Wizard writes: > To accuse > me of "shilling" for the project because I could personally benefit is > insulting.
No, no, no - that's exactly what I'm NOT doing. I wrote: >> I would not >> accuse citizen proponents of being "shills" for the project just because they >> may benefit. Key words: "would not." I am not accusing you of being a shill; I think your support is principled. So is Kingfield's opposition. The point was, don't dismiss neighborhood opponents as NIMBYs, and neighborhood proponents shouldn't be labeled shills. As for the larger question, it might surprise you to know that I am personally not opposed to moving the ramps to 38th Street. I have mixed feelings about it. It's definitely stupid for two streets (35th and 36th) to be high-traffic one-ways, when one (38th) can perhaps do the job as it should have, originally. Counterbalancing that social utility, for me, is that a) there would be much upheaval in changing this now and b) I'm quite dubious of the economic benefits to the east side of the highway. I simply don't think 38th street gaining more traffic would make it a more desirable commerce zone. I know that's the dream, but my feeling - and it is only that as a semi-informed citizen) is that an overly busy, hurly-burly street will be a place people want to get past, not stop and shop. The final straw, as Jeanne alluded to, is the overall cost of the project: $150 million is a lot of beans for something with a lot of questionable benefits. Wizard, I think if the project was reduced to simply moving the 35th/36th ramps to 38th, I might be on your side (not sure about everyone else, though). All THAT said, we in Kingfield - especially Jeanne - have participated long and hard in mitigation efforts so that IF the project is built, its worst effects can be reduced. That isn't NIMBYism - that's constructive, responsible engagement. It's also worth remembering that 36th Street is in our neighborhood, too. So we have "winners" and 'losers," another check on NIMYism. We understand bigger needs may trump our needs and opinions. Many here in Kingfield believe those bigger, legitimate needs really won't be served by much of the Access project, but that remains for all of us to figure out. David Brauer King Field on 11/22/02 9:04 AM, WizardMarks at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > David Brauer wrote: > >> Wizard writes: >> >>> WM: King Field has taken a NIMBY position on 35W from the start. King >>> Field and you, had the right to be at the many meetings held for the >>> last 4 years. >>> >> "NIMBY" is thrown around too casually in debate - it's a cheap way to >> dismiss specific arguments without dealing with them, not to mention >> sliming the accused's integrity. Equating Kingfield's opposition with >> simply NIMBYism mean you will only allow us to support the project - >> otherwise, we're selfish sellouts. It's simply not fair. I would not >> accuse citizen proponents of being "shills" for the project just because they >> may benefit. >> > > WM: NIMBY is not "thrown around casually" by me. Moving the ramps to > 38th St. is essential to Central Neighborhood. We have a small > neighborhood, 72 sq. blocks. It has 5 one-way streets which, in effect, > completely destroy the physical integrity of the neighborhood and make > it likely that we can never get an true cohesiveness accomplished. > Removing 35th and 36th Street as exits ramps and moving them to 38th St. > will restore some of that integrity. From the time this freeway was > originally installed, we have put up with this crap so that other > neighborhoods could develop and prosper while we weakened. > Just as a matter of fairness (we put up with this for 30 years, now it's > someone else's turn) moving the ramps to 38th should be supported. But > we signed on to this process to push for mitigation of flaws in the > original design which have made our lives a misery. We expect to have > mitigation. For King Field to come in and say that the mitigation > accomplished by 38th St. is not worth it, is NIMBY to the max. To accuse > me of "shilling" for the project because I could personally benefit is > insulting. I too, have spent the time thinking about what we hope to > accomplish. Personally, I doubt I have much to gain either way. My > neighborhood, however, has a lot to gain and I will benefit from that > effect. > My neighbors and I ( Jim Graham goes on about this all the time) are > tired of being the ghetto so that everyone else can have a nicer life. > Our only crime is that we are not as wealthy and while we know there are > those who consider poverty a crime, it is not. > I never cast aspersions on Jeanne Massey; but if she's willing to > forward a NIMBY argument against mitigation of the disaster of 35th and > 36th St. exits/entrances at her own expense, then there is something > seriously wrong, not with her, but with what King Field has asked her to do. > > Thank you, David, for again being so supportive of your neighbors, for > hearing what we are saying, for helping to maintain the status quo at > our expense. I'm ever so grateful. > > WizardMarks, Central > >> _______________________________________ >> >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________ 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
