In my mind the soccer fields are not a justification for building this
stadium. A similar proposal was made for Boom Island to have athletic
fields. That proposal was discarded because it has the identical
covenant restrictions with the Metropolitan Council, it was purchased
with the same State of MN funds and the community preferred open space
over athletic fields. In the past, this kind of project was
emphatically rejected. It should surprise no one that if the same
question is being asked on an adjacent parcel of land that the answer
from the this very same community is similar. Athletic fields were
deemed to be an innapropriate land use for this area of regional open
space and that situation has not changed. A field with bleachers and
astroturf is a more severe land use.
The bottom line for converting this land from regional open space to
another use is that such a change must provide clear value to the
community. Given the current proposal, the idea that this will be in
the Park Board domain and control is not credible, this will be in the
domain and effective control of DeLassalle if this project proceeds. To
believe otherwise would be illogical. They have not shown a design
concept beyond a colored diagram. They have not shown precedents,
pictures of other similar projects they want to model their design
after, for the kind of stadium that they want. They have not shown a
master plan concept that shows how their planned land use relates to the
overall master plans for the areas above the falls. They have not made
a convincing argument that people living 100 yards from the school will
have access and use for such changes. They have not outlined any site
improvements that will offset the harm they propose. This plan does not
address the problem that almost all the remaining open space on Nicollet
island would be in the hands private interests and would be off limits
to casual use, now that the Pavilion, Inn and other amenities have been
'leased' and sequestered by private interests. The DeLasalle land use
requirements as presented are in direct conflict with neighborhood land
use requirements which include spaces to walk their dog, spaces to fly a
kite, and spaces for exercise and leisure. The Park Board will be
providing at least $1 million in utility paid for by Minnesota and City
taxpayers to a private interest without compensation. Where is the
value to the community? Why should we tolerate the inconvenience and
ugliness of a stadium without getting something in return? As land
deals go, how does not benefit the community?
It bothers me that these issues are not addressed directly. Rather than
identifying neighborhood concerns, and land use issues, the process is
designed to paper over these process issues. The process is murky and
subterranean. Naturally the neighborhood reacted with concern, and that
concern has grown considerably as the process moved along, in part
because the Park Board seems to have a selective deafness. It seems
like a one sided and unfair process. The process is so distorted that
the burden of proof is being placed on the community (not DeLassalle) in
order to validate/invalidate this project. A rational and fair process
would have looked at the appropriateness of this project in this
location and would have been able to establish the linkages needed to
establish whether or not this project is feasible. A rational planning
process would have brought these blatantly obvious community issues to
the surface before this became an armed standoff. To me, this looks
like conflict resolution via a thermonuclear exchange between the
various interested parties, and a stadium will presumably rise from the
ashes. That is crazy.
The Park Board needs to get its act together, this is no way to do the
peoples business. The current process isn't an accident, it is the
guaranteed result of a ham handed management. There is a lack of
leadership at the Park Board. It is being run poorly, both on the
Commissioner side and the Management side. The only people doing a good
job are Staff. DeLassalle may or may not pass (I strongly believe it
shouldn't), but this is a clear symptom of a larger problem. This kind
of mismanagement will drag down our park system. We have already seen
huge negative impacts in the quantity and quality of park services.
Many parks are in rough shape, playground equipment is aging and
services are being cut. We have problems like Swamp of the Isles and
E.Coli Beach. Our urban forest is in rapid decline. We can't keep
doing this and expect our Parks to remain high quality assets for our city.
Peter Vevang
Audubon
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
