This arrangement is legally a lease - Commissioner Hauser is factually incorrect on this point, as well. The Park Board has not determined whether it has a current legal obligation to DeLaSalle. Commissioner Hauser is ducking for cover behind an obligation that has not been established as fact.
I met with Nikki Carlson (DeLaSalle advocate) and Mike O'Keefe (DeLaSalle Director) yesterday and we had a good discussion on site. I have a much better understanding of the proposal after our visit. I deeply appreciate the motivation of DLS advocates to improve the school and its athletic programs. Looking at the proposal from the perspective of a DLS student, I can see that having a stadium/athletic facility directly adjacent to the school would be wonderful. It's a beautiful area, with the city skyline in view and the tree-lined shore of the island. While there, I noted that DLS does an outstanding job of maintaining its facilities and the quality of the existing practice field was superb. Speaking as a longtime football player, I don't think I ever played on such a plush field. It's important to separate the failures of our Park Board administration from DLS. DLS is a great school seeking an improvement for its students. These discussions should be managed and have not been, so inaccuracies, exageration and emotion are flowing freely. Even our Park Commissioners, making the big decisions, are leaping to conclusions and publicly communicating inaccurate information. Let's not let the Park Board's communication failures make this ugly. I committed to re-reading the 1983 agreement, with an open mind. My last read of the agreement leaves me with the belief that the Park Board has no current obligation to DeLaSalle. I'm not an attorney. I expect MPRB to work with legal experts to fully answer this question before pursuing any proposal. If it were determined that MPRB has a legal obligation, I would pursue the proposed project. If there were no obligation, I would be opposed to the proposal as it stands today on the following grounds: 1. The Citizen Advisory Cmte should have been formed when the project was proposed, to help make the decision about whether to pursue the project. 2. The public land to be dedicated to this purpose is regional park space, funded by regional dollars, planned to be regional park space, and with a restrictive covenant. My perception is that this facility would detract "somewhat" from the appeal of Nicollet Island to visitors to the area. Before seeing the proposed area, I had a stronger opinion about negative impact on a historic district. After seeing it, this concern has lessened. The facility footprint would consume a small cobblestone street (Grove) and the existing tennis courts. 3. The park space is currently occupied by shared-used (DLS & MPRB) tennis courts. I would need to see utilization statistics for the tennis courts before uprooting them. I can't see any appropriate place to relocate the tennis courts. 4. DLS seeks to turn the existing practice field about 90 degrees and overlay where Grove Street and the tennis courts are today. I can envision the field fitting. I can envision bleachers fitting. My perception is that parking, traffic, and the sheer volume of people would be problematic. I envisioned this space feeling like Pearl Park on a busy day (overflowing). The Park Board is trying to move traffic away from Pearl Park toward facililties that can sustain the heavy programming. The Park Board has not demonstrated that this very tight area has the capacity to sustain the volume of visitors to a stadium as opposed to a practice field. 5. This is a city space. I would like assurances that MPRB will dictate what constitutes acceptable behavior in this space and not the church. 6. I perceive that this proposal weighs heavily in favor of DLS without adequate benefit to the city as a whole, that would justify entering into the partnership. The number of hours in which the greater community would have access to the field is inadequate, in my opinion. I seek "net good" in public/private partnership. This agreement today yields a DeLaSalle athletic facility, with light shared use. * Individual Commissioners should be recusing themselves from this vote due to their conflict of interest (unethical, not illegal). This is a component of my thought process, although not exactly a reason to be opposed to the facility. Regards, Jason Stone Diamond Lake --- Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lastly, Hauser tries to assuage by saying the reciprocal agreement does not > sell, lease, rent or give away park land. 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
