So now the construction of an unnecessary highway at the expense of many
hundreds of trees, relatively unspoiled urban parkland next to an
important and threatened river, culturally and historically sensitive
lands, and dozens of affordable houses is pro-environment? what classic
political doublespeak!
Pam Blixt asserted:
>
> Supporting a highway project does not preclude being concerned about the
> environment. In fact, this project improved the environment in a number of
> significant ways. It now cleans up all highway water before it enters either
> Minnehaha Creek or the River. It has provided a critter/greenway corridor
> under roadways where none previously existed. It has removed homes from the
> flood plain. It has provided a transit corridor opportunity. It will
> provide for increased infill and brown field clean up as redevelopment
> occurs instead of sprawl. These are good things!
All of these "good things" (it is not conceded that the removal of the
houses is a good thing) could and should have been done without the new
highway. The problem is the political manipulation that propoganda that
the construction of the highway was somehow needed to build lightrail,
clean up drainage or create more greenspace. All of this could have
been done better if there was no highway destroying . As for the
removal of houses from a floodplain, I am at a loss to understand the
logic of how the construction of a huge enclosed cement path with
thousands of additional pollution-causing vehicles everyday, is
preferable.
Another fundamentally flawed assertion is that the highway will promote
redevelopment instead of sprawl. The function of the highway is to make
it slightly faster for thousands of cars to travel between the airport
and downtown Minneapolis, and between the southeastern suburbs and
downtown. The function of the new highway is to faciliate further
development in the suburbs and the downtown central business district -
it is all about enhancing sprawl.
There was already a Highway 55 that was very efficient for traveling
within city limits, and adequate for travelling to and from the airport
and southeastern suburbs. This road could have been improved without
the all the environmental harm. Light rail, while being more needed in
a more heavily populated corridor, could have still been created in the
Highway 55 corridor without the new higway with far less environmental
damage and without the threat to the spring.
It is a fundanmental principle of urban planning that more highways
create more traffic. I suggest that driving on the new Highway 55 at
any time of day or early evening will confirm this principle. (That has
been my experience).
>
> All public officials must make tough decisions that will not be unanimoulsy
> popular. That is part of the job and those decisons should be viewed in
> context of the whole, rather than a narrow lens, of what was the right
> things to do for the area and the best decison for most of the people.
This is rather hollow. The real questions are who are the public
officials listening to and for whose benefit. The Highway 55 project
was a typical example of the critical mass of current local officials
who are only responsive to the demands of corporate developers and
virtually oblivious to any genuine community needs that conflict with
these demands.
While the 11th hour concern for the spring is certainly needed, the
threat was always known. Although the enviroment surrounding the spring
will never again have integrity and will probably always cause it
danger, hopefully it is not too late to allow the spring to at least
survive.
Jordan Kushner
Powderhorn
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
