Here's a few factual corrections to Tim Connolly's post: Industrial Living Overlay puts the burden of tolerance on the residential property. Industry is protected from residential noise standards. We as the developer have to attenuate noise by 40db(A) from exterior to interior as a design feature of our building (state law).
The alleged employment loss is fictional. Metal-Matic already owns a plant in Chicago. They chose to build there, rather than buy the land we bought that is right next door. They elected not to expand next door because 50% of the SE River industrial area they are in has already been converted to housing/office in last ten years. Our land has been for sale for 15+ years...Metal-Matic passed on it...several times. They don't mind using it for free though... Metal-Matic is also telling the Teamsters that their jobs are in jeopardy...On Monday at the public hearing, we will expose the dirty little secret on how Metal-Matic management is lying to both the public and the Teamsters. This company is disappointing. The manner in which they have handled themselves during this project is not only deceptive, but incredibly uncitizen-like. Tim was wrong about all areas businesses opposing the project. ADM...a huge land owner was VERY supportive. So was the Park Board and several areas businesses. Only the University, Metal-Matic and their captive supplier WD Forbes filed objections. University & Metal-Matic have environmental problems they wish to continue to keep below public radar. WD Forbes is a huge supplier to Metal-Matic..thus captive to them. We do not need city powers to acquire the land. We already own most of it, and have the rest under contract, scheduled to close soon. We are waiting for title corrections. The City already approved the project, including the redevelopment plan. We want a simple modification to keep the timeline on schedule, without any cost or risk to the city. It IS true that we have relied upon the city approvals,(in most cases by 13-0 votes) for rezoning and financial commitments to advance the project, purchase the land and commit to construction. Reversals of those approvals would beg the question of responsibility...but we have not raised that issue. We expect the city to do the right thing, and move forward as committed. Steve Minn ---------- >From: timothy connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [Mpls] Stone Arch apts. >Date: Sat, Apr 6, 2002, 12:17 PM > _______________________________________ 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
