Category Archives: Cognitive Dissonance

It’s Official: The Neighbourhood Does NOT Want This!

After many months of misleading promotion tactics from the Greenway Council, being ignored by the city, and the media presenting an INCREDIBLY inaccurate, one-sided view of what residents in our neighbourhood are living with… It’s with GREAT pleasure that we share the news we received this morning:

 
Last night, the Folwell Neighbourhood Association passed an official resolution, demanding the immediate removal of the temporary greenway installation.

 
To say that those of us who have been fighting this ugly, dangerous encroachment are jubilant right now would be quite the understatement!

 
Of particular note: Not only did the neighbourhood association demand the removal, they also acknowledged the reality that so many of us have been trying to bring attention to: that what was implemented is NOT what was promised, and is not what is being promoted to outside interests.

 

 

It is SO empowering to see that our neighbourhood association is joining us in pointing out the reality of this situation.  It’s one thing to point out that “the emperor has no clothes”, ourselves…  but it sure feels great to have official backing on that.

 
If you would like to read the official resolution, CLICK HERE.

 

 

Editing to add: If there are questions regarding this action please contact the Folwell Neighborhood Association. Roberta@folwell.org or 612-521-2100.

Providing Visual Context for This Nonsense

(Note: In the interest of fairness in presenting context, all photos on this entry were taken the same day  – this afternoon.)

 

Because this Greenway is being promoted to outside, non-residents (because obviously their feedback is more important that those living on the impacted route!), we thought it would be a good idea to provide some context for those who have not yet seen the area.

 
First of all, let’s have a look at the 5 blocks currently impacted with this “pilot” greenway project:

 

greenwaylayout

The impacted blocks are colour coded to match the ridiculous neon paint that they have been sullied by.

 

A few notes:

Read more »

The Boys Who Cried Racism.

Recently, pro-greenway activists have adopted the habit of accusing those opposed to the greenway of racism.  This tends to happen randomly, whenever questions are posed about the greenway, upkeep, who is in charge, etc.  So, we would like to say a few things.

 
1. The implementation of the North Minneapolis Greenway is a HUGELY racist thing.
When we are talking about taking away access to homes, potentially reducing home values, and generally causing a huge upheaval to those who affected, approach matters. When we are talking about doing all of that, in one of the poorest, blackest neighbourhoods in the city, details matter even more.

 

 

Details such as appearance.  This pilot project was erected as cheaply as possible, using inappropriate materials (Horse troughs as planters. Plants need drainage – they’re all moldy and dead now!), ugly paint, etc.

 
Does anyone honestly believe that such a big project – a 1 YEAR pilot project – would look like this only a couple months in, if installed anywhere else in the city?:

 

14117973_1398381066840442_6662244963262089076_n

No reasonable person would be able to imagine this mess anywhere else in the city, even at the end of a 1 year trial.  The fact that it is SO run down just a few months in is extremely telling.

 
Details such as contact.  When canvassing the route, many people had no idea what was going on, and stated that they had not been contacted prior to the temporary pilot being installed.  Many expressed feelings of having been kept in the dark.   Of those who had heard of it ahead of time and had at least a vague understanding of what was up, most expressed feelings of “they don’t listen to us”.  Additionally, a large number of people we spoke to did not have access to the internet.  Many brought up the view that it all felt racist to them.

 
This is problematic on many levels… and, again, are not issues that would necessarily be in place, had this been implemented elsewhere.  The lack of direct contact with those on the route, when seen through the lens of “Many of the people here do not have internet” seems predatory on the part of the greenway council.  It seems like they are taking advantage of the lack of resources – specifically, access to information – in this area, specifically.  Would this happen in a predominantly white neighbourhood?  Probably not.

