I attended the last Park Board meeting. The two topics taking up the  most 
time on the agenda were log rolling and the schematic design of the U of M  
boat 
house on Park land. Despite the time spent on these items, the Board should  
have spent more time examining some of the most basic and important  questions 
for decisions protecting the public interest. (Annie Young and Vivian  Mason 
were not at the meeting.)
 
Log rolling: no one asked the total cost, the amount of time that Park  staff 
would spend on the project or the amount of money to be made by  promoters.
Motion passed
 
U of M Boat House:
This is a project that has been in the background for years and even more  on 
the back burner until a recent U moratorium on new projects  expired.
The Athletic Director, U staff, and women athletes on the rowing team were  
in attendance and there was a power point about the design of a building on 
Park  land on the East River Flats. I believe this was the first  public 
presentation of these plans.
There has been no chance for public review or input.
Motion passed.
 
This proposal would have obvious benefit for the U of M and women's sports  
and it's definitely a cool thing to have these boats and crews on the River.  
It's a beautiful sport and fun to watch from great park locations on the  river.
 
But this is not the only place to build this building. The current location  
of the temporary facilities are on U land by the steam plant. I can  envision 
a really cool building built into the existing topography, kind of  built into 
the slope, like the steam plant.
 
Just because the U is a public institution doesn't mean the Park Board  
should automatically give away land to them.
What is the value of the land? And what kind of deal makes this  worthwhile 
from a Park perspective?
The U has promised some public benefit (they'll do some stuff for the  
public). But I agree with John Erwin that there should at least be some  hard 
wired 
benefit. His suggestion would be to have the U staff a position to  help 
manage and improve green space on Park Land as part of the deal. They have  not 
agreed to this. 
The MRPB is in good bargaining position and they should be negotiating for  
compensation of some kind for this incredibly valuable land and not let the U  
off the hook just because they show up with a slick power point and deserving  
athletes.
 
Do a land trade, deed the land to the Park Board that houses the current  
facility in exchange for the land that the U wants on the flats.
 
And I don't know if anyone has noticed, but the master plan for that area  
below Coffman Union, calls for ripping up the shoreline and replacing it with  
poured concrete and cutting down trees to create a circular park node. This  
would be gilding the lily, destroying the natural beauty of a very special  
place to create a more formal park.The projected cost of this master  plan is $ 
6 
million dollars. I don't mind investing in water quality  improvements which 
would infiltrate water from the parking lots and storm water  runoff. But there 
is no way tax money should be spent on destroying that natural  shoreline.
 
Thanks,
Scott Vreeland      Seward
_www.scottvreeland.org_ (http://www.scottvreeland.org)  
 
 I think the Park Board is on the wrong track with its direction of  
permitting more buildings and impervious surface and less green space and  
natural 
shoreline on Park land. ( Restaurants specifically built on  Park land as 
enterprises, a private stadium on public land, a private yacht  club on a city 
lake, 
Naegle and partners trying to build a private "Fort"  on public land- and 
sticking the MPRB with $ 2.5 million in  debt)
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If 
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.

2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________

Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn 
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls

Reply via email to