Dear Carol Becker:
The Minneapolis City Council voted on a current alignment proposal back in 1991. You are correct that the Minnesota Department of Transportation had two plans given to the citizens committee. They did not include the current alignment for an option to the committee.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation had purchased property along the re-route prior to any citizens committee meeting. I believe the 1960's. Thus giving the committee no real alternative! The second option was just part of the shell game to give the appearance of public process. The second citizens committee was formed in the early 1980's that eventually approved the reroute. The first citizens committee that was formed in the mid 70's was chaired by Mike Freeman they did not support the rerouting of highway 55 thru Minnehaha Park. MNDOT disbanded the first committee because they did not support the reroute. The first and second citizens committee were never given the current allignment as an option.
Council Member Shulstad had the current allignment proposal drawn up in the early 90's. The Minneapolis City Council did vote on the current allignment propsal. Changing the project to the current allignment would have added an additional 5 million to the project. The city council voted 12 to 1 against the current allignment. Shulstad was the only member to vote in support of the current allignment. Steve Minn back in a 1997 at a candidate form with Karen Willson stated that Dennis Shulstad lobbied council members behind the closed doors to vote against the current allignment. His consituency opposed the reroute so another political shell game was in order. I have spoken privately with numerous city council members that have supported Steve Minn's story of Shulstad lobbying behind closed doors to vote against the current allignment.
This project has always been about $money$ for the unions, the road constuction industry, and developers. The campaign contributions from those that would financially benfit from the 100's of millions of dollars involved with this project are documented. We do need better campaign finance disclosure and better access for the public to these documents. Our political process will continue to be dominated by huge corporate intrests until we have true reform and the envrionment will only be important during election years with some of our elected officials.
Thanks Again, Ken Bradley 612-728-8962
Carol Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I appreciate that people feel very strongly about the Hiawatha
reconstruction and put a lot of time from their lives on various positions
for or against the reconstruction. I did, however, want to provide some
context to Mr. Bradley's statement that there was an alternative for the new
alignment Hiawatha Avenue.
I spoke with someone on the original citizen's committee who told me that
there were four basic alignment options originally considered:
- One directly through the lagoon
- One to the west of the lagoon, which would have taken out 280 homes but
not had any impact on the park
- One keeping the alignment where it was which would take out fewer but
still a large number of homes (he didn't remember off the top of his head)
and several businesses and would have resulted in splitting the neighborhood
into two parts
- One moving the alignment to minimize the number of homes taken, the
current alignment
The person I spoke to stressed to me that it was the neighborhood who voted
for the new alignment after very long debate. This person said that the
alignment chosen minimized the number of families that had to move and
maintained continuity of the neighborhood. Cost was not the determining
factor but minimizing the impacts on families was.
So, the basic issue is what is the value of a person's home in relation to
some trees or a stream. Would you give your house up to save a tree? Two
trees? Five trees? Twenty? A hundred? How many trees would it take
before it was worth uprooting your kids from school and leaving your home?
I appreciate that different people have different answers to this question
which has driven them to the different positions they have taken.
The current alignment reflects the values of the persons who were faced with
losing their homes. Although it wasn't the best for the environment, it
reflects the best compromise that they could come up with between preserving
as much of the environment as possible and preserving as many people's lives
as possible. Do I wish there was some ideal alternative where no trees
would have been cut down and no one would lose their home? Yes. But in the
real world, you have to compromise and I respect the people who worked
through this issue to find the best compromise they could.
Carol Becker
Longfellow
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
