Grand Forks Economy

[the green team]

And the reason it is that way is because in Grand Forks, all it takes to stop something like this is to get about a dozen people to go to the appropriate committee meeting and give teary-eyed speeches about how their children will be in constant mortal danger if you build a south-end bridge.  Council members need to look past re-election sometimes and make tough choices like this or our three existing bridges will get beat up and require more maintenance sooner than they should.  The problem isn't going to go away because some people want it to.

I'm not sure that it would be a council issue- for a bridge on the Merrifield road.  Wouldn't it be a county commision issue, but more so a State Legislature issue, for both North Dakota and Minnesota?

[fightingsioux4life]

I'm not sure that it would be a council issue- for a bridge on the Merrifield road.  Wouldn't it be a county commision issue, but more so a State Legislature issue, for both North Dakota and Minnesota?

Yeah, you are right, it would involve multiple entities.  But depending on where it is built, local government will be involved and that is where the NIMBY syndrome comes into play.

[the green team]

Yeah, you are right, it would involve multiple entities.  But depending on where it is built, local government will be involved and that is where the NIMBY syndrome comes into play.

No worries, I wasn't being critical, as I was not the best at government courses in high school and college.  I was just looking for either clarification or validation that I actually guessed right for once.

[Sal Atticum]

Just wait until GF throws out some bike lanes on the busy streets like they did Fargo. Then people will cry about kids getting hit by cars.

That's exactly what we went through to get sharrows on University Ave in Grand Forks--people claiming that somehow a bike lane would cause drivers to hit kids going to school.

[darell1976]

That's exactly what we went through to get sharrows on University Ave in Grand Forks--people claiming that somehow a bike lane would cause drivers to hit kids going to school.

 

Fargo actually put bike lanes on a regular 2 lane street with parking on the side. So if there is a parked car, the bike rider has a choice, hit the parked car or dart out in traffic. Sometimes these planners don't have a clue.

[Oxbow6]

Fargo actually put bike lanes on a regular 2 lane street with parking on the side. So if there is a parked car, the bike rider has a choice, hit the parked car or dart out in traffic. Sometimes these planners don't have a clue.

 

 

It is entertaining to watch though...

[Vegas_Sioux]

Fargo actually put bike lanes on a regular 2 lane street with parking on the side. So if there is a parked car, the bike rider has a choice, hit the parked car or dart out in traffic. Sometimes these planners don't have a clue.

is that like the new terminal in grand forks with almost an entire side is windows with no shade control? East.

[Redneksioux]

Yeah, you are right, it would involve multiple entities. But depending on where it is built, local government will be involved and that is where the NIMBY syndrome comes into play.

Not sure what nimby is but if I lived where they were planning to create more traffic I'd definitely be upset about it. Especially living outside of grand forks city limits. People leave the town to get away from the noise. So if gf/egf/truck traffic is going to bring the noise, someone better be paying for the depreciation of my property.

[fightingsioux4life]

Not sure what nimby is but if I lived where they were planning to create more traffic I'd definitely be upset about it. Especially living outside of grand forks city limits. People leave the town to get away from the noise. So if gf/egf/truck traffic is going to bring the noise, someone better be paying for the depreciation of my property.

I am not saying people shouldn't have a voice in where a bridge is built.  But they shouldn't have unlimited veto power, either.  It has to go someplace.  Thus NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) needs to be combated and defeated.

[Redneksioux]

I am not saying people shouldn't have a voice in where a bridge is built. But they shouldn't have unlimited veto power, either. It has to go someplace. Thus NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) needs to be combated and defeated.

That's fine. If the majority wants it they can pay for it. The landowners that had power lines over their property got paid. Well maybe not all of them, if the pole(s) were on your property you got some money. You could have a perfect country property on 20 acres and have the noisy power line run right over it and not be paid a dime. Depreciating a single family's property value to serve the majority with no reimbursement.

Personally I feel all this continued development is ruining the amazing habitat/environment that has made our state great and no dollar amount can fix that.

[Goon]

Not sure what nimby is but if I lived where they were planning to create more traffic I'd definitely be upset about it. Especially living outside of grand forks city limits. People leave the town to get away from the noise. So if gf/egf/truck traffic is going to bring the noise, someone better be paying for the depreciation of my property.

 

Not to mention, that I don't want to pay for another tax. My taxes are high enough, already. You're right about noise and traffic too. 

[SiouxVolley]

That's fine. If the majority wants it they can pay for it. The landowners that had power lines over their property got paid. Well maybe not all of them, if the pole(s) were on your property you got some money. You could have a perfect country property on 20 acres and have the noisy power line run right over it and not be paid a dime. Depreciating a single family's property value to serve the majority with no reimbursement.

Personally I feel all this continued development is ruining the amazing habitat/environment that has made our state great and no dollar amount can fix that.

