Hmmm, yeah. I'm going to have to go ahead and side with the city's position on this one.

They agreed to the standards way back when - new ownership does not change existing contracts and obligations And no, there are technologies out there that can get them to meet and even exceed the standards - they just don't want to spend the money Don't endanger the health of locals for a few cents more on the bottom line - get that plant up to standards or get fined more

Ok people just don't be surprised when they decide it is too onerous to conduct business there and close the place down. I doubt North Minneapolis can afford to lose jobs.

To yterian - so you believe that "...there are technologies out there that can get them to meet and even exceed the standards...". Great, wonderful!! Please take a minute or two to list & discuss said (better) pollution control technologies and how they differ from what the metal shredder is currently using. Methinks this whole story is a cautionary tale re what can happen if a regulatory pollution control agency (ie MPCA or EPOA) sets emissions limits unrealistically & UNNECESSARILY too low because they don't want to take the heat from starry-eyed environmental activist gadflys. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any environmental regulations,no no no, I'm just saying we can set emissions standards so dang low that some useful & necessary societal amenities never can get built. For instance, could I-94/90 to Chicago have been built in today's regulatory climate (ie maybe it took out a habitat of a rare species or two)? Did all hell break loose when a section of I-35E was build in the vicinity of an affluent (& politically well connected) neighborhood in St. Paul? I don't think so.

This story understates the health impacts of the proposed permit amendment. Here are some numbers: "Multi-pathway:" "Resident Cancer: risk is doubled. Resident Noncancer risk is 2.5 times higher Urban Gardner Cancer is fifty percent higher "Inhalation:"  (that is, air only) Acute is 5.5 times higher "Sub-chronic Noncancer" is 4 times higher "Chronic Noncancer is 3 times higher "Cancer" is 2.3 times higher

Those six parks are not what one would call the gems of the system, and the shredder is not the reason. The parks department is more about the powers wielded by the independent park board, and the money they control. What happens northside is mostly an afterthought. Maybe the shredder can be replaced by some more high end housing. That would fit with the city plan to serve some of it's residents.

the city , the parks and park service want this land for condos and park development and will do anything possible to run this company out of euphoria even though recycling is green and what the euphorians demand

For those of you defending the actions of this company...great, have them move to your neighborhood. Our children don't deserve this kind of crap despite what you think. Polluters...the suburbs welcome you! Good riddence.

shushyn78 Do you honestly believe that there are that many "north siders" employed there? To have industry like this leave the north end of town would help, not hinder. We rallied against the Konderator years ago, and to loosen standards now would be a giant step backward. The stretch along the north west side of the river is the last to be left to dirty industry and SHOULD be parks and residential development just like it is throughout the rest of the city. The northside does not need or want anymore filth.