STILLWATER BRIDGE

STILLWATER BRIDGE

Address east metro transportation needs

What does the east metro have to do to have its transportation needs taken seriously?

The historic Stillwater lift bridge was built in 1931, and the region has been attempting to improve this crossing, increase public safety and improve the environment for decades. With so many more people living in the region, there is more traffic, there are more accidents and there is more gridlock. That's why we need a new bridge.

The 2009 cost-benefit study concluded that this project has a positive ratio on just the transportation factors alone. That is not counting the benefits to the entire regional economy from a better, smoother-flowing transportation system and the 3,000 jobs generated in building the project itself.

As for transit, a rigorous analysis mandated by the Stakeholder Group and released in 2008 concluded that the current and projected population density just cannot support a local light-rail line extension into Wisconsin. (And wouldn't common sense say that light-rail infrastructure would also cost a lot?)

Don't misconstrue; those of us in the east metro are in favor of increased transit options, but park-and-rides and additional express bus service just cannot provide the capacity for the tens of thousands of river crossings needed.

The current lift bridge has a capacity of 11,000 vehicles per day. It now carries more than 18,000 vehicles per day. The new bridge is projected to carry 48,000 vehicles in 2030.

If no new bridge is built, those additional 30,000 vehicles as well as many more will still be on the system, looking to cross, and will be contributing to a worsening capacity problem at the Interstate 94 bridge. The supplemental environmental impact statement says exactly that.

There is no doubt a new Stillwater Bridge would be an expensive project, since it would include extensive work along several miles of Hwy. 36. But it's particularly rich that the people who are complaining and are now concerned over the cost of a new bridge are the same people whose delay tactics and lawsuits over the last 15 years have caused the price tag to rise more than it should have.

For a new St. Croix River crossing, the bottom line is that this is not an "if you build it, they will come" scenario. Actually, it's the opposite: They're coming whether we like it or not, and we'd better build it!

GARY KRIESEL, COMMISSIONER, WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD

EDINA HIGH-RISE

Zoning rules add value, so why not use them?

I am among those who appreciate your coverage of the downward spiral of Minnesota's lakes ("Losing our lakes," June 20-22).

We live in a traditional suburban neighborhood that is having similar problems with local government being too timid to enforce laws that protect a traditional environment.

The Edina City Council wants to let a company build a high-rise apartment building in our neighborhood, even though it would violate zoning rules. No problem for the council: It will just declare the rules void for this one developer, on this particular property.

But it's a big problem for Edina residents. This high-rise will cause big increases in traffic and an eyesore business towering over the local park. People live here precisely because the zoning laws do not permit big businesses in quiet neighborhoods with small children who get around by foot and on bicycles.

What recourse do residents have when elected officials refuse to enforce existing laws? By the time the next election comes for voting the officials out, the damage has been done.

This is unacceptable. If residents have to obey the rules, then the officials who are supposed to enforce the rules need to do their jobs, too.

DONNA CALLENDER, EDINA

Twin Cities housing

Livable Communities Program falls short

Tim Thompson's June 12 commentary ("Affordable housing takes a hit in metro"), and Patricia Nauman's June 22 response ("Housing takes more than a village (or city)"), each shed light and yet missed a major shortcoming with the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Program.

Through Livable Communities, the council provides financial incentives to cities that adopt affordable housing goals and take steps to lower the cost of producing housing -- zoning land for higher-density development, for instance.

The shortcoming is this: While the current Livable Communities Program incentives will lead some cities to accommodate greater housing density and lower development costs, these incentives will do very little to provide the housing most needed. That is because the program has one set of dollar limits for what qualifies as "affordable housing," and those amounts are too high for people with low incomes.

Communities can meet their Livable Communities Program goals by supporting development of homes selling for up to $170,000, or apartments renting for up to $1,100. While this would help bring needed housing choices to communities such as Wayzata, the most significant need for households in the metro area is for apartments that rent in the range of $400 to $500 a month. This is as much as many sales clerks, nursing assistants, janitors or those on fixed incomes can afford if they are going to cover the cost of food and other necessities.

In Minnesota, 75 percent of people paying over half their income for housing -- people at high risk of becoming homeless -- earn $25,000 per year or less. A program fostering $1,100-per-month apartments is not much help there.

This incongruity between the Livable Communities Program's affordable-housing incentives and the need for very inexpensive housing is not something the Metropolitan Council can resolve. The program was created by the Legislature and governor. It's up to them to align programs with need. It will take new rules and, yes, money.

Without these changes, we are opening the wrong doors.

CHIP HALBACH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP