Laserfiche WebLink
6216 Rivlyn Avenue N.W. <br />Anoka, Minnesota 55303 <br />June 15, 1988 <br /> <br />To: <br /> <br />The City of Ramsey <br />Planning and Zoning Commission <br /> <br />Attachment A <br />Planning & Zoning <br />June 16, 1988 <br /> <br />Gentlemen: <br /> <br />Re the application of Atlas Incinerators, I offer the following comments: <br /> <br />1) Ramsey is on its way to becoming the first city in the state to be <br />declared a "Keep America Beautiful" City. Incinerator burning is <br />inconsistent with Ramsey's intent. Ramsey has been associated with the <br />name of "Garbage Hill" due to the Anoka Sanitary Landfill. Ramsey is <br />trying to change its image. Adding incinerator burning will not help this <br />cause. <br /> <br />2) If a conditional use permit is granted, it will be very difficult to <br />negate it if Ramsey learns of reasons why they should do so. A thorough <br />investigation of the ramifications of the incinerator burning project <br />should be made prior to the granting of the permit, not after it is <br />granted. <br /> <br />3) We do not yet know what environmental problems the incinerator in Elk <br />River will cause for Ramsey. Do we really want to add to the problem with <br />the dioxins and other emissions that will be generated by Atlas? <br /> <br />4) Atlas intends to do experimental burning. <br />experiment on us and our children? <br /> <br />Do we want them to <br /> <br />5) Let's try to attract business to Ramsey that we will be proud of and <br />that will add to our city, not detract from it. We want also to attract <br />new homeowners, and I do not feel that anyone buying a home in Ramsey <br />would want incinerator burning in the city. Let's try recycling and waste <br />reduction programs instead. <br /> <br />6) If, after thorough investigation, Ramsey decides to grant the permit <br />to Atlas, could it be done with the understanding that Atlas will build in <br />an uninhabited area of Ramsey, far away from the Mississippi River, <br />instead of its present proposed location? Can they be limited to say 16 <br />tons of waste, instead of 38? <br /> <br />Thank you for your consideration of this letter. <br /> <br />Sincerely, ~ <br />Beverley A. Bilben <br /> <br />PoSo <br /> <br />Attached is an article from the 6/11/88 Star Tribune which indicates <br />very strongly that burning is not the answer...that it poses a long- <br />term toxic threat to our health and environment. <br /> <br /> <br />