Chris Johnson has made numerous excellent points in regards to the DLS
stadium land give-away, most notably that the original agreement between
the city, Park Board, and the school was upheld by the 1990's. I
absolutely oppose this project on a few main grounds:
1. The proposal gives priority use of public land to a private religious
institution.
2. The appearance of impropriety a.k.a conflict of interest that is
involved with the MPRB's (the decision makers) ties with DeLaSalle.
3. The degradation of the unique character and historic preservation of
the island, as land use is the primary factor in decisions pertaining to
this unique neighborhood..
4. The residents on the island (in the new Ward 3) overwhelmingly
disapprove of this project for, among others, said reasons.
5. I am an Alumni of Minnehaha Academy, a main "rival" of DeLaSalle.
(although true, this is my attempt at humor! ;)
OK - I should also note here that I too, among many in our city, have
expressed disappointment and opposition to the other stadium give-away -
Pohlad's stadium deal with Hennepin County. There are too numerous
reasons to mention here in this post (that have been mentioned by many
already on this list in the past), but mainly this is about grossly
unbalanced public subsidy with a regressive sales tax proposal that
should at the very least abide by law and end up on the ballot. And I'm
rooting for the Twins on the field and in the market.
But this begs the question to Chris and the list: What actions can the
City Council actually take in regards to these proposed projects? I'm
not a career politician, so I don't pretend to have all the answers, but
it seems to me that the DLS proposal is in the Park Board
decision-making domain (other than tearing up two streets) and the
Pohlad-Opat deal is all tied up with our Hennepin County Board. I look
forward to learning more.
Aaron Neumann
Sheridan Neighborhood, NE Mpls.
Candidate for City Council Ward 3 (Green Party)
Northside * Northeast * Southeast
612.788.1284
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.VoteNeumann.org
"Politics isn't about big money or power games; it's about the
improvement of people's lives." /- Paul Wellstone
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/Chris Johnson wrote:
<>4. "In 1983 ... the school negotiated a joint agreement with the Park
Board to construct an athletic field for the school's use, partly on
park land. Now, 22 years later and still longing for a field of its own,
the school wants to resume the project"
- The school did not negotiate an agreement with the Park Board in 1983.
An agreement between the city and the Park Board said the school, as a
third-party beneficiary, should have a regulation size football field
and a minimum of two tennis courts using public land as necessary. In
1984 the city allowed the school to expand its field onto the public
right-of-way along Grove Street for a regulation field. Then in the
1990s three tennis courts were constructed on adjacent public park land
for DeLaSalle's use. The school got what it was promised: that is why
DeLaSalle said nothing about wanting a more elaborate facility even as
the Park Board was building the school tennis courts on the very park
land the school now wants for its stadium.
This completely faulty bit by the Star Tribune is particularly egregious
because the facts have been correctly reported more than once in the
Southwest Journal and the Skyway News, and because the Star Tribune made
the same mistake a few weeks ago and I wrote to them about it and
pointed them to references for the correct information I gave them.
They have no excuse.
[snip]
7. "There's nothing sinister about such a partnership -- the Sculpture
Garden and the Nicollet Island Inn are examples of others."
- Neither of those examples gives priority use of public land to a
religious institution. The DeLaSalle deal would give the Archdiocese of
St. Paul authority over public land. And if park commissioners approve
the deal, it will be by the slimmest possible margin, with "yes" votes
from commissioners who had children at the school as recently as last year.
[snip]
9. "The unique character of Nicollet Island demands that DESIGN be the
primary factor in this decision ..."
- No, the unique character of the island demands that LAND USE be the
primary factor in this decision, as described in the Park Board's own
master plan and in the restrictive covenant on the parkland in
question. Nicollet Island Park, like all other regional parks, is
designed for passive recreation. Athletic fields, however pretty, are
specifically prohibited, because regional parkland is there for
everyone's enjoyment and use -- not just the athletes on Sundays.
Chris Johnson
Fulton
/-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
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