 
Then, there is the matter of the Greenway Council specifically wanting to hire a person of colour as a consultant, for pennies on the dollar.  Click here to read all about THAT.
Admittedly, a lot of the problems we’re seeing that appear to be racism share a huge overlap with issues of classism. Whether rooted in race or class, they are important issues that are being outright ignored by those in charge… or worse, exploited for their own benefit (lack of communication)

 
2. To the best of our knowledge the only people of colour in support of the greenway are those being paid to promote it. This is based on attending many Greenway council meetings and events, and canvassing door to door along the route.  Will Lumpkins, Alexis Pennie, Ebony Adedayo, Lawrence Lee, etc. are paid consultants, employees of nonprofits, lobbyists, etc – not all of whom even live in the area, and NONE of whom live on the proposed route.

 

 

Taking a look at pro-greenway events paints a very clear picture of who is supporting them.  From the “Northside Greenway Now” Facebook page’s (Formerly the official Northside Greenway Council page, has been renamed) recent post about a talk they gave in the impacted area:

 

14202768_1778631582377255_6633240621820842755_n 14212703_1778631505710596_1708195539300434958_n 14263971_1778631399043940_5258158680873197336_n

14292490_1778631542377259_8426281426872241282_n

 

… This is every photo they posted from that event.  As a rough guess from our canvassing, the residents of the blocks that are currently being subjected to this nonsense are probably around 2/3 people of colour.   So, where are they?

 
They’re not in the photos here.  They aren’t at any of the meetings we’ve been to. If you exclude people with a financial interest (actual salary,   freelance contract, and/or representing a bike shop), they aren’t even on the Greenway Council board.

 

 

3. One of the two people quickest to call greenway detractors “racist” when they ask questions he doesn’t have the answers for is not only a white guy, he’s a white guy that doesn’t even live in North Minneapolis.

 
Oh, and he’s a white guy – again, who doesn’t live here – that draws cartoons like this and posts them to Facebook to belittle women who raise safety concerns:

 

12111936_10156482084535618_6274099547188817993_n

We’ve done two posts about his antics, here and here.

 
Also, when he was asked if he planned to buy property on the Greenway at a recent Open House event, he recoiled in horror – as if living here is completely beneath him. I wonder why that is, exactly?  I suppose I could make some assumptions, based on his little “artwork”.

 
Oh, and for the record, the second person calling detractors “Racist” is Willie Lumpkins.  Yeah, the guy from our last entry, here.

 

 

4.  Racism is a HUGE problem in today’s society.  It’s all around us – in the neighbourhood, in our government, on the greenway council, and  literally any time we watch the news or go on Facebook.

 
To be fair, there are more than likely racists who oppose the greenway, also.  People of ALL backgrounds oppose this thing, so it would be naive to assume otherwise.

 
The thing is, racism is an important and serious enough issue, that false allegations of it should never be used to shut people down when it comes to completely non-racial issues.  It’s crying wolf, and it detracts from the very real issues of racism that this neighbourhood – and those affected by this project specifically – face.

 
When a resident asks why the garbage bins aren’t being emptied, why the paint looks like crap, why there are no plans for upkeep, and who is even in charge any more – such questions have no root in racism.  To accuse anyone asking such questions of racism is not only a coward’s way to shut down the conversation, it’s also distracting from the ACTUAL racism involved with this project.

 
… Then again, I suppose it is in their best interest that people NOT focus on things like their aim to pay a person of colour pennies on the dollar, take advantage of a lack of resources with the residents here, etc.

A Look At Who Is Running The Show Here, Part 2

This blog entry has been a long time coming, and it’s going to be a difficult one to write. When talking about the subject of Willie Lumpkins, deceit, and lack of transparency with regards to the Greenway project… there’s almost TOO MUCH subject matter to cover.
Misrepresentation has been the name of the game for those promoting the Greenway encroachment, and no one has exemplified “misrepresentation” quite like Willie has.
To start at the beginning, Willie was a board member of the Greenway Council, before he… wasn’t. Popular rumour has held that he was fired, yet no one seems to want to clarify WHY exactly he is no longer on the board.
All we know is that whenever Willie has gotten out of line, various board members have been quick to point out that Willie does not speak for the board, as he is no longer a member.
Why is it, then, that any time there is a news piece on the Greenway, Willie is still selected to be one of the mouthpieces of the project?   Why does the Greenway council take great care to distance themselves from him when he acts out, yet routinely turns to him as a spokesperson?
Additionally, if distancing themselves from Willie, WHY has the official Northside Greenway Council had Willie in charge of their official Facebook page   (recently renamed “Northside Greenway Now”)?

