Savage Pacer - City News - Comments

The Prior Lake-Savage Area

Reasongal1 — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:20:37 -0500

The Prior Lake-Savage Area School Board needs to make $1.1 million dollar budget cut. Somehow they will come up with $500,000 to make a new ball field after cutting down a significant woodland. My observation of existing ball fields in Savage is that they are seldom used. I walk around Savage Community Park all the time and have never seen anyone on the ball fields. Why not leave the trees in place and use the $500,000 for needed academic expenses instead. What sort of Economic Development comes from ball fields anyway? Are we going to rent them for cash?

Sounds like the proper

Oppressed Underdog — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:40:12 -0500

Sounds like the proper reviews will be in place to review the proposal thoroughly ...but the question is, will she abstain on the next vote? It is the "right" thing to do, no matter if the financial connection is there, or not there, to be seen by others. The public trust is based on "actions of a vote", and that action was wrong.

It's a very good

kymmer — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:19:04 -0600

It's a very good question...PL aggregate is not offering to do this out of the goodness of their heart. Over a million dollars was spent to protect this rare woods when the HS went in, are we just going to throw that away? Ms Ziemann seems to be the only person with the intelligence to see this. Other parties just seem to want to blow smoke on the issue.

Thanks for the clarification

Nancy Huddleston — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:14:25 -0600

Thanks for the clarification on the official name of the law. Whenever the average person looks this up the words "conceal and carry law" are often used right alongside the words "Minnesota Citizen's Personal Protection Act."

Exactly. Law-abiding-citizen

Andrew_Rothman — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:21:22 -0600

Exactly.

Law-abiding-citizen explained the reality of carry permits very well. I have just one small correction, and one suggestion.

First, the correction:

Since the MPCCA was passed in 2003, roughly 40,000 people have obtained their permits in Minnesota....

The number of valid permits in the state is actually over 52,000, as of 2/1/2008. We keep a monthly tally posted at the Minnesota Association of Defensive Firearm Instructors web site, www.madfi.org.

Next, the suggestion:

The City Council members have, it seems, discovered the reality that all of their constituents face daily. Should they be faced with a violent criminal attack, the police would arrive far to late to help.

If the City Council would like to take the commonsense, proactive step that 52,052 other Minnesotans have, they could apply for their own carry permits. I'd be pleased to set up a group discount, and the council chambers would make a fine classroom. They can feel free to drop me a line at www.mngun.com for more info on setting up a training date.

Andrew Rothman
Executive Director
Minnesota Association of Defensive Firearm Instructors
www.madfi.org

It's good that the City

law-abiding-citizen — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:45:05 -0600

It's good that the City Council is looking at safety options in light of the recent Kirkwood, Missouri tragedy, however there are a couple of misleading statements in the story.

First, there is no "conceal and carry" law in Minnesota. In this state it's a permit to carry, either openly or with concealment. You won't see permit-holders carrying openly very often, but it's not illegal for a permitted person to do so. The correct name of the law is the Minnesota Citizen's Personal Protection Act (MCPPA).

The second, and most important, misleading statement, is that the MCPPA "would allow anyone to come into city hall with a gun" . This is not even close to being true.

Who cannot obtain a permit?

Those under 21 years old.
Those convicted of a violent crime
Those who are mentally ill, developmentally disabled, or mentally ill and dangerous to the public
Those who abuse drugs or are chemically dependent
Those convicted of domestic assault or stalking if a firearm was used in any way.
Those unlawfully in the US.
Those dishonorably discharged from military service
Those listed in the Minnesota criminal gang investigative data system

To obtain a permit, a person must not be in any of those categories above, must be trained by an instructor certified by an agency approved by the MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and must pass a background check. Cost of the training is from $75 to $200 and the permit fee is $100. The permit is valid for 5 years, at which time the permit may be renewed by going through the same process as for a new permit.

So the MPCCA does not allow anyone to walk around with a handgun...one must have a spotless record, take the training, and pay the fees. Since the MPCCA was passed in 2003, roughly 40,000 people have obtained their permits in Minnesota, in addition to the 11,000 folks who held one prior to the MPCCA, yet the gloom & doom predictions of shootouts at every street corner have not materialized. Permit holders, as a group, are one of the most law-abiding segments of our society. They care about their families and their neighborhoods and want to live in a peaceful society.

