On Tuesday, May 4, 2004, at 09:53 AM, John Erwin wrote:
1) I have spent a considerable amount of time looking into the
comments and justifications prior to and after the installation of similar
hydro electric facilities in Massachusetts (Lowell) and New Hampshire
(Manchester). Neither of these facilities has had a significant impact on
the health of the rivers on which they were placed. In addition, there are
ways to minimize any impact to fish populations as well. All pluses.
Some good reasons why you should be supporting Crown Hydro.
2) The current agreement crafted between Crown Hydro and the Park
Board would yield an annual payment to the Park Board of $30,000 plus an
additional payment based on output/profit (likely be between $0-5,000
annually). The Park Board would lose parking revenue and the parking lot
that generates approx. $3,000 per year. Net income would therefore, be
between $27,000-32,000 annually. This parking lot is the only one on the
west side of the river in that area and is important for accessibility to
the area.
Income for our Park Board- another good reason for you to support Crown Hydro.
3) The lower lock and dam area (immediately below St. Anthony Falls)
is not fully utilized with respect to potential hydro-electric development.
A license has apparently recently been applied for development of that area
more fully with hydroelectric power.
And hopefully more clean small hydro energy will be generated here- if the Park Board is far sighted enough to seize this opportunity.
4) There are many new residents around the St. Anthony Falls area.
They have a stake in the development of the area which should be respected
as anyone adjacent to a park area has.
John, didn't you say you were a city wide Park Board member? Or do wealthy owners of the million dollar condos on Minneapolis "Gold Coast" get better representation than us working stiffs in the rest of the city? And is not this riverfront "Gold Coast" home to some very big campaign donors?
5) Congressman Martin Sabo has been enormously helpful in working with
the Park Board in getting federal dollars to help redevelop the St. Anthony
Falls area including the Stone Arch Bridge and Mill Ruins Park. There are a
number of proposals out there that include a water park in the east side of
the river that would include white water rafts.
A great idea, provided the watersports users are willing to pay for it and reimburse us for the lost energy. Given that watersports users are small in number, it's doubtful this project is economically viable unlike recreational trails that everyone uses.
This development has
spurred new housing in the area and is good for the entire city of
Minneapolis and enhances our downtown. These additional property tax
dollars provide needed support for police and fire departments that all of
us use.
A drop in the bucket, and no where near the loss in residential property values we've seen on the Northside and in commercial property values citywide. Will the increased tax revenue along the river even make up for the city's losses on the new (Hazmat) Heritage Park Projects?
In addition, this area with time could help increase convention
center use to increase revenues to the city as well. The future of this
area is exciting for the entire city.
The convention center is a mile away and it's biggest customers are the auto show and such. Where is the connection?
6) I do not believe that Crown Hydro Project would negatively impact
the historical integrity of the Mill Ruins Park or the structural integrity
of any of the adjacent buildings.
Yet another reason why you should be supporting Crown Hydro.
7) St. Anthony Falls are the ONLY falls on the Mississippi River! They are a natural resource - albeit modified.
The falls are long gone- this is a dam, although the spillway is kinda pretty.
8) The addition of a hydroelectric plant at this location would
decrease water flow over the falls to 300-500 cubic feet per second at a
minimum.
Literal drops in the bucket.
Based, in part, on these facts, I decided last week to NOT support the Crown
Hydro Project at this location. Comments of list members were also helpful.
John, having given such excellent argument for the project, why the vote against it?
I DO SUPPORT renewable energy sources and environmental issues and any suggestion that I do not is simply wrong. For instance, Annie, Walter Dziedzic and I are working on the eventual addition of more solar power throughout the park system.
The accepted cost figure for installing solar is around $10,000/kilowatt. That translates into about a $1000 a light. How many lights does the Park Board own? Has the Park Board even done the maths? Then there's the buildings, of which the Park Board has at least 50. Figure at least a kilowatt a building= $5,000,000+. Granted, this "investment" would probably pay off sometime in the 23rd century if we didn't have to budget for new batteries every couple years, fried controllers, etc.. We'd get a much faster return on investment by turning off the air conditioning at Park Board HQ 'til it gets really hot and installing more efficent light bulbs.
I talked with Mike Krauss (Green Institute) a
couple of months ago about how the Park Board could participate in a biomass
generation plant.
If this Park Board refuses to accept money for totally pollution free energy, they'll never accept any power plant involving combustion.
I have worked hard to dramatically increase tree planting and greening of the City among other projects.
And the drugged and drunk drivers in my 'hood have already taken out half of them. Next time you might want to try surrounding them with surplus concrete from other Park Board projects.
I DO support continued development of hydroelectric power below St. Anthony
Falls in a thoughtful way.
In other words, Not In My Board's Yard...
However, why risk a NATURAL RESOURCE such as St. Anthony Falls for $27,000-30,000 annually?
John, please reread your 1st and 6th paragraphs. Why such a change of mind within one missive?
These falls benefit the entire
city, are a landmark, and in a variety of ways contribute far more to the
City than the revenue the Park Board would receive, as well as, to the
atmosphere of downtown.
And Crown Hydro's small generator won't even be visible or audible.
Bottom line, in my estimation, this is not the best site for this development
John, where is it supposed to be sited then?
and I would be irresponsible if I did support it as an environmentalist, Park Board Commissioner, and Minneapolis citizen.
You might want to strike "environmentalist" from that list.
From upriver in Hawthorne,
Dyna Sluyter
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.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
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
