Re: [Mpls] Mission to destroy our biosphere

[MnGus]

The question stands. How is our government trying to destroy the biosphere, �
or on a smaller level, what are the city governments
anti-environmental�policies?

Tom Holtzleiter responded:

>In my opinion, it all comes down to money. What we do as a society is�
>based around what makes money. That's the idea of the Target subsidy�
>downtown, or Block E or whatever. It's all a skeme to make more money in�
>the end.�

From the looks of my tax statement the government is doing a pretty lousy job
of making money if that is "what it all comes down to." I don't quite see
this as government policy.

>The main problem with this is that the environment gets left in the dust.
We�
>concentrate more on what is profitable than what is right or balanced. To�
>date the vast majority of our environmental policies is based on oops we�
>messed that up...what can we do to fix it?

Again I am not sure government makes decisions based on what is profitable,
but the cost they have to pay is an issue. As a taxpayer I appreciate
governments occasional attempts to watch the budget. If I interpret your post
correctly you think we should make policy based on what is "right or
balanced." Sounds good to me. Who gets to determine what is right and
balanced?  Perhaps if you don't like the current politicians interpretation
of right and balanced you should help elect someone
you agree with.

As to your comment that our current environmental policy is "oops we messed
up... what can we do to fix it?" I think this is an area that we have come a
long way in working to improve. Have you ever heard of an environmental
impact statement?  Do you realize when any commercial building is sold, and
often just refinanced, that an environmental study has to be done? The fact
that we do make environmental mistakes, and that we then say oops lets
correct them, is a far cry from a government with a mission to destroy the
biosphere. If I interpret you correctly the government doesn't have a policy
that is anti-environmental, it just screws up a lot. So your recommendation
would be that we make sure our government doesn't screw up?
Once again, sounds good to me. Lets make it a policy.

>I think this is what people really hate. Sure we get drainage ponds that
*help*
>clean up road run-off and it's better than it used to be a few years ago,
but it�
>usually is still worse than before we started our projects.

So what is your policy statement? Are we supposed to stop all projects? Are
we to tear up all roads so there is no run off?

>So now we have it...A highway through a park, all because we as a city were
>too cheap to spend 15 Million, and wait a few years to keep the road at
it's�
>original route.�

I assume that in your opinion the right and balanced approach would have been
to spend the extra 15 million and wait four years, as well as ignore the
earlier citizen committee recommendations. Lets follow the money for a
minute. Fifteen million dollars almost equals a years worth of contribution
to NRP. Fifteen million dollars almost equals the annual allotment of the
city to net debt bonds for capital improvements and maintenance. In my mind
the balanced approach was followed. I would rather see the money in NRP and
capital improvements. NRP lets citizens in neighborhoods throughout the city
decide what is right and balanced in their neighborhood.

Bob Gustafson
13th