means we do not distribute our products, but can offer a wide offering of beverages, including those from other vendors.  50% of our sales are from food and we also craft our own cocktails, mocktails, root beer, THC beverages and serve wine and zero proof beverages as well. Wanting a place for our guests to park doesn't mean we’re encouraging anyone to drive irresponsibly. It means we’re trying to keep our business alive. Saying we are promoting drunk driving is like saying that Groveland Tap or Gabe’s must be promoting drunk driving because they have a parking lot, too.  Let’s keep the conversation grounded in reality.

Rob Clapp and Saint Paul Brewing are not opposing this project out of personal frustration or because we weren’t selected as the developer. Our concerns are rooted in the long-term viability of our business and the dozens of jobs it supports. We’ve consistently advocated for a version of this development that preserves vital infrastructure, like the shared parking lot, and allows both affordable housing, new commercial space and existing businesses to succeed side by side. This isn’t about who develops the project, it’s about how it’s developed.

Again, the City still owns the entire site and has full authority to determine its use. The tentative developer has expressed support for granting the easement, and officials in DSI have offered solutions to address PED’s concerns. Why the PED leadership refuses to engage with us on allowing an easement for a required emergency exterior staircase is both baffling and deeply frustrating.

The City and developer continue to claim that Saint Paul Brewing and the other existing businesses will be “just fine” or even “better off” under this plan, but they’ve offered no data or analysis to back up that assumption. To find out what’s actually true, Rob has offered to pay half the cost of a professional market viability or feasibility study, yet the City has ignored that offer. If they’re so confident in their assumptions, why not back them up with real data? We’re willing to put money on the line to find the truth. Why aren’t they?

For two years, we’ve asked the City for meaningful compromise. The only action they point to is having the developer redesign the apartment building “for our benefit”, yet had they consulted us, we would have explained that the changes worsened the parking issue. We've presented five potential solutions: (1) Reset the project, (2) Phase the development starting with the historic buildings, (3) Purchase the Clapp buildings—each rejected without discussion. The remaining two—(4) Mediation and (5) a Market Feasibility Study—have been ignored entirely.

The City-commissioned parking study was neither collaborative nor conducted in good faith—Saint Paul Brewing was only allowed to meet with Walker Parking seven months into their process, after Version 8 of the study was already released. Furthermore, the TD’s final site plans were submitted months before the final parking study was released to the public.

The City's parking study confirms that at least 200 parking stalls are needed; an independent analysis commissioned by SPB found that the actual demand may be as high as 600 stalls. The City's study is riddled with errors and unrealistic assumptions—it measured demand on weekdays at 6 pm, not on peak days or times. It also allocated only 41 stalls for a 30,000 sq ft marketplace and included private lots in its tabulation without owners permission.

The City's claim that the Hamm's Complex redevelopment has been transparent and data-driven is false. SPB is not fighting development, but rather fighting for a version of development that honors the commitments made, supports small businesses, and reflects the real needs of the community.