Lynnell Mickelsen wrote:
And either way, it's a legitimate issue. Betsy Hodge's postcard on
this was pretty straightforward and measured, with the "just the facts,
m'am" kind of tone. Hodges thinks Lisa voted on the wrong side of this
one. You can agree or disagree. But it's hardly "sleazy" to raise the
subject and there was nothing personal in it against Lisa McDonald].
I have not seen Betsy Hodges postcard. Assuming that the quote from it by Eva
Young was correct -- and no one has said otherwise -- here is my problem with it:
Hodges' statement is a lie. All one has to do is read the text of the
resolution the city council passed to see that it contains language in direct,
polar opposition to what Hodges' statement claims.
Hodges' statement claims the resolution is "without any protections for our
neighborhoods." On the contrary, the resolution says, among other things:
"Be it Resolved ... That should the State Legislature determine
there will be no new airport in the region at this
time, construction of the North-South runway
should begin as soon as possible as a means of
providing noise relief to South Minneapolis
through more equitable use of all runways at the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport..."
CJ: This clause supports reducing the amount of air traffic over south and
southwest Minneapolis by moving some of it to a south-bound and south-arrival
only north-south runway, and predicates that on what the State and MAC
decides. The City has no authority to decide anything with respect to where
the airport is, or what size it is. Therefore, this is the best they can do.
Further, below, the City supports the north-south runway ONLY if a binding
commitment from MAC, the FAA and the State is made to not build a third
parallel runway. It is the 2 existing parallel runways which send traffic
over Minneapolis.
"Be It Further Resolved that the City's support
for providing noise relief though construction of
the North-South runway is predicated upon a
binding commitment from the MAC, FAA and the
State Legislature that a third northern parallel
runway will never be built. Said support is further
conditioned as follows:
1. MAC and FAA's agreement to place the
land, under which a potential northern third
parallel runway might be constructed, into a
Federal Conservation Land Trust or other such
land use designation which would prevent its use
for air side operations.
2. The MAC wail remove any reference to the
third parallel runway from its planning documents
and from its recommendations to the State
Legislature."
CJ: Moreover, the Resolution also contains this clause making the any City
support for the north-south runway based upon MAC doing sound insulation,
reducing night time flights and a variety of other measures designed to
protect Minneapolis residents.
"3. Development of a comprehensive
community mitigation plan for the area
surrounding MSP. This must include a monetary
commitment by MAC to insulate homes within the
Ld 60 contour; establishment of nighttime flight
restrictions over residential property; prohibition
of a "back-door" to the airport on Cedar Avenue; ,
tax incentives to stabilize properties within the'
noise area; home value guarantee program; and
other potential community-and-tax-revenue stabilizing
program, must be funded by the State,
MAC and the airlines."
CJ: The Resolution does EXACTLY what Hodges claims it does NOT do. The
language is so clear that to state otherwise to a third party, as the campaign
lit piece does, is simply to tell a lie.
Up until this issue, I felt comfortable with having either Hodges or McDonald
elected to represent me in the 13 Ward. I supported Hodges in the DFL
caucuses. I spoke with her a couple of times and liked what she had to say.
There are legitimate differences between the two which may cause one to
support one or the other, but claiming McDonald did not protect our
neighborhoods from the airport is patently false.
I am horribly disappointed in Betsy Hodges. I had not yet decided how I would
vote on November 8. Now, the only way I would vote for Betsy Hodges if she
indeed issues an apology and retraction in a quick and forthright manner.
Chris Johnson
Fulton
*Note: any weird language from the City Resolution is a result of doing
computerized character recognition on the original printed document which was
not caught by my spell checker or my reading. You can read a copy of the
document here: http://lisamcdonald.org/airport_resolution.pdf
--
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
