1. Airport noise and airport air quality impacts. What
can the city do to alleviate these problems?
I am very pleased you have tied together airport noise and air quality. In our work in Residents Opposed to Airport Racket (ROAR) we have consistently made the case this is not just a noise problem; it is a comprehensive environmental problem. We not only hear the jets minute after minute; we see the trail of suit behind each of those planes, we smell the fuel, we see that our air quality continues to deteriorate…and we know that our neighborhoods need immediate action.
Citizens suffering from its effects deserve the same protection citizens receive from other pollution problems, which is why I have spent many days personally lobbying federal officials to place airports under the protection of the Environmental Protection Agency instead of the Federal Aviation Authority.
I will continue this work as Mayor by trying to build a national coalition of other Mayors whose communities are suffering from these pollution problems. For eight years as Mayor, and four more as council president, Mayor Sayles Belton has been in an excellent position to lead this charge, but, in spite of constant urging, she has failed to build any national coalition to protect her constituents. She has also not joined our efforts as private citizens to lobby federal officials.
When we founded ROAR two years ago we believed the crucial first steps were to rebuild the political base behind this issue, and recapture the interest of a public that had grown tired of what appeared to be a “lost cause” with no solutions.
As citizen activists we have gone a long way on this issue. We have staged massive public events, lobbied elected officials, become active in electoral politics at both the state and federal level, built coalitions with community groups in other cities and spent hundreds of hours on research.
All this with very little help from City Hall. Citizens fighting a near monopoly company and highly inaccessible public bodies involved in a massive pollution problem requiring very technical responses that threatens one third of a city---- should know that City Hall is not “neutral.”
2. Lake water quality, reducing pesticide use and runoff into the lakes and streams. What can the city do to alleviate these problems?
In my announcement speech, and at literally every appearance I have made in the campaign, I have called for an outright ban on phosphorous-based lawn chemicals. We should all be outraged that the “City of Lakes” continues to allow residents to dump chemicals on lawns that feed the algae that is strangling our water. I have raised the issue with council candidates, begun to build wide public support and will continue to talk about it throughout the campaign to develop a consensus that will make it possible to pass this resolution in the early weeks of my administration.
My protection of our water will not stop there. I want to continue the development of wetlands that capture storm-water runoff, explore designating some areas within watersheds as “critical zones” eligible for early street cleaning, and develop watershed-wide citizen planning councils to protect lakes, the river and creeks.
We should also remember that protecting our water includes some long-forgotten resources. A key example is Bassett Creek, which was threatened earlier this year by the General Mills plan to allow one-pass air cooling. I worked with the friends of Bassett Creek to oppose this plan, and will work with them and others to realize the great potential of fully restoring this resource.
Water protection also includes opposing any other construction method that would threaten our resources. This is why I was one of the principal organizers of the citizens movement that helped stop the “dewatering” under our lakes for airport construction.
This is not a new issue for me. Eight years ago my wife and I started Save the Water In Minneapolis (SWIM), which launched a marketing campaign to promote responsible yard practices to residents in the city’s critical watersheds.
I will use the bully pulpit of the Mayor’s office to continue to work aggressively on protecting our water. I have been working on these issues for years and won’t just be talking about them at election time.
3. What is/has been your stance on the Hwy 55 re-route, and its impact on the urban forest, wildlife habitat and on Minnehaha Park?
I opposed the reroute of Hwy. 55 on environmental and historic grounds. I also opposed, and will continue to oppose, removing the area from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, which is the natural and more aggressive steward of the spring.
As a student of the city’s history and a fierce protector of our environment, I believe the outcome of this project would have been very different if I was Mayor at the time.
With the construction now underway, the city has a special responsibility to protect the remaining natural and historic resources in the area. Of crucial importance is consistent monitoring of the spring to ensure it continues to historic flow.
4. The Kondirator. Should the city have paid off American Iron & Supply for the inconvenience of delaying approval of its metal shredder?