will

 

will1

 

will2

 

Now, you’ll note in that last image, the corresponding Will post is by a name other than “Will Lumpkins”

 

That is because this is one of his fake accounts, as he recently outed himself on:

will3

By Willie’s own accounts, he’s not only a (former?) board member, but someone who is paid to “engage the community” with regards to the Greenway project.
On the subject of that “community engagement”… Will uses this fake account to “engage” residents on a local Greenway Facebook group:

will6

 

will4

 

 

 

will5

… It was only recently that he outed himself as being the same person with a fake account, and that came around by accident.  In the months leading up to it, he not only posted under the fake account to support the Greenway – making it appear that the Greenway has more support than it does – but also went so far as to reply to his own posts with his fake account, “converse” with his fake account, etc.

 

THIS is the “transparency” we’ve come to expect from him, the Greenway Council, and the City of Minneapolis. Fake accounts, misrepresentation of the level of support, and more.

 

… who pays Willie?   This is an answer that many of us on the Stop the Greenway group have been asking, but  – much like many other questions we have about the project, particularly with regards to money, where it’s coming from, and to whom it is being paid – we are left without answers.

 

Is the city paying his salary / fees?  Is this abuse and deception coming from our tax money?

 

How exactly can the city claim to be a “neutral party” in this (per Lara Pratt, on many public occasions), while paying extremists to alienate those against the greenway, and basically act as a crass cheerleader for the project?

 

How was Willie hired for the “Community Engagement”?  What vetting was in place?  Was he truly the best choice for such a role, given that he’s blocked basically everyone involved with fighting against the greenway?

 

Wouldn’t “engaging” the detractors, trying to win us over be a smarter plan of action?

 

Can we really not expect that our tax dollars – especially when actively being used AGAINST us – to be used to hire someone of some degree of professionalism?

This IS, after all, the person that publicly stated that we were in the wrong for being concerned about “1 old lady with cancer”, rather than “the future”.

A Look at Who is Running the Show Here…

A few days ago, we wrote about a disturbing “joke” that Alexis Pennie – chairman of the Northside Greenway Council – made at the expense of the residents affected by the greenway. (See HERE)

 

After that entry was posted, we received an anonymous tip: it advised us to contact the Folwell Neighborhood Association.  The tip said that Alexis had been a board member of the association, before being removed because of conduct issues.

 

We emailed to request the information – which is available to the public at the Folwell Office – and received it this afternoon.  We have redacted the identifying information of the business involved, as it was clear from the file that they had not wanted that to be public. You can download the 5 page pdf file, HERE.

 

 

We’ve written before about the toxic “isms” involved with the Greenway Council, and with their implementation of the greenway thusfar. (Racism, Ableism, Classism, and Sexism with the Greenway Project).    This new information is truly egregious.

 

Why has the City of Minneapolis continued to allow this person to helm the project?

 

 

Why is it in any way appropriate that someone who gets themselves banned from a neighbourhood establishment – and kicked off a neighbourhood association – for THAT kind of behaviour be in charge of a project that so hugely impacts this very neighbourhood? Again, he doesn’t even live even adjacent to the proposed route, much less the currently impacted area.

 

Would this nonsense be tolerated – not to mention being SUPPORTED by the city – in any other neighbourhood in Minneapolis?

 

Minneapolis, you need to do better by your residents.  We  deserve better than to have this greenway nonsense foisted on us by an organization run by someone who reportedly can’t keep his hands, mouth, racist language, and sexual harassment to himself… ESPECIALLY when acting as a representative of a neighbourhood organization.

Resident Concerns – Meta C.

We recently invited those opposed to the Greenway to email their concerns to a list of politicians and others involved with forcing this fiasco on us. With permission, we are sharing some of those that have been forwarded on to us by the author. 

If you have sent such an email to the powers that be, and would like us to post it, please send a copy to us at fightback at stopthegreenway dot com. Please include information on  how you would prefer your name to appear:  Full name, initials, anonymous, etc.

 
To whom it may concern from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota,
I am writing to bring to your attention, if you were not aware of it already, the issues regarding the Greenway that’s being planned for Irving in North Minneapolis.

 
While I was initially in great support of this it’s painfully clear that, in the two years of polling and interviewing of residents, this Greenway board has not listened to or even formed a response to most of the concerns of people living on or near the Greenway. Not only is this test Greenway NOTHING like what people had described to them, but the responses from the Greenway board towards any concerns arising from it have been extremely dismissive if not downright offensive.

 

My concerns are primarily in regards to how this goes directly against the ADA. New construction to public streets NEEDS to provide access to housing for the disabled. Two of the three “options” proposed in the test would completely remove parking access and access to mobility transport. There is one woman currently on this route that’s been blocked off that must go through the back yard and into the alley to get to her transport that brings her for her chemo treatment. Backyards are not set up to be main entrances and exits, especially for wheelchairs or large transport vehicles, not to mention it would be impossible to have visibility of these areas, making seeing when transport arrives impossible. Upon being told these concerns the response was along the lines of “we shouldn’t let one sick woman stop our bettering of the community” or “they can just reconstruct their backyards to allow for their accessibility needs (on their own dime of course).”

 

This is an exceptionally offensive, apathetic, and out of touch response. It’s not simply about one woman. Not only can any person find themselves with either a permanent or temporary disability, or with a child or other loved one with a disability they must care for, but everyone in their life eventually needs a little more help in regards to accessibility and mobility. This is why the ADA was created: for those that find themselves in positions where they can’t speak up for themselves. This is why when things like the Greenway are forced upon communities that do not want them lawsuits happen with good reason.

 

Other concerns, just as valid, were also pushed aside as well as belittled. Concerns of safety when alleys become main access for houses, especially considering recent repeated rapes that had occurred in the very alley proposed to become a main access for these residents, have been called “highly unlikely” (along with a little offensive drawing of a hoodie wearing blackened faced grinning figure holding a knife) in the Greenway councils notes and then were also flat out ignored. Concerns that the proposed benches and picnic tables cause an environment for loitering in a neighborhood that already has trouble with loitering was also ignored, even among people entering residents yards to take flowers, signs, and dump trash under their trees as if it was part of the rest of this “park” during this test closure. Residents also are not keen on this being made into a place that children should feel they can play, as is being insinuated by many of the installments and pictures. Children do not belong by the road.

 

 
Alongside this concern was a very valid concern about the trash cleanup. Who would empty the trash cans proposed, or pickup the wrappers, bags, rotting food or diapers (all things left on the Greenway shortly after the councils events)? When asked this the Greenway council either shrugged or that the residents should pick it up. Snow and leaf removal is also something they had no answers for (would they make the plowing of the alleys a priority and would the plows be able to even fit down the alleys without damaging the uneven pavement or running into garages?). This is not acceptable. No answer after so long of a time to get these answers is in no way acceptable. When asked if emergency services would be able to get to residents it was simply stated “yes” with no explanation of how, and yet when the test closure happened the meetings were flooded with angry and concerned police, firefighters and EMTs who had not even been told of the closure in advance.

 

 
Throughout all of this we’ve had to put up with very rude treatment for our concerns. Meetings have been canceled last minute or moved up right before the meeting is supposed to start “out of respect for peoples schedules.” People have been removed from the Greenway mailing list or blocked from Facebook groups just for sharing their concerns. Residents who went to the Grand opening which was stated to be “for everyone to voice their opinions” about the Greenway had been told, once they share that they have some concerns of course, that the food (which was paid for with public funds) is only for supporters of the Greenway. This was told to multiple people, including an 8 month pregnant woman on what was a fairly hot day, by representatives of the Health Department. This is abhorrent behavior, especially from representatives for a city department and yet residents have been subjected to it repeatedly.

 

 

Again, I am not against a bike path. My suggestion from the beginning, as well as the suggestion of multiple people, has been a straight one-way road with a dedicated parking lane and a combined bike and walking path on both sides with a gradient slope towards the street that would allow anyone access at any point along the way. This would not be a “Greenway” but what is currently being proposed is far from a proper Greenway and should not be called as such unless the buying and demolishing of houses along the path is also proposed. Any part of our suggestions have not been incorporated, in any way, in this test closure and they continue to go unaddressed.

 

Please help us stop this badly planned project that’s damaging both peoples property values and relationships within our community, and help stop the inevitable lawsuits towards the city and board that allowed it to happen that will follow after these violations against the ADA become permanent structures. A bike safe road can happen and is a great idea but THIS Greenway is not going to happen and is not being received well in any sense of the word. By ignoring peoples concerns it only damages the goal bettering our community further.
Thank you much for your time,

Meta C
Resident of North Minneapolis

 

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words…

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words – I’ll try to use fewer words than that, to explain the significance of this particular picture:

 

 

13876278_1831027290464896_1312824913415254465_n
This photo of a house for sale on the temporary greenway route is so very representative of a main issue with the entire greenway plan: Those that fight for it are not those that have to live with it.

 

 
We have a “Greenway Council” that is entirely composed of people who don’t live on the affected route.  Not one single member will have their parking, access, property, and safety negatively impacted by their plans, as their homes are all far enough away to avoid the fallout.

 
Not only that, but most of the greenway council doesn’t even live in the neighbourhood.

 

 
At the May Greenway Council “meeting” (the meeting that wasn’t), one council member was asked if they intended to purchase property along the greenway installation. They responded with a horrified “NO!”, as though living here was very much beneath them.

 

 
At least 4 of the homes with pro-greenway signs are owned by people who want to sell their homes in the very near future. One of the loudest, most obnoxious supporters on the route has declared their intention to flip their house in a year or two, and that they are looking for the greenway to be a windfall from them.

 
They are people who have bought into the propaganda that this greenway will increase home values, when it is clear that this is not the case.  We’ve already heard from one homeowner who has had to decrease his asking price by $10,000, because of the negative impact the greenway is having on his attempts to sell.

 

 
People who don’t live here, and people who are looking at the greenway as a way for them to profit on their upcoming departure are not the people who have to live with the negative impact the greenway will have.

 

 
The selfishness and the greed that we have seen from the pro-greenway people has been utterly mind boggling. With so much grant money on the line, the city and the council are quick to throw the entire neighbourhood under the bus, to line their own pockets.  Residents who are moving out are willing to financially cripple their own neighbours, just for the *possibility* of turning a higher profit on their own sale.

 

 

 
What this area needs is EMPATHY, not to be further disadvantaged for the benefit of those who do not live here.

Bias and Misrepresentation – The Unfair, Uphill Battle We Fight

This past week, a “reporter” (intern) from the Star Tribune joined the Stop The Greenway Facebook group.  She told us she would be walking the greenway, interviewing people for an article.

As it was just on the heels of an incredibly biased article about the greenway, we were excited – there was finally someone willing to listen to those who live on the route!  Many, many people offered to talk to her.

As administrator of this site, someone mentioned that she should talk to me, and I agreed. We exchanged information, she gave me a time she’d be by to talk to me, and said she’d message me when she was near.  I got a message “I’m here!”, and when I replied, she told me she would be 15 minutes.  More than an hour later – then outside of the stated window of my availability   – she finally messaged me.  We decided to take it to email, where I answered her interview questions promptly.

I felt very disrespected at the time, but assumed she was inexperienced. I was still thankful for the idea that someone was finally looking to listen to the residents.  I should have seen the writing on the wall.

The Star Tribune published her INCREDIBLY one sided piece.  Only one resident who was against the greenway was quoted. Our issues were minimized to things like “an ice cream truck can’t get through”, the Grand Opening Situation was described in a patently false, misleading manner.