This is all moot point, however, as criminals don't bother with permits and they certainly aren't going to let a "No Guns" sign or law stop them. It's important to note that the Kirkland, MO city hall, the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Virginia Tech, NIU, were all posted as "Gun Free" zones, yet in each case the shooter just ignored the sign.

A roundabout would really

meira — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:09:16 -0600

A roundabout would really help this intersection! People who've lived in Australia and Europe love how these very well-engineered traffic control features keep everyone moving, as well as preventing anyone from idling. Saves on gas, saves on pollution, saves on time.

We will, however, also need to adapt the more "foreign" notion of slowing as you come to a roundabout and letting all those in the crosswalks finish crossing before pulling into the round-about. Since that courtesy (and legal right) for pedestrians does seem to be quite foreign in this area, the City of Savage can be sure a traffic signal is installed for pedestrians to push to notify motorists of their crossing.

Roundabouts are much better than the constant stop signs covering most of America. City Planners will need to look at just how much growth is expected in the future, however, since roads with even more traffic, such as interstates and some highways, are not good locations for round-abouts.

The roundabout idea is about

melringstad — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:31:37 -0600

The roundabout idea is about as lame as them putting the lights in 5-6 years ago without a turn signal. I have driven through plenty of roundabouts and for less traveled intersections they are fine. You have 4 schools within 4 blocks of this intersection and no controlled turns. I am happy to see that the County is looking for our feedback and I challenge all of you who travel this area to make it today and provide them the feedback they are asking for.

Melanie Ringstad

I've used roundabouts plenty

Keighla Schmidt — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:45:05 -0600

I've used roundabouts plenty and I think they are very efficient. I'm not familiar with this intersection, however, my experiences with them have only been positve. I think once people get used to the idea and concept of the roundabout, they'll appreciate it's efficiency.

I too have used roundabouts

David Jr. — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:35:09 -0600

I too have used roundabouts on the east coast and also recently in Burnsville at East Nicollet and Portland Avenue. I don't mind them, they keep the traffic moving better than stop signs. One of the problems is dealing with those folks that have never used one before (they stop when they shouldn't and go when they shouldn't). Plus a two lane roundabout would really confuse them!

As far as the Co 16/Glendale intersection goes, my vote would be for an expanded signalized intersection. I utilize that intersection at least 20 times per week (mostly left and right turns). I know there are times that I avoid that intersection if I need to make a left turn during rush hour (too dangerous). Given the drop off in the topography to the north, I don't believe a roundabout would quite fit that location. Also, the learning curve for the expanded signals would be nearly nil.

Bottom line, there may be an intersection that is ready for a roundabout in Savage (most likely one that is controlled now by stop signs), but not this intersection. (Maybe South Park Drive & Louisiana Avenue?)

I have driven through

Savage Guy — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:12:39 -0600

I have driven through roundabouts in MN and other states and I hate them. They cause confusion and unnecessarily slow you down every time you approach the intersection. This is one idea that we should not import from Europe. Don't ruin a key intersection in Savage by putting in a roundabout!

I think roundabouts are

Tom Schardin — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:26:04 -0600

I think roundabouts are effective in certain areas, but at the intersection it would not be.

I think it would make it more congested.

roundabout would make

footwasher — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:42:30 -0600

roundabout would make pedestrian traffic even more impossible than it presently is.

Let the City Council know

Nancy Huddleston — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:15:48 -0600

Let the City Council know how you feel! To date, all discussion about the removal of SS-9 has taken place in work sessions, which are not broadcast on the web or via Channel 14. Meeting notes are taken and I always attend to write about this topic, however, the City Council doesn't operate in a vacuum. They value public input. There is always time at the beginning of every meeting for public comment at regular meetings. The next meeting is tonight and the one after that is Feb. 4.

It indeed is another sad day

hobbychef — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:48:36 -0600

It indeed is another sad day in Savage. If Prior Lake Aggregates will do a grade leaving the trees standing and the school agrees with that option, why not do that? Our green spaces are shrinking yearly and along with those spaces many rare plant species never again to be seen or enjoyed by us, as stewards, or our future generations. Do we want to continue being a part of that? Twenty years from now when our school enrollment is growing ever smaller, how important are those ballfields and convenient access to them going to be? Will we, along with future generations, enjoy the ballfields more or a rare stand of trees in the middle of what may be yet another concrete jungle? The answers seem pretty clear to me.