This one (excerpted) is a total misrepresentation of the facts. Except for the cooperative buildings (with some lower income residents), there is no public subsidy to residents. Except for DeLaSalle all are tax payers. See Barry Cleggs recent posts for further economic analysis. There was also a full public decision process to establish the park with the houses in it and just about all of the outside users, walkers, Segway tourers, horse carriage users etc. will tell you that the houses and gardens are a big draw.
Message: 12 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:40:56 EDT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Mpls] DeLaSalle Playing Field Debate To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" In recent weeks Iâ*ve quietly followed the DeLaSalle High School playing field debate from the sidelines, curious to see how each side maneuvered to support their positions. Personally, I find the whole debate ludicrous and increasingly comical (or is it tragic?), as everyone participating in this debate knows the â*residentsâ are interested in preserving the park land on Nicollet Island only because they happen to live there. Of course, they live on the island thanks entirely to the largesse of the park board and the city, which awarded them rights to live on the island in 1980s, not to mention the taxpayers, who ultimately support all park land. They donâ*t want to be bothered with the noise, traffic and commotion that go along with youth athletics, and some have publicly stated theyâ*d rather not see â*inner city kidsâ on the island. To the Nicollet Island â*residentsâ I offer this compromise: If we must preserve the park land and deny these kids a playing field, letâ*s preserve it completelyâ|..and move all island residents off of the public land they currently enjoy at taxpayer expense. Peter Surmak Linden Hills DeLaSalle Parent On the other hand, the post from Jason Stone (reprinted in part) was a very cogent analysis in lay terms of the falacy of the legal staus of the alleged agreement. As we have said before, DeLaSalle has their regulation football field and their tennis courts. They have no right to add on to the terms, 22 years after the fact. Message: 8 Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 06:55:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason C Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Mpls] Marie Hauser on DeLaSalle 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. Phyllis Kahn State Rep 59B 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
