Sturdevant, Putnam, Sanford, Kingman Redo in Red Wing
October 29th, 2018
There’s a meeting about the Sturtevant Redo, actually it’s Sturdevant, Putnam, Sanford and Kingman, and it’s coming up soon. Sturtevant is our street on the other side, up next to be redone, joys of living on a corner. Alan said a city engineer or ? was hoofing it around the neighborhood handing out notices for the meeting:
WHERE? WHEN? Here’s the short version:
6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 7
Sunnyside School Gym
1669 Southwood Ave
Red Wing, MN
GREATLY APPRECIATE THE NOTICE! Somehow we slept through the notice for the West redo, and that was a mistake…
So far, I have two questions, procedural and substantive:
1) Why is this meeting at Sunnyside, the other end of town, instead of downtown, where we could just roll down the hill? Usually meetings like this are at City Hall, at the Library, at Ignite, so why not this one? Is there a number of scheduling conflicts? Makes no sense.
2) The handout suggests that there are two options under consideration for Sturtevant and Putnam, either one side parking with boulevards and trees, or two way with NO TREES?!?! Ummm, NO!
For Sturtevant, that makes sense, it’s one-sided parking now, because the street is just too narrow for parking on both sides. It’s a pain for our neighbors on the other side, for sure, but that’s how it is, it’s been that way for a long time, and we’ve adjusted. Putnam, though, is another matter. That street is an inexplicably VERY wide concrete superhighway, and every time I’ve driven on it, there are cars parked on both sides.
It’s obvious that Putnam between West and Pine is as wide was West, a major thoroughfare in town, with upwards of 4,000 cars daily!
On Putnam, West to Pine, from perspective of both available space and resident use considerations, I don’t see any rationale for both-sides parking with NO trees OR one-sided parking with trees. Are they planning to change the width of Putnam? There’s no reason to change the status quo of parking on both sides with trees. DON’T TEAR OUT THOSE TREES!
On Sturtevant, West to Prairia, that’s might be what’s at issue. It is already one-sided parking with trees from West to Pine, which makes sense, but I don’t recall if it’s no parking on the north side west of Pine… I think I remember cars parked on both sides. There are also many beautiful big trees there. I’d think that it should remain as is, either no parking on the north side as it is from West to Pine, or parking on both sides WITH the trees. Is parking an issue on that block? For some houses, I think it is. The ones on the south side seem to have large garages and driveways, on the north side, there are smaller garages, and some gravel driveways. Restricting street parking may be a problem.
Neighbors, if you have thoughts about this, now’s the time! Don’t wait, like we did, where we didn’t weigh in on the plans for our other street, West! Here’s what West looked like:
Sturdevant, Putnam, Sanford and Kingman won’t be as bad, no way will it be anything like West, but oh, my, if you have any ideas, thoughts, comments, critique, NOW IS THE TIME, before it’s set in a blueprint.
Nov. 14th – PPSA Annual Hearing!
October 22nd, 2018
It’s that time of year again, and for a change, no reminder necessary, AND it’s in 2018, not crammed in at the very end of year or beginning of next!
It’s the POWER PLANT SITING ACT ANNUAL HEARING!
This is our opportunity, as those wrestling with the state’s siting laws and rules, and absence thereof, to tell them what does and doesn’t work. Then the Administrative Law Judge files the report and it’s ignored for another year.
Frustration with lack of response was what triggered the multiple rulemaking petitions I’ve filed, on my own as individual, and representing Goodhue Wind Truth, most recently:
Wind Rulemaking — Petition for Reconsideration
We used to have a pot-luck for the PPSA Annual Hearing, until the PUC put the kibosh on that. GRRRRRR! Treats is the best way to get people to show up.
Now’s the time, show up, spout off, and tell them what works and what does not. And note that aspects of the Power Plant Siting Act DO apply to wind:
216F.02 EXEMPTIONS.
(a) The requirements of chapter 216E do not apply to the siting of LWECS, except for sections 216E.01; 216E.03, subdivision 7; 216E.08; 216E.11; 216E.12; 216E.14; 216E.15; 216E.17; and 216E.18, subdivision 3, which do apply.
Wind Rulemaking — Petition for Reconsideration
October 16th, 2018
Remember when AWA Goodhue and Pickens were pushing that wind project in Goodhue County and accused the local folks of “promiscuous ice fishing” and baiting eagles? Well, above is what Goodhue Wind Truth’s Marie McNamara had to say about that… and we’re still at it.
A couple months ago, we filed yet another rulemaking petition, this one was the 2nd for wind rulemaking in Minnesota, to address the big holes in Minn. R. Ch. 7854, the wind siting rules.
The Commission wasn’t thrilled, and denied the petition:
DENY THE PETITION? WHEN THERE ARE NO WIND SITING RULES? Yeah, right… so here’s what we filed today:
Kavanaugh – Affidavit of Julie Swetnick
September 26th, 2018
From Avenetti’s twit feed:
Note Swetnick’s credentials – highly credible:
Evidence is piling up. Kavanaugh is:
Petitions for Reconsideration of Line 3 PUC decision
September 26th, 2018
Today the Motions for Reconsideration for Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline were due, and here they are:
Friends of the Headwaters_20189-146618-01
Whew, that’s a lot to read, but it’s instructive!!