 

More traffic brings more potential appreciation in value.  But you have to get it rezoned and sell it to get the benefitsl

[Redneksioux]

More traffic brings more potential appreciation in value. But you have to get it rezoned and sell it to get the benefitsl

Maybe it would help a sell price. But should a family be forced to sell and move because of a road? If this was being done outside of town, in my eyes it would bring my personal value of the property down. The traffic would bring noise and additional danger no way around that. And if the property was used at all for hunting, this may no longer be an option on this property.

Now if this were to happen in town I wouldn't have quite the same feelings. If you bought a home in town then you should have almost expected something like this to happen in the future. There's no hunting going on in town and the noise is already there to a certain extent. But put yourself in a certain family's shoes, who built after the flood off Belmont and 32nd ave so....would you want a bridge right there connecting you to the south side of egf?

Consider me in the nimby crowd I guess! Even though we may be in the minority on certain specific issues, if we happen to be the property owner who is affected by one of these decisions, who should have the final say? Just because the majority is for it it doesn't make it right.

[BIGSIOUX]

Maybe it would help a sell price. But should a family be forced to sell and move because of a road? If this was being done outside of town, in my eyes it would bring my personal value of the property down. The traffic would bring noise and additional danger no way around that. And if the property was used at all for hunting, this may no longer be an option on this property.

Now if this were to happen in town I wouldn't have quite the same feelings. If you bought a home in town then you should have almost expected something like this to happen in the future. There's no hunting going on in town and the noise is already there to a certain extent. But put yourself in a certain family's shoes, who built after the flood off Belmont and 32nd ave so....would you want a bridge right there connecting you to the south side of egf?

Consider me in the nimby crowd I guess! Even though we may be in the minority on certain specific issues, if we happen to be the property owner who is affected by one of these decisions, who should have the final say? Just because the majority is for it it doesn't make it right.

That is the exact attitude that is killing this country.  Those people that built homes just south of Grand forks knew damn well that an arterial connecting the cities was a possibility this discussion has been ongoing for 25 years.  It grinds my gears when people get pissed because of an apartment complex/go cart track/park moving in next door to them......It's been zoned that way!!  Nobody is forcing your hypothetical family to do anything, just because they bought a house just outside of town to be free, but still use all the services of the city, doesn't mean they get that freedom for perpetuity.

[The Sicatoka]

If you're inside the Grand Forks flood protection area you should expect to be "in Grand Forks" (meaning more city than country setting) at some point. The spot I recommended for a Red River crossing (Merrifield Road near the GF Country Club) is in the protection zone*.

 

*Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was told that Merrifield Road is the south protection line and the GF airport road extended south to Merrifield Road is the west border of the flood protection plan.  

[jdub27]

Not to mention, that I don't want to pay for another tax. My taxes are high enough, already. You're right about noise and traffic too. 

What do taxes have to do with it?  You don't think your taxes have been impacted from the maintenance needed due to the wear and tear on Demers Ave and the Sorlie Bridge due to the high traffic volume and regular use by large trucks?  A south end bridge connecting GF/EGF is something that is needed, no question about it.  No one enjoys paying more in taxes but certain things are a necessity. 

 

Also, the fed and state government typically pick up a large portion of the tab when it comes to bridge work (which is obviously still tax money, but spread out among a much larger base).  For example, the City of GF will be responsible for about 10% of the tab for the renovations and repairs that need to be done downtown.

[darell1976]

If you're inside the Grand Forks flood protection area you should expect to be "in Grand Forks" (meaning more city than country setting) at some point. The spot I recommended for a Red River crossing (Merrifield Road near the GF Country Club) is in the protection zone*.

*Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was told that Merrifield Road is the south protection line and the GF airport road extended south to Merrifield Road is the west border of the flood protection plan.

Merrifield Rd would be a good spot for a crossing. Fargo has a bridge on 52nd ave S or else it's I-94, 3 bridges downtown, the 12th ave toll bridge and the broadway bridge on the very northside of town. The construction on those bridges and roads would be worse if they didn't have more than 3 bridges like GF. Everyone pays taxes on roads every time you fill up with gas. The good outweigh the bad.

[Redneksioux]

That is the exact attitude that is killing this country. Those people that built homes just south of Grand forks knew damn well that an arterial connecting the cities was a possibility this discussion has been ongoing for 25 years. It grinds my gears when people get pissed because of an apartment complex/go cart track/park moving in next door to them......It's been zoned that way!! Nobody is forcing your hypothetical family to do anything, just because they bought a house just outside of town to be free, but still use all the services of the city, doesn't mean they get that freedom for perpetuity.

Sorry that you feel my attitude is ruining this country but every tax paying citizen should have a voice. I realize that anyone that built just south of town should have realized a bridge will be going somewhere eventually. I moved further out of town for this very reason. But you can't expect the people whose properties that are affected to just be ok with it.

