On Aug 11, 2005, at 8:15 AM, TONY SCALLON wrote:
Congratulations to Commissioner Hauser for giving the other side of
the issue for
the Athletic field at De La Salle. Yes there are several opinions
that support the
legality of the De La Salle use agreement. The Outside attorney
agrees there is a
contractual relationship between De La Salle and the Park Board to
Provide Space.
I think it's important to note that the scope of the outside
attorney's review might have been too limited, according to some, and
that the outside attorney also noted several caveats on Park Board
obligations and liability.
From:
http://www.skywaynews.net/articles/2005/07/11/news/news03.txt
Recently, the Park Board hired outside attorney Mike Norton to review
the 1983 contract and address unresolved issues.
Norton noted the agreement does not define the football field's size
or location and does not require the Park Board to build any
facilities related to the football field.
Still, he concludes that the Park Board is obligated to build the
football field under certain conditions. A key one is that school and
Park Board reach a reciprocal-use agreement.
Barry Clegg is a Nicollet Island resident opposed to DeLaSalle's
plan. Like Norton, he's an attorney. Clegg argues that the Park Board
has already met its legal obligation, sorting through old documents
to make his case.
In 1984, a year after the Nicollet Island Agreement, DeLaSalle sought
and received a 24-foot encroachment along a 460-foot stretch of Grove
Street to build a new football field. Clegg sent Park Board
Commissioners a copy of the City Council action and supporting
documents.
They include a March 30, 1984 letter from DeLaSalle neighbor John
Kerwin supporting the encroachment permit.
"Your goal of a regulation-sized field and a well-planned campus is
certainly a worthy one," Kerwin wrote DeLaSalle.
Clegg said the Park Board limited the scope of Norton's review, never
specifically asking whether the current football field and tennis
courts met the Park Board's obligation.
"You can usually get any answer you want if you limit the scope of
the question," Clegg wrote to Park Board Commissioners.
Don Siggelkow, general manager for administration, said staff
probably would not seek further legal advice unless Commissioners
request it. "I think we have already put $1,000 into it [legal
advice]," he said. "That is probably my appetite for it."
... More fundamentally, Clegg questions whether DeLaSalle has any
legal rights under the 1983 agreement. DeLaSalle is not a party to
the agreement, he wrote - a point Norton made in his opinion.
DeLaSalle officials say they have rights as a named beneficiary in
the contract.
Even if the school had rights, they expired, Clegg counters.
The 1983 agreement gives the board eight years to finish its work -
meaning by 1991, he said. Minnesota has a six-year statute of
limitations on contracts, meaning anyone alleging a breach had to
bring the action by 1997.
The Norton opinion hints at the issue. "[W]hile there is no time
limit or expiration date in the agreement Š there may be statutory
time limits on the enforcement of the agreement in the event of
litigation," he wrote.
<<end excerpt>>
David Brauer
Kingfield
Editor, Skyway News (soon to be Downtown Journal) and Southwest
JournalREMINDERS:
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
