Was Timothy Connolly's piece on "Light Rail, etc continued." a tongue-in-cheek piece? I hope so. If not . . . Connolly writes: "Another voice of opposition to "Avenue of the Arts" in the ways and means committee was Councilmember Barbara Johnson of the 4th ward who seemed less concerned with the cost than with the priority, seeming to prefer we build a bikeway from the northern part of town into downtown. I shudder to think what that might entail!" We can all shudder to think what the "Avenue of the Arts" will cost us, and wonder why it has such high priority for a city in financial trouble. What businesses will be relocated to build it? If we can afford the "Avenue" why not a bike route for northsiders? Connolly writes: "I find it difficult to justify the expense related to bikeways given the nasty Minnesota climate." Who is going to take a stroll down the "Avenue of the Arts" in our nasty winters to reach a cement stairway at the river's edge? Connolly writes" "And if we are going to set priorities in the city we need to focus first on necessities and then next on wants and what their relative merits are vis a vis return on investment and the common good. My problem with Barb Johnson's objection to "Avenue of the Arts" is her narrow parochialism." Are we talking here about cost, priorities or narrow parochialism? Avenue of the Arts can hardly be called a necessity in a city that could be going bankrupt if Barrett Lane's assessment is correct. If the city is concerned about cost benefits of public investment, about 100,000 residents living in north and northeast Minneapolis would suggest that greenways to the river, river boulevards, increased habitat and new housing -- and maybe a bike route -- would be priorities for us that would benefit the entire city. These are amenities we are sorely lacking. I suspect that is the point Barb Johnson is making, and it is not narrow parochialism but fairness. Connolly writes: "I am still angry at the hue and cry raised by opponents of The Guthrie Theatre expansion, led by some members of the city and Park Board who turned it into a North/South, bluecollar/whitecollar, battle that made more sense in the 30's than it does in the late 90's." Without getting into the merits of the Guthrie move to the riverfront, on what basis would the north/south, blue collar/white collar argument have had more merit in the 1930s and 1940s than in the 1990s? And what is that argument? Connolly writes: "Barb Johnson was among the most vocal critics of the Guthrie expansion. So now we have chewed up a big piece of land over near the river that someone at sometime saw as a perfect site for a ballpark or new stadium. The Guthrie Theatre expansion at their present site should have happened, could have happened if we had decent leadership on the issue." So we should have saved the Guthrie river site for a stadium? Connolly writes: "My wife and I had some time to kill on the 4th of July and being up Northeast I drove her around a few spots she had never seen or had seen and forgot. She kept saying, "Wow, is this nnice" or "what a view" speaking of the view of downtown from Ridgeway Road and all the time we heard no airplanes roaring overhead. My only comment to her at the time was remember all this when you hear Barb Johnson, Walt Dziedzic, etc talk about all the amenities in south Minneapolis. " Sooooo, if you have a "nice view" from Ridgeway Road, which is an industrial area overlooking a cemetery, you have enough amenities, be happy, don't expect anything more, and never mind that you can't get to the river or safely bike downtown. Connolly writes: "As we drove through portions of the 1st and 4th, even past Walt's house, I pointed out the nice concrete streets." Shucks, I never thought of cement streets as an amenity before! What could I have been thinking? Not all the streets in north and northeast are cement, but we could probably pile the kids in the car and go up Walt's way and gawk at them. Who needs a green riverfront or a bikeway when we can have cement streets? I'm afraid Mr. Connolly is ill-informed. It is a fact that until very recently, investment in the north end of the city has been minimal. With the Holman project and the Humboldt Greenway, we are finally seeing some significant investment on the north side. Northeast has yet to see the same level of investment, but if we can get some leadership for the Third Ward, perhaps that could happen. While many of us northenders travel to the south side amenities, very few southsiders have any reason to travel to our part of town. And when you do, it is usually only to Boom Island. We aren't envious, and we don't want the lakes drained or more airport noise or the Hi-Lake businesses turned into yuppie chains. But we would like our south side friends to understand that the industrial giants of the city's past such as the railroads, flour mills, lumbering and breweries were the initial economic engines that fueled development of the south side neighborhoods. It was our people who worked in those industries. Now we would like some payback in the form of a reclaimed riverfront, some new boulevards, perhaps a bikeway or two. If that's parochialism, bring it on. Fran Guminga Bottineau Ward 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * F. Guminga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
