[Mpls] Re: MACs broken promises

[David Brauer]

The perfect can be the enemy of the good.

On Jul 14, 2004, at 9:32 AM, Terrell Brown wrote:
>
> Does it make sense to invest in noise mitigation for marginally
> effected homes (the serious problems having already been addressed)
> when that money could be spent on the development of a new airport?
> I’m not sure it does.
>
> Given the limits of available money, I’d rather spend it on a permanent
> solution than a stopgap measure.
>
Aint gonna happen. The legislature and Gov. Carlson made the decision 
to keep the current airport (with a promise of insulating out to 60 
DNL), and after $3 billion in "upgrades," there's no way the money 
"saved" by breaking the insulation promise will be spent on a new 
facility. Absolutely no chance.

Bottom line: the MAC has to spend the money somewhere. Better on the 
people affected by noise than on a facility that's already overbuilt 
(and it is overbuilt, in gates, parking, etc.)

David Brauer
Kingfield
Unaffected by the MAC's decision (outside any insulation zone)m