Re: [Mpls] Mission to destroy -you think it's ballanced?

[BudTBum]

Bob,

Sorry about the need to unload, I mean no disrespect (I really don't) but you struck a cord...

You don�t think the government is good at making money? That�s a debate I think I�ll leave alone. But tax and spend is what government does, whatever your political philosophy. So while I can point to no official policy, I think you will have to agree it�s a simple fact of life within a government. So I will maintain money is what it comes down to, or if you prefer, how it is spent.

I�m not saying don�t do a given project. I am saying that holding ponds for road run off for example, should have been part of the original designs. Not some sort of after thought that it currently is. Yes we have come a long way, but it's because we are playing makeup games to things that should have been done decades ago. It�s a system that lets the original developers off the hook without paying the true cost of their project. Taxpayers pick up the tab later.

We are building a holding pond just north of hwy 62 and Nicollet Ave. near the Cub Foods store. That should have been there long long ago. My whole life I watched the area flood as a direct result of our construction and inadequate designs. But it has taken until now to start to properly deal with the effects that we have on the environment. Remember when it was Supervalu, and the parking lot turned into a pond every time it rained? Remember when Cub went up in Supervalu�s place and they graded the lot so it wouldn�t flood any more? Remember when all that water went to their neighbors houses across the street instead? Remember when the city decided to remove those people�s homes to build a pond to fix it? Go there and look my friend, and believe me, it was an oops. Unless you are the cynical type, and then you can ask why was Cub allowed to dump their water run off on the houses across the street? Why were houses chosen to be removed, instead of half of the parking lot that originally flooded? Did money play a role? Who has the bigger tax base? Is that a coincidence? Did Cub or Supervalu who helped cause the problem help pay for the pond? I don�t know.

Who gets to decide what is right and balanced? Good question. Here�s another one. Who gets to decide who has to loose their home because of someone else�s mistake? My guess on both fronts�it�s the same people. And as to your comment about electing people, I have made it to every last election to vote after I turned 18, except for one primary.

Yes I have heard of environmental impact statements. Obviously from your comments you don�t know how they work. (be sure to read May 14 1997 in the timeline below) An environmental impact statement is just that, a statement. It does not bar you from things, it just sometimes makes you document them, and if you are good, you do something about the problems. If you have a lot of money and power you don�t have to do it. A more severe example is at the Mega mall on the fourth floor. It doesn�t even come close to meeting fire code. The inspector that called them on it for the lack of fire exits when it was being built was fired. They then hired someone who would not hold them to the �policy�. A simple policy does not work if it is not followed. If you don�t believe me, go there. Count how many people are on the fourth floor, and count the exists for people to flee if there is a fire. But was the project held up to correct the situation? Too much money involved for that. Do you see the pattern?

How about an EIS specific case in Minneapolis?
You stated you think the balanced approach was followed with Hwy 55 reroute because the 15 million was spent in other ways than to avoid the reroute. Let me give you a short time line as to what you are backing. You may change your mind. And please remember the NRP did not get the money.

I have all documentation to back this up- if you really want the full text let me know.

1964 Hwy 55 was to be a freeway design like 35W. Construction started within a few years. The park board fights to save Minnehaha Park.

August 1969 the Mn Supreme court rules Road right of ways are superior and refuses to �balance� (yes that is their word, refuses to �balance�) the value of competing public uses of land when one condemning agency wants to take land already used by another.

1969-1988 budget problems stop most all of the construction of the road.



? through1981, a group of about 30, mostly business leaders, become a �citizen advisory committee� with mailings that claimed �All can be assured that they will be listened to and kept abreast of the project�s status and progress� however the mailings failed to include the people who would lose their home to the project, the people around it, or the rest of the city. (Go to the records department at city hall and look up the mailing list if you like) They did however play a key role in lowering the speed limit to 35MPH and keeping the road out of a trench like 35W.

1985 an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is done, but fails to include the controversial reroute and it�s impacts, even though it was planned on as early as March 1981. (But it does include a section on stimulating economic development�profit)

1988 Road construction starts once again north of 46th street, as funds are approved.

July 1992, the final section of the road receives funding (the reroute). Within weeks the �preliminary designs are presented� to the immediate community for the First Time.
***Note: the statue of limitations has already expired at this point on the EIS, any lawsuits can be dismissed and people and communities can be legally ignored based on that fact.***

June 1993 community newspaper reports quotes of City Council members saying changes in the plan are possible, including the reroute.

January 1996, reroute is set to happen to save 14.5 million and 5 years on the already 32 year old project, the reroute alone is approximately 42 million, the rest of the project is hundreds of millions more. (I mention the total cost and years so you know we are only talking about a relatively small amount of money and time)
About a year earlier the city council votes 12-1 for the reroute. Schulstad, the rep from the immediate community casts the lone descending vote against it (this should note that he was getting opposition from the immediate community that supposedly supported the reroute, other communities are still mostly unaware of the reroute at the time, so it is no surprise that there is no opposition from them yet)

June 1996 Park and River alliance begin fighting the road. Over 1000 signatures are already gathered for a petition, mostly from park users in Minnehaha Park. Approximately 14,000 signatures will be collected by the time they finish. However the signatures were often collected and then mailed in by the Alliance, not the signee. The Alliance is eventually told that because the signatures had the same stamps and post marks from the mailing that they are invalid. Alliance is accused of fraud.

