David Brauer writes: >"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.)"
I am bothered by the idea "has to spend the money somewhere". It's as if some believe the money somehow comes down from God, and if we don't spend it will just decay and become ruined, so lets spend it all. Similar ideas account in large measure for the bulging waist lines of Americans and the bulging budgets of government entities. It also accounts for some of our priorities and possibly the wasting of what limited resources we now have. While I truly feel for those who built and bought houses before the Airport was in full operation, I must say there are other environmental impacts and even greater needs in some other areas. Our priorities give a great deal of insight into the term "social justice". We seem far more willing to consider and increase the comfort level of fairly well off people than we are to consider and address the sometimes life and death (and life damaging) impacts to poor children and those living in poor, older, neighborhoods. I know some are going to be shocked, and I must bite my tongue a little, but I have to agree with Greg Luce. (There, I've said it, I admit I agree with Luce on somethings. It was hard to do, but it had to be done!) There are other environmental problems that deeply affect our children. Greg is correct "Lead" is a major one. Another is mold and mildew. How much damage in terms of morbidity have just these two environmental hazards caused, let alone the reduction in quality of life for the unfortunate victims. I know that mold and mildew is considered a leading cause of missed days of school and missed work days. Lead costs are more than just present mitigation, the social costs and the real dollar costs to us all is staggering when compared to the cost of noise from the airport. Very, very, few people live in homes in the affected areas that were occupying those same homes prior to 1965. I dare say that most people either built or bought those homes long after the airport was in full swing. Some people have gotten marvelous deals from those who chose to move from the noise. It has given homeownership opportunities in that area for some who would not otherwise have them. The one area that does support Greg's concerns is the replacement of windows. Since those houses were built well before 1978 they also had lead problems. Greg can take solace that the replacement of the windows for more sound resistant models also removes a major source for lead poisoning. Though I think what Greg is thinking of is the many, many, more that could be helped with those same resources in poor areas. Poor areas without the where-with-all themselves. That being said, one still must consider the social "contract" and the promises. But as Terrell Brown has accurately pointed out there are other promises that were made to get elected. Promises that have been partially or totally ignored after the election. And especially in Minneapolis! I remember a promise to "Fully Fund" NRP, and an attack on a Mayor who only wanted to cut NRP somewhat. I believe that promise played a major part in the defeat of the old Mayor. I remember a promise to Neighborhoods to give them more power and input into City planning decisions and policy. How did that promise and social contract end up? Remember the promise to not allow the erosion of essential city services such as police on the streets. What happened to that one? How does cutting the Police Department by 130 officers from that already understaffed Police Force increase police service to poor communities? Inquiring minds want to know. Yes indeed, we have a lot of promises that need to be worked on before the next election. But back to Greg's priority, LEAD. I wonder what a parent living in a house in Richfield would set as a priority if faced with it? The sound of jet engines, or a child with mental deficiencies caused by lead? Which do you think a parent would chose to spend the same dollars on if this horror of a choice HAD to be made? Which would you choose? Mental damage to his or her child (or yours) or the comforts of reducing airport noise. We probably should all think of those priorities, and role take just a little, when we talk about distributing "OUR" tax dollars. Taxes on airline tickets are "taxes". We can call them "user fees", but they are taxes. Ron Lischeid is on the right track about a tax on paint, but how about the lead in the inner-city, deposited by automobile exhaust from leaded gas. Would a "user fee" on present cars and gasoline (for past lead pollution) be good idea? Now you are talking real tax dollars for lead abatement. While we may get a lot from God, those tax dollars come from us, so lets "US" spend them wisely. Jim Graham, Ventura Village, Phillips Community Planning District, Sixth Ward of Minneapolis >"The attempt to close the gap between what is known and what IS, is the temptation behind the apple in Genesis." - Barry Lopez 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
