Could you name some names here?  Who are the "creators of LRT and its
proposed TOD communities"?  How are they affecting this process?  What
reasons are they giving for their actions and in what forums did they do
this in?

Carol Becker
Longfellow


----- Original Message -----
From: Annie Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 1:35 AM
Subject: Many Rivers


> The word on the street here in Phillips is the main reason Many Rivers is
> having problems is due to the concern by creators of LRT and its proposed
> TOD communities that they don't really want large families, especially
> those of color living near these new fancy stations. What's even more
> "crazy" is that in East Phillips, just a stone's throw down the street
from
> Many Rivers, there are plans to rehab and build 4 and 5 bedroom places for
> our large hispanic and somalian families. Are they going to tell us "no"
to
> those also.
> With two LRT stops on the eastern border of Phillips there will be the
pull
> to do the mixed use Hollman decree type developments. our question - how
> will those new urban villages meet the needs of the residents who already
> live here in the old urban village?
> And as far as knowing the answers about density and LRT  - since the
> impacts will not be significantly noticeable for the first few years (5-7)
> but by years 30 - 50 years out seems to be what all this urban planners
are
> saying... then this is a lot of blind faith being put into the marketing
> numbers put out for the needs of the LRT to work over that period of time.
> I ramble - but it will be interesting to know the real reasons about Many
> Rivers - anybody want to bet on this being an ideal environmental,
economic
> or social justice battle.
> Annie Young
>
>
>
>
> Annie Young
> In 1919 (80 years ago) it was written.
> The rich are still lining their pockets at the expense of the poor.
> And in 2019 what will they write???
> The rich are still lining their pockets at the expense of the poor.
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to