[Mpls] Re: Fantasy Group Needs New Members: Above the Falls Citizen Advis...

[Svattheriver at aol.com]

Again I welcome interest and debate about the Upper River and upper river  
development.
Dyna Sluyter has responded to my attempts to address her questions and I  
would like to answer her comments. I have a feeling I won't be getting the  last 
word on this.
Dyna suggests that we go back to the drawing board.
I think that this is on the drawing board and we need to draw the  future of 
the River.

Dyna: the Upper Harbor has been badly managed and  neglected.
I believe that The City paid $500,000 to reacquire land that it sold  for a 
dollar- that doesn't sound like great management and it is current city  policy 
not put additional money into the Harbor.
It seems odd, but I think that coal that is off loaded at the  harbor then 
goes by truck to the St. Paul Campus (downriver) to their heating  plant.
What I was saying about dredge material is-
I don't think there is anything preventing the City from closing the  Harbor 
if they have an alternate site for dredge material - like the site  under the 
35W bridge. 
I love seeing the Patrick Gannoway and the Minneapolis pushing barges up  
(and down river) and I have been accustomed to these lakes we have made out  of 
this river. In the big picture, the health of the river has more impact  than 
the barge traffic for the working class (or the non working class). The  river 
has more economic impact as a river than as a road. I do know people  who make 
their living from commerce on the river.
_http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/docs/poolplans/EPP_Dec2003.pdf_ 
(http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/docs/poolplans/EPP_Dec2003.pdf)    is an Army Corps study to  
both keep barge traffic and restore a more  natural and healthy River (Pool 1)
I have been to the Upper Harbor Terminal, I have been on  a barge.
Dyna says:
So could we Northsiders make these decisions ourselves without the  
inevitable meddling of the more gentrified neighborhoods who think they  
know what's best for us?
Probably not because your section of the river is part of the National  Park 
Service- Minnesota National River and Recreation Area, part of the DNR  
critical area plan, a regional and city amenity. There are Northsiders working  on 
this.
Dyna says: The Park Board can't afford to maintain what they already  have. 
Right and I want them to acquire 90 more acres and take them off the tax  
roles. We wouldn't have a Park system if we hadn't answered this question. The  
maintenance is a very real and very challenging question and is maybe the  
biggest problem to solve. But I believe it is solvable.
Dyna says: Given that the plan calls for leveling GAF, is this a waste  of 
money 
or admission that the plan is being abandoned?
It is a thirty year plan involving willing sellers. GAF isn't going  anywhere 
soon and they are willing to work with us to improve their landscaping  to 
improve water Quality.

Dyna says: Does your committee even  know where the original riverbank is?
According to Barr Engineering there is a lot of fill, debris, garbage, and  
some polluted soil covering the original riverbank in the Phase 1 area,  
requiring filtration ponds rather than infiltration ponds. The Hawthorne Area  
Community Council has been active on watershed issues for more than a  decade.

Thanks,
Scott Vreeland  Seward- the home of many  meddlers