Again I welcome interest and debate about the Upper River and upper river development. Dyna Sluyter has responded to my attempts to address her questions and I would like to answer her comments. I have a feeling I won't be getting the last word on this. Dyna suggests that we go back to the drawing board. I think that this is on the drawing board and we need to draw the future of the River.
Dyna: the Upper Harbor has been badly managed and neglected. I believe that The City paid $500,000 to reacquire land that it sold for a dollar- that doesn't sound like great management and it is current city policy not put additional money into the Harbor. It seems odd, but I think that coal that is off loaded at the harbor then goes by truck to the St. Paul Campus (downriver) to their heating plant. What I was saying about dredge material is- I don't think there is anything preventing the City from closing the Harbor if they have an alternate site for dredge material - like the site under the 35W bridge. I love seeing the Patrick Gannoway and the Minneapolis pushing barges up (and down river) and I have been accustomed to these lakes we have made out of this river. In the big picture, the health of the river has more impact than the barge traffic for the working class (or the non working class). The river has more economic impact as a river than as a road. I do know people who make their living from commerce on the river. _http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/docs/poolplans/EPP_Dec2003.pdf_ (http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/docs/poolplans/EPP_Dec2003.pdf) is an Army Corps study to both keep barge traffic and restore a more natural and healthy River (Pool 1) I have been to the Upper Harbor Terminal, I have been on a barge. Dyna says: So could we Northsiders make these decisions ourselves without the inevitable meddling of the more gentrified neighborhoods who think they know what's best for us? Probably not because your section of the river is part of the National Park Service- Minnesota National River and Recreation Area, part of the DNR critical area plan, a regional and city amenity. There are Northsiders working on this. Dyna says: The Park Board can't afford to maintain what they already have. Right and I want them to acquire 90 more acres and take them off the tax roles. We wouldn't have a Park system if we hadn't answered this question. The maintenance is a very real and very challenging question and is maybe the biggest problem to solve. But I believe it is solvable. Dyna says: Given that the plan calls for leveling GAF, is this a waste of money or admission that the plan is being abandoned? It is a thirty year plan involving willing sellers. GAF isn't going anywhere soon and they are willing to work with us to improve their landscaping to improve water Quality. Dyna says: Does your committee even know where the original riverbank is? According to Barr Engineering there is a lot of fill, debris, garbage, and some polluted soil covering the original riverbank in the Phase 1 area, requiring filtration ponds rather than infiltration ponds. The Hawthorne Area Community Council has been active on watershed issues for more than a decade. Thanks, Scott Vreeland Seward- the home of many meddlers 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
