Officials push for better Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport meeting access

  • Article by: Pat Doyle , Star Tribune
  • Updated: March 13, 2013 - 12:12 AM

After residents wanted more input on noise issues, legislators are pushing for commission meetings to move from behind security.

  • 12
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
maddyinmplsMar. 12, 1311:46 PM

The MAC likes to have meetings behind all that security because it makes them feel more important. [One of the few perks MAC members have, given they are not paid positions.] And the reality is a lot less of the public shows up. Because of the security (and attendant time commitment) but also because of the price of parking. These meetings should not be at the MSP Airport. They should be in an easily publicly accessible place. Holding the meetings there, by the not-so-inconsequential way, also makes them less accessible to the professional airport concessions crowd, who flies around the country feeding on lucrative airport contracts.

15
2
EleanoreMar. 13, 13 7:17 AM

The faster you disband this unelected taxing authority the better. the private sector should be paying for and designing airport operations, and the state government should be regulating them through the transportation department.

0
6
mn2niceMar. 13, 13 7:48 AM

The MAC has a space where it can hold meetings now in its own building. It just doesn't have a large auditorium to seat hundreds of people. They have the land outside the security area on 28th Avenue South across from the airport maintenance area to build a larger space specifically to handle an audience for its meetings. They don't need to hold them inside the secure area.

2
3
sadie23Mar. 13, 13 8:28 AM

I'm sure there is a large enough conference room within the Mall of America or in the new hotel being built adjoining it. Access would be readily available by both private and public transportation. The MAC needs to get out of thier "Lair" to be more accessable to the public.

7
2
timandtiaMar. 13, 13 9:21 AM

I hate to say it, but it is time for MN/Minneapolis/St. Paul to start looking to build a new airport someplace else. Just look at all the problems they have now (noise, payments to home owners to cover up their houses, etc.). And now the public wants more involvement. Just build a "new" airport way out in the country so that the state of MN does not have to spend useless money!

4
4
FrankLMar. 13, 13 9:50 AM

Note that all of your suggestions involve spending more taxpayer money when there is already an available meeting room that doesn't cost any extra. That's why the price of government gets so high, lots of little decisions to spend more money.

4
2
EleanoreMar. 13, 1310:27 AM

"I hate to say it, but it is time for MN/Minneapolis/St. Paul to start looking to build a new airport someplace else." - This would be a private sector "need" not a public sector one.

5
3
chico2469Mar. 13, 1310:57 AM

Wow. What a colossal waste of taxpayer resources, that a law has to be created for MAC to do the right thing. It would be great if MAC took the initiative to move their public meetings to an easily accessible location without the legislature having to get involved.

4
0
jrkrauseMar. 13, 1311:02 AM

Am I the only person that realizes that when the airport was built it was way out in the country. Why should the state or anyone else have to change the way the airport operates because of where people live? The airport has been operating since 1921 in the same location, thusly it has been there longer than anyone who lives near it and they made the choice to move into a location near the airport, not the other way around!

6
1
bord141Mar. 13, 1311:04 AM

Do residents of Edina want the meetings at the Country Club instead? The airport authority gets almost zero money from the state in taxes. They are their own revenue producing entity. Back in the late 90's the citizens of Minnesota had a chance to build another airport in the Rosemount/Hastings area. But, everybody wanted the convenience of having the airport close to home and downtown so it failed obviously. Now we are stuck with the 'problems'. To build a new airport now would have to be built miles further away and would cost way more money than we could ever imagine.

5
2

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT