Pretty much a given this was going to get approved. Will bring a ton of tax revenue into Minneapolis and more for Hennepin County. Plus, they can use this for future light rail promotion/expansion.
We're actually funding the clean up of the environmental nightmare left behind by the old potato processing plant. In all likelihood that plant was at one point (probably when was closing) fined for the environmental damage it did. So we can look at the money currently being spent to clean the property up has having already been paid for by the previous owner of the property. At least that is how it has been explained to me. It makes sense until you ask why the property wasn't cleaned up immediately after the potato processing plant closed.
Wiont they be forced to go through a distributor once they hit a certain BBL limit? Stores that currently are supplied direct from Surly would certainly see a rise then.
Found the below comment fairly funny. 'Ah, I can just picture it now. Sitting out on the deck, a nice breeze blowing in a cloud of dust from the container depot. The smell of garbage in the air from the transfer station. The peace being interrupted with horns, trucks, trains and lift equipment. Paradise.'
Maybe the eventual plan is to re-route the transfer station and container depot? After all, who wants to spoil a perfectly good view of the Southeast/Como neighborhood?
Glad someone pointed this out. There are numerous examples of properties like this one that sit vacant until incentives encourage someone to undertake the necessary cleanup measures required to comply with modern environmental statutes. Locational benefits aside, why would Surly or anyone else take on a property that will immediately cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars before the first drop of concrete is poured (esp. when there are plenty of other cities courting them)? I think the local politicians probably have calculated the costs vs benefits and the increased tax base and benefit to other businesses in the proximity should easily exceed the cost of the grant. Instead of bitching about about a few hundred thousand dollar grants, the pragmatic approach would be to ensure that property owners are held accountable before the company ducks out and it becomes everyone else's problem.
Land owners are held accountable now, until the property is sold and a Phase III environmental study is completed or signed off on. Totally agree with your post, thank you for looking at the other side, most only see the one side - Surly "benefiting" from the grant. As a former environmentalist, I am happy to see Surly choose a brownfield for their location. As you mentioned earlier, there are plenty of other options, but most importantly - the site needs to be cleaned before any more impact to the soil or groundwater occurs.
