In a message dated 11/28/01 12:03:43 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
Ummm...Keith?
I'm presuming you've visited the riverfront lately. If so, you should be
fully
aware that there are quite a few stake holders "present to monitor
conditions
and speak with a clear voice" in this area already, especially where the
Xcel
Riverside coal plant is located. There are people living in houses across
the
street from the Riverside plant. Having JADT build a bunch of townhouses at
the
Riverview site isn't going to contribute any additional monitoring unless
you're
figuring on some of those folks moving in to have stack testing equipment
and a
willingness to trespass on Xcel's property to use it.
>>>snip>>>>>KEITH reply to above starts below<<<
Keith responds: NO, I just expect that the hundreds of new resident/home
owners at the proposed Riverview site will add their eyes, ears, noses,
brains and voices to the mix of stake holders you mention existing north of
the Riverview site. They won't need stack testing equipment, nor need to
trespass, as you mention. They will reside near and have a natural concern
for the great river and great park that will be their front yard, wouldn't
you?
<<< snip/end of Keith comment/back to Snyder/below>>>>snip>>
Also, your description of JADT building "many new housing units and a big
park"
is only half-correct. Yes, there will be many housing units. However,
there
would be only a small strip of land remaining for a possible park - not
enough
to make any investment in a park worthwhile. And weren't you the person who
was
recently questioning who would even visit a park located in this area since
it
was so isolated and potentially unsafe? I noticed you didn't have anything
to
say when I responded to your post about that. I can certainly resend that
response to you if you happened to miss it.
<<<<snip/ Keith responds below to Snyder comment above>>>>
Please resend the e-mail if the verbiage is more compelling then this load,
but don't misinterpret me again, please. I still believe I am All correct in
my assertion that a great park is hard-wired into the JADT plan for the
Riverview site. The JADT park proposal is perhaps a more useful, more visited
and utilized plan then the larger, and less watched site would be without the
housing component. Also Mr. Snyder, I did not at all Question the need for a
park, nor did JADT, when they dedicated over half their land for a great
park. And it will have visitors. I strongly suggest to all stake holders in
the communities what I mentioned before: Home owners adjacent to this great
park will help define and secure this space for mom, dad, the kids and all
other naturalists who wish to visit and enjoy this remarkable site again and
again.
<<< Snip-- Back to Snyder comment below>>>snip
And in response to your statement, "The best outcomes for the river will be
the
best outcomes for these new stakeholders. Think about it.", I respectfully
suggest you think about this: An extremely diverse group of nearby
residents,
business owners and regular visitors to this area have stated that they feel
this site is best utilized as a park. This group over the years has rarely
come
to consensus on anything before yet they all agree on this.
<<<Snip--Keith responds to above by saying below>>>snip
I reiterate my "best outcomes" statement you quote above, thank you. As to
the, " ... extremely diverse group of nearby residents, business owners and
regular visitors..." feelings you allude to in your extreme argument against
sharing the land with JADT (which JADT owns and you Don't) I disagree with
your polling outcome. I may also disagree with your polling practice, here is
why. As to "nearby residents," did you count the fact that Jordan, Hawthorne,
and Near North neighborhoods all showed support for the JADT plan as
presented and approved by the West Broadway Area Coalition? You should know
that these neighborhood groups are voting participants in our WBAC. As to
your assertion that "business owner" support is against the housing, I would
like to inform you that the WBBA, our West Broadway Business assoc., voted
support for the JADT proposal both on it's own and as part of the WBAC
resolution (it is a voting member there). Finally, as to "regular visitors"
you mention; you are vague but I will assert that our regular visitors want a
park, AND HOUSING OPTIONS NOW. We are all for parks so please don't tell
others we are not. We simply have learned, through hard lessons, the
importance of building-in safety to maximize use and benefit for all. I also
will cautiously comment on what I may call the Plantation perspective that
other portions of the city seem to apply toward my Northwest Quadrant, the
Northside. We need, deserve, and demand all types of new commercial, housing,
and economic development on our west side of the river. We will define what
is optimal for us using the democratic mechanisms we have cultivated and put
in place. We will attempt to utilize our communities human resources for
these projects to help create jobs and an engine of economic opportunity. Mr.
Tim Baylor of JADT is a prime and proven current example of the copious human
capital we have here on the North side. We understand clearly the importance
of our great riverfront to our neighborhood, our city and the rest of the
metro area. Please consider that we have studied our area's needs. Then
please consider that our neighborhoods, business assoc. and the West Broadway
Area Coalition support the JADT housing and park plan. Finally, we must be
allowed the weight in the final decision that is our right. We are no longer
spare parts, the 'B' side, or a plantation for the rest of the city. And our
plan is great!
<<<snip,,,back to Snyder below>>>
A park is also the preferred use stated in the City of Minneapolis Upper
Mississippi Master Plan, a
document that is supposed to be guiding the future of this area. The area
is of
such significance that both the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
and
the United States Congress have committed a total of $1.35 million dollars
towards acquiring this land for a park.
In conclusion, it's pretty obvious that there's a whole lot of people that
want
a park here. Is there anyone on this Forum who is aware of any folks
besides
JADT and apparently Keith Reitman who are clamoring for this area to be used
for
housing?
Mark Snyder
Ward 1/Windom Park
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keith Says: I think I have addressed what I consider the above
exaggerations such as that just JADT and I alone, support the housing
development component of the JADT plan. Or the "mom and apple pie allegation"
that JADT or Keith are against parks. Let other expert opinion makers further
discuss the Upper River Plan and it's application.
Keith Reitman, Near North, See you at the park or on West Broadway shopping
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
