To me the building of the dike has been an issue of why should
citizens pay a part of its construction when the benefit will go
only to the business community.
 
I read Kathy Lantry's post regarding the reasoning used by the
"Gang of Four" and I couldn't agree with them more.  Far too often
government will find a way to use money ear marked for another
purpose for its new initiative.  (As an aside, where do you think
the money is coming from for the grants to faith based
organizations?)
 
The Mayor has found money for this project from 3M, a company that,
I assume, will benefit from the flood wall.  An interesting tweak to
this story is that 3M evidently is receiving some St. Paul money in
a grant that may cover the cost of their contribution.  I wish I had
more information on this but I don't.  It just seems to me to be a
bit of quid pro quo. 
 
What bothered me about the Mayor's press conference announcing this
3M contribution was his comment about the city council's blocking
this development.
 
In Jane's post below she raises some issues that haven't been
discussed related to commercial passenger use.  Can someone give me
more information?  I would assume that the airport needs a fire crew
of some sort.  Are the requirements different if an airport has
commercial landings?  As for security, I would expect that something
would need to be beefed up if commercial passenger services were
added.  However, isn't there some sort of security service in place
now?  I would think the danger from a terrorist attack using a
private aircraft or cargo aircraft would be greater then a
commercial passenger aircraft.  What is being done to ensure the
security of these planes/flights?
 
Now for the issue of residents and the flight paths.  When you live
on a bluff above an airport airplanes will fly over your house at a
low level.  Why?  Because as soon as they fly over the bluff they
are another couple of hundred feet above the ground.  As someone who
has spent a whole lot of time in this area, I know that there are
numerous alternatives to flying over Mounds Park and/or West Side
homes.  What I don't know is how difficult an approach parallel to
the river or NNW, between downtown and Metro State is for less
experienced pilots.  This may be the reason there are flights over
Mounds Park.
 
There certainly is no excuse for pilots using a  flight path that
is different from the one filed.  If this is happening residents
have an issue.  However, this is a different issue than the flood
dike and should be kept separate in discussions.
 
Mike Fratto
Payne Phalen
 


>>> "Jane Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/08/2005 4:45:28
PM >>>

To Michelle Hoffman's point, I heartily agree with the notion that
the
Holman Field dike will lead to expansion of air traffic and a
commensurate destruction of our city's quality of life.  

As a 20-year resident of the Mounds Park neighborhood, I have
followed
the issue of airport noise and flight path violations and the past
several years of the MAC's efforts to build a $25-30 million
floodwall
at Holman Field.

There is NO cost-benefit basis for the $30 million floodwall,
unless MAC
is  going to increase air traffic at the downtown airport.  MAC
staff
have been willing to admit at various times that in the near term,
once
the dike is built, cargo traffic will be moved to Holman Field from
MSP
International, to free up tarmac there for commercial airliners.  

In the mid-90s, a small start-up commercial airliner ran two trips
a day
to Midway Airport in Chicago.  Now MAC tells us that Holman will
not be
used for commercial passenger flights because they don't have the
security set-up for passengers and they don't have a fire station
on
site.  I daresay that both of these expenditures are tiny compared
to
that of the floodwall.  

The other day Charlie Swope asked how Mayor Kelly has the power to
act
on airport issues unilaterally without city council participation.

Indeed, how can St. Paul consider the construction of a floodwall
that
will lead to increased air traffic without public study and
discussion? 


The floodwall immediately impacts the river environment, wildlife
habitat, flooding upriver in our own city, and downriver in Newport
and
Hastings, and has been opposed by railroads with tracks adjacent to
the
river. The St. Paul Riverfront Corporation testified during the
EAW
process a couple of years ago that the city should only support
the
construction of the floodwall if the MAC agrees to assist in the
increased cost of flood clean-up at Harriet Island.  

And while cities like Bloomington, Rosemount and Eagan have weighed
in
on expansion or relocation of the current international airport in
their
area, why is St. Paul not entitled to a public process to determine
if
there is support for an expanded use of Holman Field?

Ask any of my neighbors, who can read the wing numbers of the
planes
flying over our houses how responsive the MAC has been on citizen
complaints.  There is no enforcement of the flight paths or concern
for
residential neighborhood complaints, regardless of what the
Pioneer
Press may state.  Citizens stop calling when their calls are
ignored.

St. Paul's RESIDENTS now pay 64 percent of St. Paul's property tax
base.
Why should we be supporting the expansion of an airport that is
going
to reduce the quality of life and property values of our
residential
neighborhoods?  Why is St. Paul not investing in the quality of
life,
safety and beauty of residential neighborhoods who pay the lion's
share
of the city's property taxes?  

While Mayor Kelly and his St. Paul Chamber friends want to expand
airports and freeways where we live, maybe it's time to remind them
who
is paying the bills in St. Paul. 


_____________________________________________
To Join:   St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion
Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST:     [email protected]

To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul

Archive Address:
   http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/

_____________________________________________
To Join:   St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion
Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST:     [email protected]
 
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul

Archive Address:
   http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/

Reply via email to