Each time I think I'm making my last comments on the Park Board decisions, governance, lobbying, etc. Here is the next installment.
When I first heard about the building purchase, I said it was a poor idea unless it utilized the river site for more than an office view, referring to a recent report done by the State Planning Agency on the properties of the Urban Riverfront. Chief among the criteria for best development is a connection to the river and a connection of neighborhoods to the river. (From my previous post: "I would like to draw attention to a study done by Minnesota Planning (at my instigation), entitled "Connecting With Minnesota's Urban Rivers: Helping Cities make sustainable Choices for the Future". They may be out of hard copies but you can download it at http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/eqb/pdf/2002/UrbanRivers.pdf . (It's 20 pages with about 20 more pages of appendixes.) One of the best recommendations is the line in the design guidelines: "Seek out and give priority to river-related and river-enhancing development opportunities. If there is no connection to the river, there is no need for a Riverfront location." Have any Park Commissioners read this report? Staff? (Other than Rachel Ramadhyani, thanked in the acknowledgments.)" As an aside, the only Park Board person who responded showing knowledge and appreciation of the report was Annie Young and there was remarkably little commentary from the list on this subject. IMHO, the use of the river through the entire city is a much more fertile ground for useful discussion than the Park Board rent vs. own. I would love Vivian Mason and John Erwin to devote their considerable intellect and talents to this issue. If the Park Board does not follow through on this, I will join the chorus of critics. I understand that the enhancements and developments I want may have to be on a waiting list behind other needs. I ran by the site the other day and it is a perfect example of unutilized Riverfront. If the Park Board offices just open restrooms and fountains for runners and bikers and boaters, it will be a big positive addition. Even the parking lot for access to bike paths and river access and special river events, water skiing and fireworks. I am bemused by the South Minneapolis contributors to this list with their plethora of park amenities who would begrudge the chance of us river rats to have something done to make our waterfront more usable. This property could be an example for other developers (housing or the Guthrie to follow.) I was surprised by Vivian Mason's suggestion of the Fuji-Ya space. She should know that was once Park Board offices and had problems of parking and access. In addition we just passed legislation allowing the Park Board to lease this site, for private restaurant development and that is in process. The vision here is a Tavern on the Green (NYC) type profit center and new use for a part of the Park system. That site is much better for that sort of development right now than the Moore Building. While we are talking about space reuse, the to-be vacated Park Board North maintenance site with its near North Greenway location could be prime for housing. I'll add my economics 101 (From Harvard...to recall a previous discussion) to the comments of the other pseudo-economists. If you are comparing rent versus mortgage payments done in the same time frame the issue of the present value of $ is irrelevant, except that the part of the payments that goes to pay off principle is positive for ownership. As for the use of the Park Boards reserve fund, I would urge all critics to look at the return on investment of that fund as opposed to the real estate values in that area. Finally when we moved to Minneapolis almost 40 years ago, weighing all criteria including the openness of the political process, the quality of the Congressman (Don Fraser), and the theater scene, one of the most important on our list was that it was listed (on some forgotten list) as having the highest ratio of park land to inhabitants of any city in the country. My guess is that was not likely to happen without an independent park board. Phyllis Kahn State Rep 59B _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
