Reading the Highland Villager #13 (March 30 Edition)

[Basically, the problem is that the best source of local streets & sidewalks news in Saint Paul is the Highland Villager. This wouldn't be a problem, except that its not available online. I'm reading the Highland Villager so that you don't have to. Until this newspaper goes online, sidewalk information must be set free.]


Total # of articles about sidewalks: 5
Total # of articles about sidewalks written by Jane McClure: 4

Title: Walgreens is back with bigger plans for Ford and Finn. New Highland site plan includes three buildings.

Author: Jane McClure

Short short version: The long-disputed battle over the new pharmacy on Ford Parkway continues. Walgreens is now offering to add a two-story office and retail building that would sit on Ford parkway. The other two buildings would be “designed to look as if they were two stories” … and the Walgreens “would have windows on all four sides with a combination of clear and opaque glass”. [This is total B.S. Go look at the CVS store at Snelling and University and see how it makes a mockery of local design standards. Windows that are opaque aren't really windows, are they? A second story that only looks like a second story isn't really a second story is it? -Ed.]

Title: Dayton warehouse dispute pits city against about everyone else. Local residents, business people support owner’s effort to store auto parts for nearby salvage yard.

Author: Jane McClure

Short short version: Article about the really interesting old industrial warehouses at the far North end of Ayd Mill Road (by Selby and Hamline.) The owner of the property wants to use thes old warehouses to store auto salvage parts, but this is against the city’s zoning code. Currnetly, the owner runs an auto salvage shop that is ‘non-conforming’, or grandfathered into the present use, which makes it very difficult to expand or change the business in any way. The article sets up a dispute b/w the local actors (lincluding chambers of commeze and the district council) and the citys’ zoning appeals board.

Title: The necessity of poetry in the public realm
Author: James McKenzie

Short short version: Editorial attacking Phil Krinkie’s editorial about how the city’s sidewalk poetry project is wasteful. The op-ed points out that no tax funds went to the sidewalk poetry project. , except for a little bit of tax funds used as startup feeder money back in 2008.Walgreens is back with bigger plans for Ford and Finn. New highlands site plan includes three buildings.

The long-disputed battle over the new pharmacy on Ford Parkway continues. Walgreens is now offering to add a two-story office and retail building that would sit on Ford parkway. The other two buildings would be “designed to look as if they were two stories” … and the Walgreens “would have windows on all four sides with a combination of clear and opaque glass”.

Title: University businesses briefed on light-rail construction schedule
Author: Jane McClure

Short short version: A vague schedule for LRT contruction is out. Downtown StP comes first, Then: b/w Hamline and emerglad in 2011, East of Hamline in 2012. Univeristy Avenue will not be torm up from sidewalk to sidewalk, but will have through lanes. Also, “no area will be under major construction for more than 150 consecutive days.”

Title: Police install 93 new security cameras on streets near river
Author: Jane McClure

Short short version: Highland park near Ford Parkway and all around the Water tower now is festooned with security cameras. The St Paul police now has 185 surveillance cemareas. A police seargant is quoted saying “This is not big brother” because the cameras cannot actually look into people’s bedrooms while they sleep.

mpls: Twins Stadium About Face

Just like Doug Grow, I'm gonna take a new tack here with the Twins Stadium proposal. I was at the House Tax hearing yesterday for the Twins presentation, and I'm getting much more impressed by the stadium proposal as it currently sits. Maybe it's because the Twins are getting smarter with their design, but the stadium architect said a lot of good things when he was describing the proposed stadium.

A few things I like about it:

• It's open air (no expensive transformer roof) and the field is real grass
• The stadium entrances will be "pedestrian oriented," which probably means they'll be at street level with a nice facade
  
• It's a "green building," and uses the nearby steam plant as its heating source
• It will be a "bridge" over the Great Northern rail corridor that currently separates the Warehouse District from the North Loop area of downtown. Presently, there's a big gulf between these two booming areas of Minneapolis, and this large stadium thing might help increase accessibility from one part of downtown to the other.
• It will be right at the intersection of two rail transit lines and a new dedicated bike path, and will probably increase transit use throughout the greater Minneapolis area
  

All that, and it'll probably have the votes to pass. "Stadium fatigue" has really set in, and even the most ardent opponents seem to have lost some steam when it comes to organizing the political forces needed to stop a well-funded lobbying effort. (Just look at the Strib article if you don't believe me.)

All I know for sure: It's gotta be tought to be Phil Krinkie right about now. He's gotta feel like Sisyphus these days.

Also:

Personally, I'd like to see this proposal changed to abolish the DH.

Update:

The vote was closer than I thought:

County leaders want to enact the tax without a voter referendum, as state law requires, and they need the Legislature's approval to have the vote waived.

The committee rejected an amendment that would have required a referendum by a 15-13 vote.

density&diversity: The MVST Amendment

The best hope for transit in the short term, at least according to Rep. Alice Hausmann (DFL - St. Paul), is the proposed Motor Vehincle Sales Tax (MVST) amendment that will be on the ballot this fall. It's the only remnant of the 10-cent gas tax transportation bill that survived Governor Pawlenty's veto last summer . . . and even that was through a kindof loophole whereby constitutional amendments cannot be vetoed by the governor if they pass both state houses. The issue is that the $180 million annual MVST pot would be split at least 60/40 for roads vs. transit. That amount of money would be a big boon for transit funding, and would represent part of the "dedicated source of funding" transit supporters have long sought.

Transit supporters did a little jig when the Governor came out in favor of the amendment earlier this year, boosting the chances for passage.

But last Thursday, Congressional candidate (and diehard libertarian) Rep. Phil Krinkie (R - Lino Lakes) dramatically pushed an amendment through the Taxes committe that would reduce the amount of transit money down to 20% of the MVST pot. Knowing the difficulties of new road construction in the metro area, such a proposal would do little to prepare the TC for the transportion future.

Meanwhile, a senate committe recently proposed a middle ground strategy, which would set in stone the 60/40 split for transit, but not allowing the transit portion to exceed this threshold. Here's the Strib article:

At stake is $180 million a year in motor vehicle sales taxes that now go to nontransportation purposes. Under the current amendment wording, at least 40 percent of the money would go to transit and no more than 60 percent to roads.

Suburban and rural legislators complain that that could funnel all the money to transit and none to roads. Urban legislators oppose any change, saying that highways already have two dedicated sources of funding -- gasoline taxes and vehicle registration fees -- while transit has none.

Those regional divisions were evident in an 11-5 vote of the Transportation Committee that advanced the bill sponsored by Sen. Rod Skoe, DFL-Clearbrook, to the Rules Committee. Skoe said that without the change, outstate and suburban voters might defeat the amendment at the polls.

The senate proposal is fairly non-controversial, as most transit supporters would be quite happy with a guaranteed 40% of the MVST money. The real question is whether or not outstate voters would vote for the MVST amendment as it currently sits. My gut informs me that most people would support it, but a great deal depends on how hard the Governor pushes skeptical Republican voters. (For consititutional amendments, any non-vote counts as a "No" vote, so they have a particuarly high hurdle to jump.)

Also:

The House Taxes committee meeting actually makes for some good watching, as he spars with Rep. Erhardt (R - Edina), the chief sponsor of the original bill. You can find it here (just click on Thursday 3/16/06), and the Krinkie amendment comes up at about 1:25:00 in on the tape.