Once again, those who take a salary for pushing this greenway onto us were front and center. Those with the most resources- those who stand to benefit by taking from others – were given a voice, while those with the least resources – who stand to LOSE from this encroachment – were all but ignored.

This is exhausting.

That “reporter” had talked to many people who are vehemently against the greenway. She looked through our website.  Not only was she well aware of the actual issues, she was well aware of what happened at the Greenway Grand Opening event.  She went out of her way to mischaracterize everything from the “No Greenway!” side.

I guess we shouldn’t have been surprised when it was discovered that the “reporter” and her husband are involved with a cycling activism organization – a fact that should have been disclosed not only to the residents, but to the public who read her incredibly biased and misleading article. That was a huge conflict of interest, and was certainly NOT good journalism.  Hannah Covington (or “Hannah Tines”, as she represented herself to those of us she wanted to interview) and the Star Tribune should be ashamed of themselves. This was absolutely irresponsible and unethical.

 

Before I address some specific issues in her article, I would like to make a few points about what is going on here.

Those who are fighting the greenway stand to lose a lot – access. Home value.  Safety, both for ourselves and our property. (There has been a rise in property damage along the affected route and adjacent alleys.).  We are having our lawns destroyed by those who see them as public property now.

None of us who are fighting against this are getting paid to do so.  We are investing what little time  – and money! – we have (in one of the lowest income areas of the city, no less) to fight this. We cannot afford what this greenway will do to us.

In addition to damage, it will make our homes less sellable. It will cost us money to retrofit our back yards to accommodate use as a main entrance, something they were never intended for. It will cost us money in car wear and tear, using alleys in EXTREMELY poor condition on a daily basis.  It will cost us money to build fences in our front yards, to try to keep the public OUT.

We are fighting an uphill, unfair battle because we CANNOT afford NOT to.

Those we are fighting against – the paid lobbyists, city employees, and bicycling activists that don’t even live here – They’re not in the same position.

Most of them ARE getting paid to be here.  This is literally their job, to force this encroachment on a neighbourhood that is ill equipped to fight back.

They aren’t taking precious “free” time away from their families, this is their job.   Those of us living here can put in a full day at work, and then come home to having to deal with fighting against this, on top of it.

Where we pool money, a few bucks here and there, to cover a $380 printing bill, they have hundreds of thousands of dollars at their disposal. Over $600,000, to be more precise – much of it coming from taxpayers.

Yes, those of us who have to spend our own time and money to fight this are – at the very same time – paying the salaries of those who are fighting against us.  It’s twisted.

The most pro-greenway person who actually lives on the greenway (and there are very few of those) is a young, able bodied man, with a young, able bodied wife, who lives on the corner.  Not only are they not losing their parking (at the street corner, there is less parking than those who aren’t on the street corner, due to space left before an intersection), they have plenty of parking on the side.  Additionally, they are looking to sell their house, and are hoping this greenway will mean a bigger profit for them – everyone else’s losses be damned.

We work to organize residents in an area where many of the homes we canvassed do not even have access to the internet.  They post flashy push-polls online, promote them almost exclusively to cycling groups outside of north, and claim they’re contacting residents.

Our own city council people can’t be trusted to look out for our best interests, as they’re too busy looking out for their own. Barb Johnson and Blong Yang are quick to sell us out to a billionaire football team owner, but care little about what is actually going on in their constituency. By all accounts, neither bothered to show up to the Greenway Grand Opening, though they are fully aware of what a contentious issue it is for residents in their respective ridings.

We cannot even trust a mainstream news outlet like the Star Tribune to write about this, without the reporter pushing their own, undisclosed agenda.

It’s very frustrating to be stuck in such a David vs Goliath situation, for something that affects our HOMES, and our lives.

Now, about that article.  A few points, in chronological order:

The title, “In north Minneapolis, neighbors at odds over greenway pilot route”

For the most part, the neighbours are all on the same page. With VERY few exceptions, we are at odds with outside people, not actual neighbours.

