We could discuss Steve's article in today's Star Tribune about the fact that,
after six months of silence, American Iron & Supply Co. intends to submit its
permit applications for the brand of Metal Shredder the company has chosen.
John Isaacs, AIS president, is quoted in the article as saying, "I don't
think the shredder is going to be noticeable to anybody." Mr. Isaacs does
not live in Minneapolis and certainly does not live anywhere near the site of
the proposed shredder.
In 1996 a state review concluded that there would be no adverse effects on
humans (though perhaps on other species) living near the shredder.
The city was forced to allow the shredder after state legislators (who did
not live in Minneapolis but represented rural areas) threatened to pass a
bill compelling us to put up with a Kondirator--which we're told would be
even worse than the present "metal shredder" mandated by the city's
settlement with AIS.
My question is: At what point does any issue in Minnesota become a
Minneapolis issue? Only when the last domino in the line falls? When
non-Minneapolis legislators have the right to force this shredder on us, at
what point do their actions (and upcoming elections) merit commentary in this
forum?
Frankly I'd prefer to see concise, grammatical, and well-thought-out postings
in this forum on any subject rather than sniveling, long rows of exclamations
points, or the shrill e-mails I've received as a result of my posting, which
I intended to be a short and informative termination of the discussion. Some
of you guys need to clean up your language, please.
Kristine Harley
Sheridan Resident
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