August 1996 the citizens task force responds with all the work they have done and complains that the decisions they made when people like me �were in 8th grade� are now in jeopardy because us 8th graders are now old enough to vote and make a fuss. Then they retort that their meetings were open (to us 8th graders apparently) and if we had any problems we should have voiced it then. Voicing dissent when funding has been approved is apparently wrong. (Still thinking this isn�t a money issue?)

October 25, 1996, Star Tribune covers the issue for the *First Time* when the Park and River alliance files suit to stop the reroute (not the road).

November 1996, Star Tribune reports with the headline �Paving green space to reroute a highway doesn�t make sense�

May 14, 1997, in the lawsuit protesting the reroute, the discovery process has revealed that several key documents that MnDOT is supposed to have regarding the re-route process have been �lost� and cannot be examined in the trial. Among the missing is, the addendum to the Environmental Impact Statement that shows how the project complies with federal law.

September 1997, Southside Pride reports �Democracy be dammed when powerful downtown, airport and suburban interests agree the road must go through�.

March 1998 MnDOT condemns houses for removal.

May 19, 1998 Judge dismisses lawsuit based on the statute of limitations, no other issues are dealt with.

August 1998, the longest demonstration in Minnesota�s history, a 16 month occupation encampment of the Hwy 55 reroute begins as legal channels have already begun to fail. Things begin to go downhill from here. Police beatings, more lost documents, lies, allegations, tortured race relations, and on and on.

__________________________

I guess you might consider that to be balanced. I consider it to be pitiful.
Projects should be legal, not just outside of the statue of limitations. When you get 16 month demonstrations and police beatings something is seriously messed up.

Now back to the original question. Was this policy? Protesters beatings by police are so severe judge calls it �State sanctioned torture�. Maybe that will help you understand the anger many people have.

This all started as an environmental issue with the �radical� idea of saving one of the best parks in the city.
I think it�s a possible oops factor that got it all started (time delays with funding), but a strong argument can be made that when push comes to shove, there is a policy, written or not, of Economics (Profit) over the environment.

Not to say that projects can�t be done in an environmentally friendly fashion, they certainly can, we often just seem to leave that part out�until houses get flooded first, or lakes and rivers begin to die, roads go through parks, people get cancer, then we go oops�

So my final policy statement that you asked for is simply to clean up your own mess. (and leave parks alone) Government, business or whoever. And I don�t think that is too much to be asking for.

Tom Holtzleiter
Kingfield

George Bush Sr. �If I have to choose between the economy and the environment, I choose the economy.�


On 29 Apr 01, at 19:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

From:
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Mission to destroy our biosphere
To:
Date sent: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:21:00 EDT

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]

The question stands. How is our government trying to destroy the biosphere, �
or on a smaller level, what are the city governments
anti-environmental�policies?

Tom Holtzleiter responded:

>In my opinion, it all comes down to money. What we do as a society is�
>based around what makes money. That's the idea of the Target subsidy�
>downtown, or Block E or whatever. It's all a skeme to make more money in�


>the end.�

>From the looks of my tax statement the government is doing a pretty lousy job
of making money if that is "what it all comes down to." I don't quite see
this as government policy.

>The main problem with this is that the environment gets left in the dust.
We�
>concentrate more on what is profitable than what is right or balanced. To�
>date the vast majority of our environmental policies is based on oops we�
>messed that up...what can we do to fix it?

Again I am not sure government makes decisions based on what is profitable,
but the cost they have to pay is an issue. As a taxpayer I appreciate
governments occasional attempts to watch the budget. If I interpret your post


correctly you think we should make policy based on what is "right or
balanced." Sounds good to me. Who gets to determine what is right and
balanced? Perhaps if you don't like the current politicians interpretation
of right and balanced you should help elect someone
you agree with.

As to your comment that our current environmental policy is "oops we messed
up... what can we do to fix it?" I think this is an area that we have come a
long way in working to improve. Have you ever heard of an environmental
impact statement? Do you realize when any commercial building is sold, and
often just refinanced, that an environmental study has to be done? The fact
that we do make environmental mistakes, and that we then say oops lets
correct them, is a far cry from a government with a mission to destroy the
biosphere. If I interpret you correctly the government doesn't have a policy
that is anti-environmental, it just screws up a lot. So your recommendation
would be that we make sure our government doesn't screw up?
Once again, sounds good to me. Lets make it a policy.

>I think this is what people really hate. Sure we get drainage ponds that
*help*
>clean up road run-off and it's better than it used to be a few years ago,
but it�
>usually is still worse than before we started our projects.

So what is your policy statement? Are we supposed to stop all projects? Are


we to tear up all roads so there is no run off?

>So now we have it...A highway through a park, all because we as a city were
>too cheap to spend 15 Million, and wait a few years to keep the road at
it's�
>original route.�

I assume that in your opinion the right and balanced approach would have been
to spend the extra 15 million and wait four years, as well as ignore the
earlier citizen committee recommendations. Lets follow the money for a
minute. Fifteen million dollars almost equals a years worth of contribution
to NRP. Fifteen million dollars almost equals the annual allotment of the
city to net debt bonds for capital improvements and maintenance. In my mind
the balanced approach was followed. I would rather see the money in NRP and
capital improvements. NRP lets citizens in neighborhoods throughout the city
decide what is right and balanced in their neighborhood.

Bob Gustafson
13th



_______________________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls