Maybe I'm a little slow here, but where does the Minneapolis Park Board get off spending public funds, that will primarily benefit a private religious institution, DeLaSalle High School?
Barry appears to have pocked holes through the 1983 agreement, (I have not seen it and am assuming he is correct) and it appears that there may have been an illegal transfer back then. But it appears that there may be a violation of the 1st Amendment's requirement of separation of Church and State, in that the Park Board appears to be planning to spend public tax dollars to benefit a private religious school. Not being a Minneapolis resident, I don't have standing to challenge this, but has anyone contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota? Dann Dobson Summit Hill - Saint Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In her post above, Park Board Commissioner Hauser > claims she is compelled to > vote for the DeLaSalle athletic complex because of > the 1983 "Met Council" > agreement. > > First, the Commissioner has the wrong agreement. > The one she wants was between > the Park Board and the MCDA. Neither the Met > Council nor DeLaSalle was even a > party. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt and > assume that was a typo and > she actually has read the thing. > > Second, she is simply wrong in her conclusion that > the 1983 Agreement compels a > yes vote on the DeLaSalle project. She is wrong for > these reasons: > > 1. The Park Board's alleged obligation in the 1983 > Agreement does NOT include > the vacation of historic Grove Street. In fact, an > earlier unexecuted draft > contained language providing for the vacation of the > street and that language > WAS STRUCK from the final version of the Agreement. > The earlier draft also > contained language whereby DeLaSalle gave the Park > Board a first right of > refusal on all of DeLaSalle's property. Obviously, > either DeLaSalle didn't > want to grant a right of first refusal or the Park > Board didn't want to vacate > the Street or both - because both provisions were > dropped from the final > version. So vacating the street is not assumed, it > was expressly DROPPED from > the deal. To imply it now and get nothing in return > is to give the school a > freebie. > > 2. The Park Board has already complied with the > 1983 Agreement. The Agreement > provided that DeLaSalle would get a "regulation > football field" and 2 tennis > courts. What the Park Board supporters conveniently > forget to mention is that > in 1984, the year after the Agreement was signed, > DeLaSalle petitioned the City > and the Park Board for an encroachment onto public > land to permit it to expand > its then small field to "regulation size." The > encroachment was granted and > DeLaSalle was given a strip of public land 24 feet > wide by 460 feet long > (11,040 square feet) on which it expanded its field > to its current "regulation > size." DeLaSalle got its field, a large chunk of > which is on public land, in > 1984. And it is regulation sized, as DeLaSalle has > admitted at public > meetings. Nowhere in the Agreement were bleachers, > lights or street closings > even mentioned. DeLaSalle got its tennis courts in > the mid-90's (the Park > Board even threw in an extra one - there are 3). > All Park Commissioners are > aware of these facts - copies of the petition and > the encorachment are public > record. The puzzler is why project supporters don't > so advise the public and > why they use the Agreement as political cover now > that DeLaSalle is back with > its hand out yet again. > > 3. The 1983 Agreement also requires the Park Board > to adhere to the Master Plan > for the Island. The Plan was adopted in the early > 1980's but last updated in > 1996. DeLaSalle was represented in the Citizen > Advisory Committee that created > the Master Plan and all the meetings were held at > DeLaSalle. (Yes - that Park > Board, unlike today's, followed the law and used the > Citizen Advisory Committee > process.) The Master Plan does not contemplate a > football field (DeLaSalle > didn't even mention it - having gotten their > regulation field years before) nor > does it contemplate the closing of a street. It did > contemplate the tennis > courts, which were mapped as being right where they > were subsequently built and > remain today. > > 4. In the 1980's the Park Board was making > agreements all over town. They > signed the Agreement with the MCDA, they agreed to > the covenant which PROHIBITS > building athletic fields on that parcel. The signed > agreements with the land > leasers saying the Island would be developed ONLY in > a manner consistent with > the Master Plan. Now, the Park Board, having > complied with the 1983 MCDA > Agreement years ago, is trying to do more than that > Agreement ever contemplated > and to do so in a manner that would violate all of > its other legal committments. > > 5. There are lots of other issues too. DeLaSalle > wasn't even a party to the > 1983 Agreement. The Park Board's committment was > only "best efforts," surely > satisfied by the 1984 encroachment permit. The > statute of limitations has long > since expired. > > We have asked the Park Board to have their legal > counsel explore all of these > issues. They have declined to do so - with the > majority continuing to hide > behind an 22 year old, unenforceable Agreement that > was complied with in 1984. > The 1983 Agreement is a red herring - nothing more > than political cover for > Commissioners to hide behind while making a very bad > deal. > > Barry Clegg > Nicollet Island > 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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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
