The
Park Board does want to purchase. The Park Board has a way of coming up
with money--that is not the problem at all. We have the money for
this situation under control. The problem is that there is no
process in place to put any of the land in the Upper River Master Plan district
into the hands of the Park Board or any public agency. Something
stinks here. I am told that Mr. Baylor sat on the Planning
Commission at the time he obtained the purchase rights for the Riverview Supper
Club. Is this, what in the stock market, is called "insider trading"?
Can anyone verify that?
We
have a Plan in place, that hundreds of people, (public employees and citizen
volunteers) worked on. But any person, with some cash in his pocket and
some inside information, can just waltz in and overrule the work of the
body politic. This is then defended as "respecting private property".
Not good. And a city council that will not even stand up for
its own master plan? Not good.
Mr.Baylor came to the City Council to ask for a zoning
change from industrial to residential. The argument was heard, "we
have to give this to him, because if we don't anybody could come along and use
the land for industrial purposes." Why not rezone the whole area right now
so this thing can not happen again?
The whole point of the Upper River Master Plan is to green up the
river. First and foremost, the plan was created to allow the public
access to the river and create the kind of Park or Nature amenity that is so
abundant on the South Side. So why not re-zone the whole area
for Parks. Then when someone comes along with a proposal for something
else, like housing or retail or industrial and asks for a zoning change, the
project can be evaluated on the basis of whether or not it fits into the
Plan.
Dean Zimmermann
Commissioner, Mpls Park & Rec
Board
City Council Member, elect Ward
6
612-722-8768
-----Original Message-----I did see the meeting on TV. I thought the final vote was a little strange too. However, I have a question for you as a Park Commissioner. Whether you or the Park Board knew that the property was up for sale is one thing. However, would the Park Board have had the money to purchase? I think the dilemma facing the committee today was that Mr. Baylor had a Purchase Agreement for the property. The Park Board had nothing to show that they could or would be willing to pay for the property. They wanted too, agreed, but financially could they have handled it? Then you get into a situation whereby you are challenging the property rights of Mr. Baylor just because the Park Board may or may not want to purchase. I think that's where the problem arose. Not whether it should or should not be developed, but legally did they have a right to deny. A sticky situation at best.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 9:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Today's Z&P meeting
Karen Collier
Linden Hills
a message dated 11/13/01 8:40:59 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the Z&P meeting today regarding the JADT developemtn -
Did anyone besides me find it odd that for awhile there it looked like
nobody on the committee was going to make a motion about approving the
permit and plans. It seemed that Joe Biernat and the old team of cronies
managed to paint Mr. Ostrow in a corner (who clearly had his doubts about
doing the right thing). Joan Campbell and Dore Mead kept mumbling about
come on Paul show some leadership. What I saw was ugly. Of a six-person
committee one person was out of the country, four others are not around
after January 1st and didn't want their name on this "boondoogle" so that
left Paul all by himself. And then when they voted a couple of folks
abstained adding fuel to the already burning fire.
I kept throwing out a flag about "why couldn't they table the motion for 3
months?" I heard Joan mumble "we can't do that."
For some reason I did not get to speak although I thought I had signed up
on the speaker's list. But I am still befuddled by all of this and
actually very pissed. I want to know why lots of us didn't know that piece
of property was ready to go up for sale. As a Park Commisioner it would
have been my duty to do everything I could have to get hold of that
property...
but you know what folks, I never knew that property was available until the
development plan was presented by Mr. Baylor.
In my opinion, yes things are rotten in Denmark on this project and I plan
to search for some answers. I still want that piece of land for the
citizens of Minneapolis and I mean all 7 acres.
For the moment,
a very upset Park Commissioner about losing a piece of land today (and not
even to affordable housing so I could at least be not quite so upset). More
fancy townhomes on the River - nice, but gag me with a spoon.
But who am I?
