Are they "green"? No. But neither were landfills. Let's face, GARBAGE isn't green. If we could prevent it, we'd be far along. When will that happen? Not a clue here. But recall that incinerators are a small part of the combustion that supports our civilization. How much of a dent will we make on combustion by eliminating the incineration of garbage? I don't know. Do you? I think it is a worthy cause to pursue the elimination of incineration, PROVIDED we keep in mind all the other combustion going on and eliminate that, too. I think we're talking revolutionary cultural change, and we should never lose sight of that. Fire preceded civilization by a few thousand years. At that time, it didn't hurt much. But we succeeded far too well, and now our fires really affect the biosphere. So we need another change of the scale that the use of fire caused. What I think is needed is some really ambitious goals. Find the ten LARGEST uses of combustion and find new technologies for that. And I'm not really thinking of the George Bush scenario of starting up the nuke industry again. That is a rathole that already stands to eat our lunch with no further effort.
Issue:Traffic
Well, I guess if I knew for sure who did maintenance on the intersections that are causing the problem on Penn, I could look UP the number (but then so could anyone). But I will say giving the problem to the MOST bogus politicians in the state strikes me as a suicidal urge. The Met Council isn't going to solve any problems. Most likely it will cause more. It is the latest in a series of mistakes. No, if you wish to proceed in the direction of rationality, consolidate all the traffic decisions in one level, probably the state level. Give them a goal and some metrics, and then get out of their way. Stop trying to micromanage. Stop trying to make roadbuilding a pawn of half-hearted economic revival plans.
Issue: Homes
Let's say "homes" rather than houses. There is nothing sacred or particularly rational about these standalone houses we choose to live in. What we do is duplicate lots and lots of resources, run up the cost, and there is no particular reason for it but it helps the real estate industry plus a few other industries that depend upon the spending of owners of houses. Townhouses, rowhouses, whatever you call them, make a lot more sense. Why SHOULD there be more than one lawnmower per block. More than one snowblower per block, etc? If poor people have a problem, it might be because we've inflated our economy by cultural norms that are stupid. OWNERSHIP may make a lot of sense. But ownership of single-family dwellings doesn't. If you were to try to optimize the kind of dwelling that brings stability to a neighborhood without doing so at a foolish level of costs, you wouldn't end up dictating a standalone building. For one thing, there is nothing INHERENT in such a model that makes neighbors care about each other. And if you want a stable neighborhood, you need something to make it a community.
________________________________________
Jim Mork
Cooper Neighborhood
Longfellow Community
Minneapolis, a great city getting greater (much to the disgruntlement of a few)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.)
________________________________
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
