Annie Young wrote:
The City Charter says Conflict of Interest really means "financial
gain" and so they will say they are putting nothing in their pockets
monetarily so therefore no conflict.
Now what about perceptions? What do you all think?
The issue of Nicollet Island and deLaSalle may not fall under the
charter's definition of conflict of interest, or their realm of conflict
of interest, if you will. I think the issue is more a conflict on the
level of the intent of the city when it turned the land over to the
>park board< and the failure of duty by MPRB to adhere to the principle
for which the board was formed in the first place--to preserve and
improve park land.
If the city turned over Nicollet Island to the MPRB for parkland, and
the MPRB accepted same with the intention of holding, for the citizens,
as much of the island as possible, then the question that wants an
answer is whether or not the MPRB is violating its own covenant with the
citizens by selling land on ecofragile Nicollet Island.
The people living on the island, though mighty privileged, do not own
the land under their homes, the MPRB does. Why is deLaSalle, an
institution, being treated with such privilege?
DeLaSalle is a private school for those who can afford the stiff tuition
(and a few scholarship kids). It's boosters are asking for the privilege
of breaking the covenant between the board and the citizens. Conflict of
interest writ large, IMO.
If the long term intention is to keep Nicollet Island a park without
further incursions from business, industry, education, or anyone else,
then it certainly is a conflict of interest to sell of a piece of it.
"It's just a little piece of land," one MPRB member told me. Doesn't
matter if it's a square inch or a square mile; it's park land. Though
immaterial to the argument, the uses to which that little piece of land
is going to be put, if sold, will be a disadvantage to that particular
park putting a lot more pressure on an already fragile piece of land.
The MPRB, these same nine people, have already voted down the Crown
Hydro project because the land is too fragile at the bank of the river.
That can also be said for Nicollet Island, one terminus for some of the
2.9 mi. of tunnel under the river. One of the two or three islands
remaining, five of them having been removed by the Corps of Engineers to
fix the cave in disaster of the 1800s. If they're not willing to be
ethical, they could at least be consistent.
IMO, it's the role of the park board vis-a-vis preservation of this
fragile and much wounded space in the city vs. the desire for privileged
treatment by the management and boosters for deLaSalle. If the MPRB
sells the land to deLaSalle, then there is no reason to keep the MPRB
intact as a function of government and it should be dissolved forthwith.
( If the MPRB really had its act together, it would be trying to figure
out how to buy out deLaSalle and move it to another site.)
WizardMarks, Central
________________________________
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
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
