Posted by Liz Wielinski on Sat, 09/08/2007 - 11:49pm. | Permalink
| Login to post comments
Comments
"They've [Minneapolis Park Commissioners] already designated 2.9 acres on the
riverfront north of Plymouth Avenue on the West Bank, but the
Metropolitan Council has asked for more."
Two things are wrong with that sentence.
1. It was Minneapolis Park board STAFF, and NOT the elected park
commissioners, who accepted transfer of the 2.9 acres already
destined for regional park use from the city earlier this summer.
Park staff offered the land to the Met Council in a swap for the
Nicollet Island parkland where DeLaSalle want to build its stadium
WITHOUT authorization from the elected park board. Several park
commissioners (Vreeland, Nordstrom, and Young) complained about this
very thing at the Sept. 5 MPRB meeting. The commissioners said they
did not like the fact that staff, acting in their name, had not told
them what they were doing
2. The Metropolitan Council specifically asked for more land that,
UNLIKE the 2.9 acres, is NOT already designated for regional
parkland. Met Council members were infuriated at Minneapolis park
staff for not revealing to the Met Council that the 2.9 acres they
wanted to trade for the Nicollet Island regional parkland were in
fact already designated to become part of a regional park (the future
Above the Falls regional park). The Met Council was upset that the
2.8 acres was already dedicated parkland and could not really be used
for anything but parks due to its location and its 1971 dedication
only to use for park and walkway. The MPRB was offering something
that was essentially worthless for a piece of land worth $2 Million
that had been paid for with $1 million of taxpayer dollars. For that
reason, the Met Council rejected the Minneapolis Park staff proposal
and insisted that the Park Board sweeten the deal with land that did
not already carry a restrictive covenant protecting it as parkland.
But the question remains why the Minneapolis Park and Recreation
Board would not hold DeLaSalle to its offer to pay cash for
replacement land. That is what the park board's 2006 contract with
DeLaSalle guarantees. What is in it for the park board, or more
specifically the taxpayers, to let DeLaSalle off the hook to the tune
of $2 million?
Comments
"They've [Minneapolis Park Commissioners] already designated 2.9 acres on the riverfront north of Plymouth Avenue on the West Bank, but the Metropolitan Council has asked for more."
Two things are wrong with that sentence.
1. It was Minneapolis Park board STAFF, and NOT the elected park commissioners, who accepted transfer of the 2.9 acres already destined for regional park use from the city earlier this summer. Park staff offered the land to the Met Council in a swap for the Nicollet Island parkland where DeLaSalle want to build its stadium WITHOUT authorization from the elected park board. Several park commissioners (Vreeland, Nordstrom, and Young) complained about this very thing at the Sept. 5 MPRB meeting. The commissioners said they did not like the fact that staff, acting in their name, had not told them what they were doing
2. The Metropolitan Council specifically asked for more land that, UNLIKE the 2.9 acres, is NOT already designated for regional parkland. Met Council members were infuriated at Minneapolis park staff for not revealing to the Met Council that the 2.9 acres they wanted to trade for the Nicollet Island regional parkland were in fact already designated to become part of a regional park (the future Above the Falls regional park). The Met Council was upset that the 2.8 acres was already dedicated parkland and could not really be used for anything but parks due to its location and its 1971 dedication only to use for park and walkway. The MPRB was offering something that was essentially worthless for a piece of land worth $2 Million that had been paid for with $1 million of taxpayer dollars. For that reason, the Met Council rejected the Minneapolis Park staff proposal and insisted that the Park Board sweeten the deal with land that did not already carry a restrictive covenant protecting it as parkland.
But the question remains why the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board would not hold DeLaSalle to its offer to pay cash for replacement land. That is what the park board's 2006 contract with DeLaSalle guarantees. What is in it for the park board, or more specifically the taxpayers, to let DeLaSalle off the hook to the tune of $2 million?
Posted by Liz Wielinski | Sun, 09/09/2007 - 4:24pm | Login to post comments