Mpls-Issues tip: PLEASE trim the previous message when responding. The redundant
characters make tough reading for Digest subscribers and needlessly lengthens download
times.
-----------
I think it is really important to be accurate with the facts, and I see that
some recent posts regarding the airport and the vote of the City Council
took in March, 1966, are misleading. I believe that that the seven members
(including Lisa McDonald) who voted for that resolution and the Mayor who
signed it were doing the correct thing.
First of all, the Council did not take an action in March of 1966 to support
expansion of the present airport. This is a statement that is made often by
people who think that if you say something often enough, it becomes the
truth. Well, don't go down that road. If you look at the wording of the
resolution which passed by a vote of 7-5 and was signed by the Mayor, the
very first provision supported continuing the Dual Track airport planning
process until the Legislature could make a decision on the issues in 1997.
The resolution went on to say that "should the Legislature determine that
there should be no new airport for the region at this time" then the Council
supported certain positions, such as the prohibition of a third parallel
runway, insulation of homes out to the 60 DNL noise contour, and yes,
construction of the a north-south runway.
The resolution was clear in supporting continuation of the Dual Track
process, but also recognized that the handwriting was on the wall and the
Legislature was going to vote to truncate the process and vote to expand the
present airport. That decision was made by Governor Arne Carlson and
Northwest Airlines in December, 1995. After that everything turned to
scrambling for the best position possible. The resolution was trying to make
the best of a bad situation.
Think about it folks - if the Legislature did make a decision that there
should be no new airport - and that is exactly what they did in March, 1966 -
all traffic, including the new traffic, would have been on the two parallel
runways pointed at Minneapolis. A North-South runway will divert some of
that traffic away from Minneapolis.
Subsequently, the City of Minneapolis and MAC negotiated a contract
prohibiting a third parallel runway pointed at Minneapolis. The decision on
what type of insulation program will be provided out to the 60 DNL will be
made next month. I strongly urge anyone who knows any MAC Commissioner to
lobby him or her to provide the full noise insulation package which has been
provided in the past.
And further, that City Council resolution urged the MAC to land bank for a
new airport. Again, Legislative action in 1966 prohibited MAC from
landbanking. The City supported landbanking back in 1996 and still does
today.
I've been a supported for a new airport in this region since the days of Ham
Lake back in 1968. I think the Legislature made a terrible $2.9 Billion
mistake in 1966 and that they are the ones to be held accountable. In a
couple of years this whole subject is going to be back on the front burner
for more discussion. I only hope that the next time the correct decision
will be made.
Picking up the pieces of a shattered dream is not fun, and the City Council
and Mayor did the only thing they could responsibly do in March, 1966.
Jan Del Calzo
Lynnhurst
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
