The perfect can be the enemy of the good.
On Jul 14, 2004, at 9:32 AM, Terrell Brown wrote:
Aint gonna happen. The legislature and Gov. Carlson made the decision to keep the current airport (with a promise of insulating out to 60 DNL), and after $3 billion in "upgrades," there's no way the money "saved" by breaking the insulation promise will be spent on a new facility. Absolutely no chance.
Does it make sense to invest in noise mitigation for marginally effected homes (the serious problems having already been addressed) when that money could be spent on the development of a new airport? I�m not sure it does.
Given the limits of available money, I�d rather spend it on a permanent solution than a stopgap measure.
Bottom line: the MAC has to spend the money somewhere. Better on the people affected by noise than on a facility that's already overbuilt (and it is overbuilt, in gates, parking, etc.)
David Brauer Kingfield Unaffected by the MAC's decision (outside any insulation zone)m
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
