For folks planning on attending the I-35W Access Expansion Meetings this week, I offer the following items to think about before the meeting:
1) Existing residents do not benefit from the project itself; the "benefits" are derived from the mitigation/enhancement efforts. The original freeway was never mitigated, so mitigation and enhancements should be undertaken separately on the existing version of the freeway. Why would we trade a bigger freeway for mitigation!? The existing project essentially asks the neighborhood to swallow a very bitter pill in exchange for some design concessions. 2) Doesn't giving away space for "potential" HOV lanes now rob us of bargaining power in the future (if they have the space, how do we pressure them to consider other options)? Giving away space now ensures we get a bigger freeway in the future, because the sunk costs of building the bridges and retaining walls will "justify" completing the expansion. The expansion has never been agreed to by the residents or the city of Minneapolis! The Access project was hijacked by MNDoT to include it with minimal review, morphing into the Access/Expansion Project. 3) This project disproportionately negatively impacts existing businesses; they won't survive the construction phase or the gentrification to follow. Why are we "revitalizing" a street that is already vital? Couldn't a much smaller amount of money make a bigger impact supporting existing businesses and creating additional small business opportunities? 4) This is an automobile-only solution, despite previous studies (per the memo Sharon Sayles Belton wrote) that have called for light rail as the preferred alternative. 5) How does rearranging a few off-ramps compare in importance to other state-wide MNDoT projects? (such as the northstar commuter line), and why is Hennepin County willing to front the money for the state and ask for reimbursement rather than permission? 6) What kind of value does the $150+ million project create in the area? If this is being referred to as an "investment" in south Minneapolis, then what is the payoff? Keep in mind that the major tenants for both Nic/Lake and Chi/Lake have stated that they do not require additional access for their proposals to move forward. 7) Why have Access Project coordinators attempted to link their project to unrelated neighborhood goals? 8) The project disproportionately affects minority homeowners; nearly all of the units to be demolished are occupied by minorities. 9) The project demolishes affordable housing - compensation to the owners will not enable them to find new affordable housing in a market with such an affordable housing shortage. 10) The project goal seems to be to convert Lake Street back to it's previous status as a regional commercial space; neighborhood goals promoting small business and owner operated businesses would seem to be in conflict with this. Does this fit in any way with the city's goals?? David Piehl Central __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
