The De La Salle agreement fails to protect the public in important
ways. De La Salle is not required to post development bonds that will
ensure that any construction ordered by De La Salle during the term of
the agreement is paid for in full and the public title remains clear.
This is the same mistake that the MPRB made when turning over the 201
Building at Fort Snelling to Robert Naegle III dba The Fort LLC. On
that project, the developer walked away and there are $2.5 million in
liens filed against the parkland. The matter is now in court for the
contractors are trying to foreclose on the liens.
The MPRB is being asked to sign this agreement without seeing De La
Salle's financial plan. Also, there is no neighborhood and citywide
review for the actual plan that now includes a parking lot.
Use by city residents, staffing, and maintenance is not clearly defined
in the agreement. What will it really cost the MPRB to use this facility?
This agreement empowers De La Salle to lobby the State of Minnesota (the
Met Council) and the City of Minneapolis on behalf of the MPRB in order
to get project approvals. MPRB and De La Salle may have different
interests in the process & the MPRB will have to be involved so this is
a cost to the public.
The MPRB Commissioners have yet to say what land they will trade to the
Met Council Open Space & Regional Parks program for the De La Salle space.
De La Salle can abandon the project at anytime yet the MPRB has no out.
Should De La Salle abandon the project, it can strip the facility of as
little or as much as it wants and return it to the MPRB ready for
"immediate" use. De La Salle is not required to restore the land back
to its present day condition - no bond is required to ensure this.
There is no mention of payment of storm runoff fees. With astroturf and
a new parking lot, an increase in storm runoff fees seems likely. MPRB
(the taxpayers) will have to pay these on the portion owned by the MPRB.
This agreement gives De La Salle use of our parkland for up to 70 years
- we will be dead before there is even a chance to oppose a renewal. My
grandson is 14 - he will be 84 when this agreement expires. As a
practical matter, this really is a land giveaway to a private religious
institution with hidden costs that will be borne by taxpayers.
Shawne FitzGerald
Powderhorn
People Opposed to Park Privatization (POPP)
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
