Former CM McDonald's post regarding 'silting in' of the Mississippi
making 'all recreational use other than canoeing' impossible if it isn't
dredged is ridiulous. While the river's profile will change, the water has
to get through somehow, and there is plenty of it to keep a significant
channel accessble even to larger boats. The river won't plug up and become
impassable. Hydrologic experts we consulted during the planning process
agreed.
Why should we subsidize 16th century industries, with same vintage
technologies and concerns for the environment that are repellant to civic
progress, environmental restoration, and our opportunity for great access
to the river? Could it be for the one job per six acres at the money
loosing Upper Harbor Terminal the city owns? Or similar job densities at
the other docks? Why? Not for a dredged channel, thats for sure.
There are other recreational uses and other community values for a
freer, cleaner river besides canoeing: small power boats, water skiing,
fishing, wildlife and bird observation, visiting the beach, nature study
for our schools. And how about the new land uses that would be possible if
the subsidized industries had to pay their own freight? More parks and
parkways for North and Northeast, cleaner surface runoff, lots more jobs
(>2000 increase according to our projections) in more interesting and safer
occupations, and many households (>2500) all within 2.5 miles of downtown.
A much better commute.
The dam/locks/dredging/channel/big powerboat debate is pretty
important to the parks/jobs/homes/clean-up-the-north-end mission.
Steve Durrant, landscape architect
Lowry Hill
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