It's my opinion that it's not this attitude that's ruining the country. It's more of a big government ruining the country. But just my opinion:/

[BIGSIOUX]

Sorry that you feel my attitude is ruining this country but every tax paying citizen should have a voice. I realize that anyone that built just south of town should have realized a bridge will be going somewhere eventually. I moved further out of town for this very reason. But you can't expect the people whose properties that are affected to just be ok with it.

It's my opinion that it's not this attitude that's ruining the country. It's more of a big government ruining the country. But just my opinion:/

I agree that everyone should have a voice, do you think the minority (southside land owners) should be able to dictate the majority?

I guess I just don't agree that bridges and roads are "big government", otherwise I agree with you.

[darell1976]

I agree that everyone should have a voice, do you think the minority (southside land owners) should be able to dictate the majority?

I guess I just don't agree that bridges and roads are "big government", otherwise I agree with you.

 

Have a city vote, that way everyone has a voice. Yes people on the northside would vote yes for a bridge, southside would vote no, but it wouldn't be so clearly cut as everyone in the whole city is impacted by traffic. And if you locate it south enough like say the Merrifield Road the southside neighborhoods shouldn't be impacted quite as much as if it was located on 17th Ave or 32nd Ave.

[Redneksioux]

I agree that everyone should have a voice, do you think the minority (southside land owners) should be able to dictate the majority?

I guess I just don't agree that bridges and roads are "big government", otherwise I agree with you.

Whoever's property the decision affects should have a big voice. I don't know the right answer though.

What sticks in my head is the new power line running from center to grand forks because I know people that were affected by this with big power lines now running over their yard that weren't there in the past. I'd also be upset if I lived out west and had to deal with what's going on out there.

[The Sicatoka]

... the new power line running from center to grand forks ...

 

I know people who know people. I could arrange that those folks have no power lines of any kind running on their property. And I know a couple places that make and sell candles to help them out after. 

[The Sicatoka]

I agree that everyone should have a voice, do you think the minority (southside land owners) should be able to dictate the majority?

I guess I just don't agree that bridges and roads are "big government", otherwise I agree with you.

 

A self-serving minority point of view dictating the outcome ... where've I heard that before ... 

[fightingsioux4life]

Whoever's property the decision affects should have a big voice. I don't know the right answer though.

What sticks in my head is the new power line running from center to grand forks because I know people that were affected by this with big power lines now running over their yard that weren't there in the past. I'd also be upset if I lived out west and had to deal with what's going on out there.

So your solution is what?  Just don't build roads and bridges because some landowner will be inconvenienced?  Just don't build power lines because someone complains about it?  Roads, bridges and basic infrastructure like power lines are what separates the U.S. from third world countries where people are still getting their water in buckets from rivers and roads are nothing more than two ruts in the dirt.  We all pay taxes to fund this stuff and we all benefit from them.  A couple of cranky malcontents should not be able to dictate policy for an entire city.  And no, if a proposed project would impact where I live, I would NOT reflexively cry out NIMBY.  I would ask a lot of questions and make sure my concerns were addressed.  And if it was determined that my backyard was the best place for the project, I would support it for the good of the city as a whole because I live in that city and I want my community to have what it needs to be a great place to live.

 

As for what is going on out west, I do think more should be done to address the problems the oil boom is causing out there.  But the solution is not to just leave the oil in the ground.  We need to pump it out, but do it in a way that doesn't hurt people that have been living there for 30, 40, 50 years.  It's about balancing competing interests, not taking one side over another.  End rant.

[darell1976]

So your solution is what?  Just don't build roads and bridges because some landowner will be inconvenienced?  Just don't build power lines because someone complains about it?  Roads, bridges and basic infrastructure like power lines are what separates the U.S. from third world countries where people are still getting their water in buckets from rivers and roads are nothing more than two ruts in the dirt.  We all pay taxes to fund this stuff and we all benefit from them.  A couple of cranky malcontents should not be able to dictate policy for an entire city.  And no, if a proposed project would impact where I live, I would NOT reflexively cry out NIMBY.  I would ask a lot of questions and make sure my concerns were addressed.  And if it was determined that my backyard was the best place for the project, I would support it for the good of the city as a whole because I live in that city and I want my community to have what it needs to be a great place to live.

 

As for what is going on out west, I do think more should be done to address the problems the oil boom is causing out there.  But the solution is not to just leave the oil in the ground.  We need to pump it out, but do it in a way that doesn't hurt people that have been living there for 30, 40, 50 years.  It's about balancing competing interests, not taking one side over another.  End rant.

 

^^^^ THIS!!!!!!  Here in Fargo they are going to dig up my sidewalk and parts of my street for drainage when it rains because a lot of water collects and problems occur. Am i unhappy, no, and why because I know it is for the greater good of the city. I am getting assessed on my property for it, not thrilled about that, but I know its part of the solution to pay for it. Whatever helps the city is fine by me. Will I get inconvenienced, sure there will be times I can't use my driveway, but I will get over it and have alternate ideas to compensate this. Traffic sucks, we all don't want to be stuck in it, so why not find ways to elevate it....instead of ignoring it.