 

The photo used for the story:

08_326643_NSBIKE_30109135

This photo is fake, and in NO way represents the “greenway” we’re living with. It was EXTREMELY misleading for them to include this.  For a better idea of what the “greenway” actually looks like, visit our galleries, HERE.

Not only is it a photoshopped composite image, the base image wasn’t even taken ON Irving, where the temporary greenway was installed.  Pictured is Humboldt Ave N, during a pro-greenway day-long event over a year ago.

It has nothing to do with the current reality in any way whatsoever.

Reality:

Photo by Gregory M

Photo by Gregory M

 

“The pedestrian- and bike-friendly route hugs the residential area extending from Jordan Park to Folwell Park.”

The route is neither pedestrian friendly, nor safe for cyclists. It is FAR more dangerous to both – as well as being more dangerous to children, drivers, and homeowners – than it ever was prior to the installation.

Click here to view video of the route, that demonstrates the lack of “safety”.

“A bike boulevard snakes through the next three blocks, which still allows two-way traffic and parking. Cars, however, must navigate around bump-out recreational spaces along the curb.”

There is no such bike boulevard, and that can clearly be seen on the video linked above. They shoehorn two way traffic and any cyclists through what becomes single-car-width spaces, repeatedly, along the route.

“It was here that a food snafu, they say, also snowballed. Participants said it was unclear whether refreshments were for everyone or just volunteers, and tempers flared after some were denied food.”

At no point was it unclear what was going on. This public event, funded by public money, on public space had a public, city employee deny food to anyone who was not pro-greenway. A pregnant woman who lives on that block was humiliated in front of a group of people. This was all despite the event being promoted to everyone on the route, as an event for everyone on the route.. with “food provided”.

When residents took offense to this gross, fraudulent misuse of public funds, one of the other greenway council people told her to stop denying food to those residents opposed to the greenway.  For a full account of what happened, click here.

“There has to be a democratic process,” Yang said, adding that the city should be a “neutral facilitator.”    

We would love to know how the city can be a neutral facilitator, when they are making money off this encroachment.  When the city is paying the salaries of those involved in implementing this, when city resources – website, contact lists, staff, money, and more – are being used to fight against those of us ill equipped to defend our rights – WHERE is the neutrality?

 

 

In closing, we would like to point out: newspapers have an obligation to inform, educate, and even – in some cases – uplift… not mislead, misrepresent, and oppress.

… Because the Hammocks Weren’t Bad Enough…

This morning, the greenway is having tree trunks installed onto the greenway… presumably to “pretty it up” for the grand opening tomorrow.

13529089_10154208251903168_5001166665714899819_n

Phillip posted a few photos on a local Facebook group, including the one above.  Click HERE to go to that post.

Here is the problem.  Just one block south of where these are being installed (Who knows, these may be going in on other blocks as well!) is the 3400 block of Irving – which had the 2011 Tornado go right over it.  It doesn’t have the nice canopy of trees that the 3500 block does (pictured)… because we lost so many beautiful old trees in the tornado.

100 plus year old hardwood trees were ripped from the ground like they were nothing.  They landed on and in houses, on cars, blocked people from accessing their front doors (oh, the irony!), and more.

It was many months before the tree damage was cleared up.  There were giant stumps with pulled up sidewalks all over north until more than 5 months later, some into the following summers.   It was hard to see, for everyone in north.  A few visual reminders: Read more »

One Sided “Journalism” Does a Disservice to the Community.

Last night, residents were enraged when Minnpost published a ridiculously 1-sided article about the greenway.  You can see that article HERE.

 

As you can see, the article presents a very different picture than we are seeing from local residents. A big part of that is that the people that they quoted, for the most part (Nathan, Alexis, Will) don’t live on the Greenway. In most cases, they don’t even live anywhere NEAR the greenway.  Alexis and Nathan are on the board of the Greenway Council, Will WAS on it before stepping down recently.  They quoted each in such a way to make it seem like they were local to the route. They are not. Will Lumpkin’s association with the greenway council should have been disclosed – this article is incredibly biased and misleading.

 

So, a few notes. Read more »

« Older Entries