On 7/14/04 10:22 AM, "Ron Lischeid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The difference here is that the noise insulation program is not funded by > tax money- it is paid for by Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) which is a > surcharge attached to tickets of passengers using MSP- those that use the > airport and the services of the airlines that serve MSP pay a small fee to > help reduce the pollution that their use of the airport creates- and it > should be pointed out the these PFC's have no impact on Northwest's or any > other airlines bottom lines- this is a dedicated funding source created to > finance the sound insulation program. Users of the airport, not the > airlines and not the taxpayers, pay for the program. I appreciate Ron pointing out this detail. I do have a question so I can make sure I'm clear on how this works. Was this PFC set up specifically for the insulation program, or is it money the MAC can use for other projects, which is how it sounds based on other posts on this discussion? > This will be atleast the third time that I have made this suggestion: > Why not add some fee (like a $1.00 a gallon) to every drop of paint sold in > Minnesota as a dedicated funding source for lead paint abatement- when all > of the lead paint has been eliminated, eliminate the funding source. This > ties the solution of the problem to the original source of the problem. This can be a good approach for dealing with pollution concerns. A similar proposal has been made in some places for dealing with waste electronics that need to be recycled rather than sent to a landfill or incinerator because they contain toxic metals. The difference is that in the case of waste electronics or the PFC, the funds are designated to go to deal with existing waste/pollution. In the suggestion Ron makes, buyers of new paint that does not contain lead or cause the problems associated with lead-based paint would be paying for cleaning up "legacy" pollution from more than 20 years ago. Some would argue that's not very fair. That's one reason why the approach Greg Luce mentioned about a $3 per unit annual fee on rental properties might make more sense. Even if the current owner(s) of a rental property did not apply the lead-based paint that is now causing problems, they assumed responsibility for the property when they purchased it. In addition, they are the ones who profit from the property. Also consider that the program had a goal of helping improve rental properties, as was explicitly stated in the proposed ordinance language, should very well be paid for through a fee on those who will most benefit from this program. The property owners would have more than recouped the $3 they spent per unit through increasing values in their properties when they've been made lead-safe and even those who owner properties that were already lead-safe would benefit from an overall improvement in the valuation of rental properties, even if not as directly as those who would utilize the programs. I thought it was an stunningly shortsighted move by the rental property owners who opposed this idea and it was disappointing that the mayor and certain city council members did not show the fortitude to stand up to those shortsighted rental property owners who could not see just how much of a benefit this program would have been for them compared to it's small cost. For example, the owner(s) of a 24-unit property would have paid an extra $72 a year to gain access to a program that would have saved them thousands in abatement costs through matching grants and services provided. But like Greg Luce said, it's not so much about the amount of money spent or envy because noise pollution is being addressed or whether the mayor cares enough about environmental issues facing the city. It's about priorities. Things like lead and mold exposure need to be a higher priority for this city and it's leaders, even if the folks most affected by it don't have the level of influence that residents living near the airport have. Mark Snyder Windom Park 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
