Steve Minn wrote (via David Brauer): >David Polaschek is one of the more reasonable people on the Marcy Holmes >board, but he has a few factual errors in his last post.
Thanks. I'm trying to be reasonable about this. >We never proposed to put student in affordable units. They are not >eligible. Agreed. And I didn't mean to say that you proposed to put students in affordable units there. But affordable housing for students is one of the pressing needs our neighborhood has. >We purchased the track rights to the south ADM track, guaranteeing is >discontinuation. We are simply negotiating a price for track removal. That's excellent news that I hadn't heard before. Congratulations. >The north tracks get four cars a day in and four cars a day out. Not >exactly a freight yard operation. No, but it is still train-traffic. And I remember how fascinating train-traffic was to me as a child. It's an attractive (and not terribly safe) place to play. >Metal-Matic had the enormous petroleum spill in 1995 and only did >minimal clean up under relaxed state standards. >... >Shame on them, good for us! Shame on them. I've always been of the opinion that polluters should clean up their own messes. I'd rather see MetalMatic (and previous polluters) have to clean up the site rather than see public funds spent on the cleanup. But I agree that cleaning it up is important. >We will have fully operable windows in the units. That's different than one of the earlier proposals I remember. I believe it was your partner, John Wall who mentioned that the windows would be "sealed" which I took to mean non-openable. Sorry for the misunderstanding. >The site is actually very quiet. Drop by and check it out for yourself. I don't completely agree on the noise-levels of the site, since I sometimes hear the U of M steam plant venting excess steam pressure from my house that's about 4 blocks away. But I do encourage anyone interested in this project to drop by the site and and check it out. >The working riverfront IS the amenity. There is this enormous park right >across the street, walking trails, the lower bluffs are just beautiful. Agreed. I walk and bike through the area all the time. I wouldn't go so far as to call the lower bluffs beautiful though. Having to keep stout shoes on to avoid cutting my feet on broken beer bottles takes away some of the beauty. That's part of why MHNA helps clean up the riverfront every summer. >If Metal-Matic is so dangerous, how come a daycare center on the other >side of the street from Metal-matic has existed for ten years without a peep? I believe that day care has a fenced-in play area for the children. Having watched it in operation (I think it's more than 10 years, too. I'm pretty sure it was there in 1990, and possibly before), parents drive in to drop off their kids, and pick them up in cars. There's very little foot traffic in and out of there that I've ever seen. >How come other industrial land-come residential projects like Lourdes >Square, Winslow House, LaRive, all high-end stuff are okay, but suddenly >this "industrial site" is not okay for affordable development? I didn't say those were okay. Actually, I didn't say one way or another. I'd like to publicly thank Steve Minn and John Wall for some of the work they've done with the MHNA to try and make this a better project. I think we've made progress, but I still haven't seen a proposal I can say I support. I mentioned some of the reasons in my last post. But I oppose using City power to enable a project I don't believe in. Rather than list my specific problems with this project, I think the best thing (at least for my mood) is to describe how I'd like to see the riverfront develop. Not all of these are realistic goals in the short-term, but that's life, eh? I'd like to see SE Main St. connect to E. River Road, with walking and biking paths between the road and the river. A connection to the U of M transitway would be nice, too. I'd like to see space between the river road and the river be open to the public (as distinct from public land). I understand that there are some uses (most notably hydropower) that will need to intrude, but I would like to be able to walk "along" the river from Boom Island to downtown St. Paul. Currently, the only obstacles to this are the two U of M steam / heating plants and the Ford plant in St. Paul. I'll worry about obstacles upriver at a later time. I'd like to see more public access to the river. I'd like to see some way for a person in Marcy-Holmes to walk down an avenue, all the way to the river. The approach taken at St. Anthony Main isn't horrible. Currently MetalMatic forms a wall between Marcy-Holmes and the riverfront. As initially proposed, the Stone Arch Apartments would have formed a second wall, but they agreed to put a walking/biking corridor along where 7th Ave SE would run. That's an improvement. If the proposed hydroelectric plant and whitewater park at the lower St. Anthony Falls goes through, 7th and 8th Avenues SE will be the path to the lower falls. I'd like to see housing take over from industry between 2nd Ave SE and Main St SE, but realize that this will take time. But at some point, I believe that it will be better business for MetalMatic and ADM to relocate and take their profits on the land they currently sit on. I don't want to see them forced out. I believe the real-estate market in Minneapolis will take care of that problem (especially if MetalMatic and ADM are held responsible for the polluting they've already done in the area). Now I'm going to go take a walk and see what's new down along the riverfront. Have a nice day. Dave Polaschek Marcy-Holmes _______________________________________ 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
