(and how 'cum no one is talking about pros/cons of streamlining the
environmental impact study process ? ... at end of post ***)
.
in a long, emotional and a bit 'challenging' meeting tonight, the park board
approved the negotiated met council/mprb sw lrt mou.
it wasn't unanimous.
given the incredible pressures brought by the governor, county, met council,
unions and corporations .... tonight's outcome was probably the only one having
the political will of being possible.after last night's discussion and
questions raised by residents and commissioners, sending it back to committee
for one cycle might have been a good idea
commissioner tabb brought up a number of troubling issues not addressed in the
mou (broad, undefined, lots of wiggle room for future incursions into park land
and sovereignty).
there was an interesting discussion on what would trigger a new round of
municipal consent requirements including a short discussion on the history of
municipal consent in Minnesota ....county, municipalities included. but an
independently elected goverance unit is not (I think that was why the park
board had no say around the Bottineau/wirth park project ?).
a last minute amendment by commissioner meg f. failed to separate the question
and return it to committee for clarification.
environmentalist and park historian annie young's impassioned plea did not
carry the motion.remaining commissioner comments ? .... well, no comment.a few
carrots, too few commitments in writing by the met council/governor/county ?
steve brandt's coverage :
http://www.startribune.com/local/west/295103741.html
it didn't help that met council chair duinick didn't bring the met's lawyer to
answer a few questions posed by commissioner tabb.
it didn't help the conversation when unidentified properties were brought up by
commissioner tabb as potential targets for the blank check the met council
could 'cash' for extra land should the met council need for construction or
stations.
probably didn't help when there seemed to be a two step around the cart before
the horse with designing the lrt before the environmental impact study had been
completed (described as 'slimy', I think).
mitigation, capital project compensation, park board liability were briefly
discussed .... but nothing is in the mou document.
*** I found several references in rail journals mentioning and
highlighting the mou's moving to streamline and 'improve' the environmental
impact statement process....a move to weaken the eis for these projects ?
if you watch it on replay, the number of other agenda items as well as the time
certain public hearings cut up the discussions....
graco, ending Hiawatha beach, master plans, renaming park and need for a policy
discussion vs. a suspension of the rules to make exceptions.
usually the city webcast cuts off the park board at 9pm.this evening the
broadcast went a few minutes later so the home audience could catch the last
arguments and vote.
we'll see how well the ' trade' here serve the parks and residents on the
Bottineau line at wirth park.... or future transit projects. with the park
board looking particularly vulnerable these past few years, could the next
attacks come from more highway and transit projects ?
the saber-toothed biting gnats at the independently elected park board may
have finally gotten the attention of the big fellows, but too little too late
?
best wishes,
Cheryl luger
Minnehaha
***'improving' the environmental impact process as part of the met council /
park board mou
" The MOU will allow the Southwest LRT and future light-rail projects to move
the environmental review process more smoothly, council officials said. The
Metropolitan Council and park board are slated to act on the agreement at
meetings this week and next week. "
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Met-Council-Minneapolis-parks-agency-agree-on-bridge-option-for-Southwest-lightrail-project--43687
what would this involve ? criteria, deadlines, input, bypassing any current
procedures, timing releases with input sessions ?just asking.
"I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder
to see them not ashamed.”
--- Jonathan Swift
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
environmental impact study process ? ... at end of post ***)
.
in a long, emotional and a bit 'challenging' meeting tonight, the park board
approved the negotiated met council/mprb sw lrt mou.
it wasn't unanimous.
given the incredible pressures brought by the governor, county, met council,
unions and corporations .... tonight's outcome was probably the only one having
the political will of being possible.after last night's discussion and
questions raised by residents and commissioners, sending it back to committee
for one cycle might have been a good idea
commissioner tabb brought up a number of troubling issues not addressed in the
mou (broad, undefined, lots of wiggle room for future incursions into park land
and sovereignty).
there was an interesting discussion on what would trigger a new round of
municipal consent requirements including a short discussion on the history of
municipal consent in Minnesota ....county, municipalities included. but an
independently elected goverance unit is not (I think that was why the park
board had no say around the Bottineau/wirth park project ?).
a last minute amendment by commissioner meg f. failed to separate the question
and return it to committee for clarification.
environmentalist and park historian annie young's impassioned plea did not
carry the motion.remaining commissioner comments ? .... well, no comment.a few
carrots, too few commitments in writing by the met council/governor/county ?
steve brandt's coverage :
http://www.startribune.com/local/west/295103741.html
it didn't help that met council chair duinick didn't bring the met's lawyer to
answer a few questions posed by commissioner tabb.
it didn't help the conversation when unidentified properties were brought up by
commissioner tabb as potential targets for the blank check the met council
could 'cash' for extra land should the met council need for construction or
stations.
probably didn't help when there seemed to be a two step around the cart before
the horse with designing the lrt before the environmental impact study had been
completed (described as 'slimy', I think).
mitigation, capital project compensation, park board liability were briefly
discussed .... but nothing is in the mou document.
*** I found several references in rail journals mentioning and
highlighting the mou's moving to streamline and 'improve' the environmental
impact statement process....a move to weaken the eis for these projects ?
if you watch it on replay, the number of other agenda items as well as the time
certain public hearings cut up the discussions....
graco, ending Hiawatha beach, master plans, renaming park and need for a policy
discussion vs. a suspension of the rules to make exceptions.
usually the city webcast cuts off the park board at 9pm.this evening the
broadcast went a few minutes later so the home audience could catch the last
arguments and vote.
we'll see how well the ' trade' here serve the parks and residents on the
Bottineau line at wirth park.... or future transit projects. with the park
board looking particularly vulnerable these past few years, could the next
attacks come from more highway and transit projects ?
the saber-toothed biting gnats at the independently elected park board may
have finally gotten the attention of the big fellows, but too little too late
?
best wishes,
Cheryl luger
Minnehaha
***'improving' the environmental impact process as part of the met council /
park board mou
" The MOU will allow the Southwest LRT and future light-rail projects to move
the environmental review process more smoothly, council officials said. The
Metropolitan Council and park board are slated to act on the agreement at
meetings this week and next week. "
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Met-Council-Minneapolis-parks-agency-agree-on-bridge-option-for-Southwest-lightrail-project--43687
what would this involve ? criteria, deadlines, input, bypassing any current
procedures, timing releases with input sessions ?just asking.
"I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder
to see them not ashamed.”
--- Jonathan Swift
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
