Candy Sartell wrote: > The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Metro Greenway > Program recently approved an allocation of up to $500,000 toward > acquisition of the site. > ... > In addition to the Metro Greenways grant, Congress has allocated > $850,000 to the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) > for the Riverview site. Together, $1.35 million is difficult to ignore > in creating ...
Is the $1.35 million sufficient to purchase the site in its entirety? If not, how large is the shortfall? Does the City have sufficient revenues and/or political will to cover the shortfall? If not, how long before there is sufficient funds and/or political will? Can the City legally forestall development of site until it has the money to acquire it? If it prevents housing from being built there, but can not prevent other types of developments, such as industrial developments, will we be better off with an industrial site there or a housing development? That is, could we put an industrial site there, with possibly no park land, then buy it out later and put a park there? Is this idea even feasible? > ... a significant amenity for the north Minneapolis neighborhoods > that are virtually cut off from the river by Interstate 94. Do agree that I-94 does present a significant barrier to the river, but so does all the industry along the river. Placing a park at the Riverview site will not necessarily make the site more accessible, however, as the freeway and surrounding industry will still be there. > Preserving this site as park and open space will maintain the relative > harmony of existing uses currently in place and as the riverfront is > developed. Implementation of JADT's proposal will result in > incompatible land uses being directly adjacent to one another, > resulting in unnecessary and almost certain tension between residents > and businesses. I am puzzled why anyone would want to buy a town home next to the LaForge cement works. Do people think that just because they live there now that they can demand that LaForge and the other industries move out or quiet down? When I lived in St. Paul, there was a railway near where I lived. Next to this railway was an apartment complex that had been built long after the railway had been. Yet, the tenants of this apartment complex had the nerve to complain about the blowing of train whistles at railroad crossings during night-time hours. If I remember correctly, the St. Paul city council issued a resolution ordering the railroad to not blow its whistles. Why was the railroad at fault for disrupting the sleep of the apartment dwellers? After all, they chose to live next to a working railway. Will LaForge and other industries be held accountable when their daily operations disrupt the sleep and serenity of the town home/condo dwellers, who moved in knowing that they were living next to an active industrial site? Maybe I ought to agitate to have I-94 shutdown. I realize I moved into my house long after the freeway was built, but the freeway is rather loud and it tends to be irritating at times. Scott McGerik Hawthorne Minneapolis http://www.McGerik.com/scott/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
