on 9/18/03 1:23 PM, Leurquin, Ronald at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Does anyone here see the latest proposal for a new downtown stadium(s) as a > masked attempt at getting rid of the incinerator?
The map provided in the Strib today (link below) chops off the incinerator so it might appear that way. (The other wrinkle is a Vikes stadium to the west of the ballpark - haven't seen that before.) Hennepin County has a huge capital investment in the burner...I can't see any way they would move it. The fact is, government will have a hard time (and hell to pay from citizens on this list and elsewhere) coming up with any public scratch to put into the ballpark...having to relocate the burner would increase that problem dramatically. Tons of downtown housing is being built within a stone's throw of the burner no problem right now (the pollution plumes, by the way, tend to settle in north Minneapolis and Phillips, not downtown.) > I am not very up on the incinerator, so will ask a few more questions here. > Why was it built? To reduce pollution and groundwater contamination, the state mandated less reliance on landfills. The County thought a burner was a solution, plus they could generate energy and save money. The county also believed that burning, while polluting, was less so than other alternatives. They feel their pollution control equipment is excellent and in recent years has not exceeded permitted levels of mercury (though this happened in the early years. This is a county view based on interviews over the years. There is a strong environmental comeback I'll let other posters make. > Who do we want it or not want it? Too long a topic for this post. See county argument above for why we do want it. Among the counterarguments, a burner still produces pollution such as airborne mercury and toxic ash that are significant problems. It can be argued that a burner (or landfilling) reduces incentives to reduce the waste stream through re-use, recycling and generating less trash. > What purpose does it serve us today? Same purposes as list in above two sections. > I would put a link to the article, but am not that computer literate yet. http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4104307.html Here's the question I have: why do the owners of Rapid Park need a ballpark(s) in their redevelopment at all. The housing market remains red-hot. Why include a cash-sucking ballpark(s) when you can have cash-producing condos so close to the downtown core? David Brauer Kingfield REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
