On 7/16/04 8:01 AM, Leurquin, Ronald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ron wrote:
This will be atleast the third time that I have made this suggestion:
Why not add some fee (like a $1.00 a gallon) to every drop of paint sold in
Minnesota as a dedicated funding source for lead paint abatement- when
Ron wrote:
This will be atleast the third time that I have made this suggestion:
Why not add some fee (like a $1.00 a gallon) to every drop of paint sold in
Minnesota as a dedicated funding source for lead paint abatement- when all
of the lead paint has been eliminated, eliminate the
On 7/14/04 10:22 AM, Ron Lischeid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference here is that the noise insulation program is not funded by
tax money- it is paid for by Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) which is a
surcharge attached to tickets of passengers using MSP- those that use the
airport and
There was a very disappointing turn of events yesterday when a committee
of the Metropolitan Airports Commission voted to not go forward with the
promise to insulate homes most effected by airport noise.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/9146813.htm?1c
If this stands when the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rybak, R.T.
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 8:33 AM
To: Mpls Issues
Subject: [Mpls] MACs broken promises
There was a very disappointing turn of events yesterday when a committee
of the Metropolitan Airports Commission
Greg Luce writes:
I appreciate great interest in the MAC noise insulation program and the
significant efforts the Rybak administration takes to extend noise
insulation to other homes, at no cost to the property owner. But, I
cannot help but point out how incredibly unjust this effort is, given
David Brauer writes:
Bottom line: the MAC has to spend the money somewhere. Better on the
people affected by noise than on a facility that's already overbuilt
(and it is overbuilt, in gates, parking, etc.)
I am bothered by the idea has to spend the money somewhere. It's as if
some believe the
On Jul 14, 2004, at 1:04 PM, gemgram wrote:
David Brauer writes:
Bottom line: the MAC has to spend the money somewhere. Better on the
people affected by noise than on a facility that's already overbuilt
(and it is overbuilt, in gates, parking, etc.)
I am bothered by the idea has to spend the money
David Brauer:
Sorry, guys. The money (as others have noted) is dedicated to airport
operations - it can't be used for the better purposes you cite.
Since the MAC isn't talking about cutting the dedicated fee, that means
you can have a nicer concourse for the Airport Mall or some mitigation
R.T. Rybak
wrote
There was a very disappointing turn of events yesterday when a committee
of the Metropolitan Airports Commission voted to not go forward with the
promise to insulate homes most effected by airport noise.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/9146813.htm?1c
If this
10 matches
Mail list logo
