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

[Dyna Sluyter]

On Thursday, June 3, 2004, at 10:37 AM, Svattheriver at aol.com wrote:

> 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.

	John, if that's true it's refreshing to hear, but the billion dollar 
plan is still on the city's website and I can only assume that that 
plan to level block after block of the Northside is still the goal.

> Dyna: the Upper Harbor has been badly managed and  neglected.

	Agreed.

> 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.

	Which amounts to neglect.

> 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.

	There has also been foundry coal, salt, and many other commodities 
shipped through the Port of Minneapolis. And even the little two barge 
tows are taking hundreds of trucks off our crumbling streets.

> 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

	The barge traffic has little impact on the health of the river- the 
river ecosystem has long ago adapted and attempts to "restore" the 
river will be fruitless. But the barge traffic has huge effects on the 
economic health of a whole region. Consider the effects of giving the 
NIMBYs there dream at ending river naviagtion- how would the midwest 
get it's crops to markets? Trucks are clearly out of the question- it 
takes nearly a thousand trucks to handle the load carried by one 15 
barge tow. The rail infrastructure paralleling the river could needs 
billions of dollars in rebuilding in environmentally sensitive areas to 
handle the traffic. So for better or worse we are stuck with the 9 foot 
channel.

> 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)

	Which represents a reasonable compromise rather than the urban 
planning gone mad of the city's master plan.

> I have been to the Upper Harbor Terminal, I have been on  a barge.

	So take a look at the railroad on the map and see how CP Rail funnels 
crops from the Dakotas and western Minnesota into the Northside. Then 
note that unlike BNSF and UP, CP welcomes interchange from other 
railroads and thusly is also the outlet for TC&W, Minnesota Prairie 
Line, Sisseton & Milbank, and probably a few other shortlines I forgot. 
If you're a co-op elevator on these lines that serve western Minnesota 
and the Dakotas you are captive to that network of railroads and the 
only feasible outlet for your crops is through North Minneapolis to the 
river. Then follow the river south and see the horrendous condition of 
the tracks south of Savanna- in no way could those tracks handle the 
barge's volume without extensive upgrading. Also note the narrowness of 
the gorges- do you really want them desecrated to allow double tracking 
in area of such great natural beauty?

> 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.

	Thanks for letting us know that those of us who live and work along 
the river have no voice in these decisions.

> 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.

	Sadly we have probably reached the point where we can no longer expand 
the park system's turf.

> 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.

	Which should be the model for a river front revival instead of the 
city's "clear cutting" master plan.

> 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.

	I was referring to the fact that a lot of the river front is filled 
in- for example I remember the river in front of the Park Board's 
offices being filled with what appeared to be dredgings around 1970 or 
so. The land the building actually sits on may be fill made of clinkers 
and such from when that site was the CNW coach yard. So if we're going 
to "restore" the river the Park Board can start by tearing down their 
offices....

	from 3 blocks from where the river used to be and 4 blocks away from 
where it is now on the Northside,

		Dyna Sluyter