(http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/solid-waste/city-county.asp) (as of Oct. 27,
2011) states that construction work for the relocation of the Southside Waste
Transfer Station, along with the addition of a new County household hazardous
waste facility, is expected to begin at 27th and University in Northeast
Minneapolis in the spring of 2012. As has been previously discussed on this
forum, over the last year this proposal has generated considerable opposition
and controversy in Northeast Minneapolis. A group of area residents formed the
organization ‘Don’t Dump on Northeast’ (DDONE) and have questioned the wisdom
of placing such a facility directly adjacent to residences and have challenged
whether the location has the proper zoning. Six City-recognized neighborhood
associations have taken official stands against the proposal. City code
requires waste transfer stations to have the most intensive (I-3) industrial
zoning. However, the proposed site is only zoned I-2 (medium industrial). In
response, the City has adopted new rhetoric and now refers to the proposal as a
‘recycling center.’
In a September 30th Star Tribune article about the court challenge to the
zoning that DDONE and 19 individuals (including myself) initiated earlier in
the month, City Attorney Susan Segal was quoted as saying, “the city will move
to dismiss the lawsuit because no application is yet pending for the facility
with the city.” This is a similar line to previous statements of Ward 1 Council
Member Kevin Reich who has said that the review process that the neighborhood
groups conducted was premature since the site plan is not yet finalized.
No plan? There seems to be enough of a plan that the City spent approximately
$2 million in taxpayer funds to acquire the property earlier this year.
Presumably, staff, who would have conducted a due diligence review in advance
of the purchase, had some fairly detailed knowledge of the plans for the
facility. Enough details about the project were available to have a
comprehensive (if flawed) traffic study done some time ago that included
detailed projections of the number of vehicles that would use the facility.
Enough of a plan for the City to initiate a review process for neighborhood
organizations with a first round of informational meetings well over a year ago
(and then to quickly try to put the brakes on that process once the extent of
neighborhood opposition became clear). While a final plan may contain a few
unknown ‘bells and whistles’ (perhaps a border of native prairie grass and
wildflowers? murals? rain gardens?) this is unlikely to change the fundamentals
of the plan which have long been known and were the basis for the City’s
decision to acquire the property.
So, the City is stating on its website that construction is to start next
Spring at the same time its own lawyers are preparing to state in court that
there is no basis for a complaint because there is no application for the
facility? What then exactly is going on? Over the last year practically all
of the senior City staff responsible for this poorly conceived proposal seem to
have either been transferred, resigned or been fired. The City seems to be
reeling and unable to even proceed with the most basic communications or any
coherent public statement about this proposal. By its rhetorical redefinition
of the proposal as solely a recycling center, it also may well have so boxed
itself in that it will be unable to proceed with the project as currently
conceived -- as would be required for a move of the Southside Station or the
involvement of Hennepin County in establishing a hazardous waste facility at
the site.
It is time (well past time, actually) that our community get some answers.
What exactly is the status of the project?
If it is to proceed in the Spring of 2012, when exactly is a final site plan
going to be ready?
Does this proposal still include, as stated on the City’s website, the move of
the Southside Transfer Station? If so, how can City staff possibly think that
this can be legally justified as just a recycling center? (According to the
City’s own statistics, only about 1/3 of the materials at the Southside
Transfer Station are recycled). It is worth noting that in a hearing on the
zoning issue earlier this year, several City Council members who voted to
support the zoning determination stated that they did so on the understanding
that this really is to be a recycling (not a waste transfer) facility. Words
were said that will surely come back to haunt certain City staff should this
proposal actually get to the stage of an application for a required conditional
use permit.
Once there is a final site plan, what is the process for citizen and
neighborhood review going to be? Is our Ward 1 Council Member committed to a
full process of neighborhood review for this project? In light of the stated
Spring, 2012 construction start date, what is the timeline for this review
process? If such a process fails to convince area neighborhood groups to
support this proposal what happens then?
Does the City really want to go to court and claim, with a straight face, that
all current citizen and neighborhood opposition, and the legal challenge, are
illegitimate because there is “no application for the facility” -- at the same
time its own website says that construction is to start in a few months? Why
not just address the substantive issues of the legal challenge now? After all,
even on the chance that the City was to prevail on its argument and get the
complaint dismissed, it would at best just be giving itself a short reprieve
until a final 'rebranded' plan is released. At which time it will again be
vulnerable to all of the same well-reasoned arguments about the zoning code
that are contained in the current complaint. Unless, of course, it really is on
the verge of a major rethinking of this whole project concept.
It’s time for the City (or the few proponents for this that are left among City
staff) to face reality, stop wasting their time and our money, and give up on
the current plan. The opponents—who have won every neighborhood vote that has
taken place in Northeast by substantial margins--aren’t going away. Every step
of the process is going to be under intense scrutiny. We have a strong and
compelling legal argument and a substantial majority of our community on our
side and we are going to prevail.
Bruce Shoemaker