The final Kondirator settlement was based on internal city legal opinion that I have not seen so it is difficult to know the liability the city had for many years of confused strategy on this project. Had I been in that position I would have pursued every legal means available to stop a project that had a negative impact on the nearby neighborhood and river.
Citizens living near this area have a right to be very angry that the city was not more a more aggressive advocate for them during this time. The very least candidates for mayor can do to show their respect for the neighborhood is to not take contributions from those involved in this project.
The kondirator fiasco would not have happened if the city had developed the comprehensive masterplan for the river that excluded this type of use. We can’t change the past but we need to ensure the future is very different.
That’s why I have called for developing a city wide Citizens for the River project that ties together neighbors from Lind-Bohanan to Minnehaha. Modeled after the St. Paul Riverfront coalition it will bring together residents governments, foundations, business and other interests in a long term commitment that we will never again compromise this extraordinary resource.
5. Green purchasing policies. Should the city buy recycled-based materials? What else can the city do to encourage waste reduction, re-use and recycling?
I strongly support green purchasing policies. This is one example of using the city’s buying power in the marketplace to effect policies beyond our borders. Sometimes this will involve buying power. But even more important I plan to be a very visible activist promoting the city’s respect for the environment.
6. Solid waste, landfilling vs. incineration. What do you see as the future of the downtown garbage burner? Was the building of the garbage burner a solution or a further part of the problem?
I was Development Director of the Downtown Council when the burner was built and during that time studied the environmental impact on the community. My intent was to do everything necessary to stop the burner. However I came out of the controversy with a sense that we face a couple of terrible choices: the burners impact on our air vs. landfilling’s potential threat of seepage into groundwater. I would love to say the burner can be closed and would actively aggressively pursue any alternative that seems practical and does not simply transfer one consequence to another area.
We have to face up to the fact that we produce an obscene amount of garbage and the only practical solution is to cut down on our output. (A good place to start would be more aggressive attempt to source separate materials that produce toxins.)
7. Air quality issues. What can we do to improve air quality?
We have to understand the extent and the cause of the problem. Recent studies have shown serious air quality issues in the city and they seem to correspond to the areas with the most serious auto and plane traffic. There also appear to be some hotspots that could relate to some nearby industrial uses. This needs to be quantified as soon as possible and, to the degree possible, identify sources of pollution so we can take special actions.
Once we know the extent of the problem we need to aggressively use that information to advocate for neighborhoods. The city is not a “neutral” information gathering resource. Once it identifies a problem it should use its legal and lobbying might to bring relief to its citizens.
I have laid out specifics above that relate to how the city could use air pollution information to limit flights over neighborhoods. These problems may well be far more acute when it comes to pollution from cars. To date much of the work on limiting auto emissions is on spreading out the impact (eg. creating one-way streets in Uptown to spread the pollution over several blocks)
I would like to see the city’s strategy shift through reduction of traffic, especially through alternative transit options.
8. Auto congestion and transit. What can we do to reduce dependence on the automobile, and reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Are we going in the right direction with LRT? Shouldn't PRT (personal rapid transit) also be considered?
I am pleased we are developing the LRT line and have been intrigued by the PRT concept. In both cases, especially LRT, the key to their success will be how well we integrate them with existing transit options.
I will say, though, that for a long time the core of the city’s transit strategy will be based on the bus. I am a committed bus rider and feel we should be doing far more for our riders, especially creating realistic, warm shelters.
The Mayor can play a significant role in advocating for increased bus frequency and extending hours for downtown bus lines, which, in turn, would cut down on commuting traffic in our neighborhoods.
Tremendous progress has been made in recent years in creating commuter bus routes but we can go much further here. As someone who rides his bike to meetings most months of the year its clear that this is an increasingly viable transit option and bike riders deserve more routes that offer more protection from automobiles.
Respectfully submitted,
R.T. Rybak