Remember: our rules allow pointed disagreement, but require respectful discussion.
--
I appreciated Steve Brandt's overall comprehensive and insightful
article about the recent history of the camp coldwater/highway 55
struggle. There were a couple of points that could use clarification.
Brandt excerpt:
> Protests against the reroute of Hwy. 55 north of the spring initially
> focused
> more on trees and parks than on the largely invisible and highly
> technical issue of whether the highway's sewers would divert ground
> water.
The spring was a central concern and focus of those involved in the
struggle, at least since my familiarity and involvement in August,
1998. The trees received more public attention because they were being
cut down, and protesters therefore occupied the trees. The litigation
that was initiated to challenge the project in 1998-1999 focused on the
trees solely because the Native American and activist groups lacked the
substantial funding that was needed to hire an expert to provide an
opinion about the danger to the flow of the spring. Craig Larson's
recent post detailed how necessary studies cost tens of thousands of
dollars. As a result, the opinions provided by MN Dot's hired experts
could not be challenged in any credible way. This situation provides
important lessons of the inadequacy, unfairness and dangers of the
environmental protection laws allow an agency with a predetermined
agenda to provide information that is taken at face value. Various
administrators and judges readily accepted MN Dot's representations for
many years - representations that could easily exposed be as false as
soon as necessary financial resources were available.
Brandt excerpt:
> An earlier drive to pass a Coldwater protection law by a small group of
> reroute opponents who focused on water issues stalled for two years
>when a
> rogue protester damaged the cause in 1999 by throwing a pie in the
>face of a
> state senator.
This places very exagerated and unfair fault on this one "rogue
protester" [who had previously given all his time and energy to the
cause]. A Coldwater protection law did not pass a couple of years ago
because there were key legislators who were opposed. (I also do not
believe that the originally proposed law had the teeth to protect the
spring - someone could possibly verify this). The pie-throwing incident
provided a convenient excuse to dismiss the issue, but the reality is
that a decision had been made to bury the bill. It took two years of
persistence by a dedicated group of activists to educate and gain enough
political support.
Jordan Kushner
Powderhorn
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
