Alright folks.
Yes, the citizens should have been referred to the Planning Dept. however,
there is no proposal to sell any land that any of us on the Park Board know
about.
What Commissioner Hauser was trying to say (I think) was that a developer
had contacted her over a year ago about the site. The way I understood it
there was only one inquiring phone call and nothing else was ever said. The
other point being made was somehow the citizens heard or knew there was a
developer "snooping" around about the "possibility" of that land and they
reacted.
So it isn't about the fact that they got design help (great!) or that they
only need $45,000 to build their little park - unfortunately, environmental
pollution really is in the way on anything happening to this piece of land
probably ever.
It is also true that several years back now another developer (Steve Minn)
showed interest in that land and did come before the Park Board.
Here's the deal - the Park Board inherited that piece of land along with
other riverfront land from Minnegasco. Along with fields and fields that
once housed mountains of coal the land was cleaned up and is now part of
the famous Riverfront developments that are occurring. This piece was so
polluted that it was encapsulated with a cement pad. The City and the Park
Board are liable for this land and if any one - the citizens or the
developers touch that cement padding we are talking buckoo, buckoo dollars
of trouble for everyone.
Yes, take a glimpse at that Health Report. It isn't pretty. That land is
extremely polluted to probably never be cleaned up for anybody to use.
This really isn't an instance of something getting swept under the
rug. This is a rug that is nailed down and really can't be moved or touched.
Annie Young
citywide Park Commissioner
seeking re-election
At 01:25 PM 9/9/05 -0500, Peter Vevang wrote:
I don't know that this proposed Gasworks Bluff development is wrong or
right, but I am concerned by the process. This proposed land sale seems
to be coming out of the blue, there isn't any planning context for it.
The land is at a critical prow in the river, and if it were developed with
a 20+ story tower it would have views covering the Port Authority in North
Minneapolis all the way to the U of M and potentially to Fort Snelling,
and people on the ground would also see it from all of those
points. Every east side neighborhood nearby will have a view of this
building, every tourist will see it. That thought alone ought to bring a
pause. This is a phenomenal piece of property in terms of its real estate
potential, and it is also a phenomenal public resource as parkland, even
in its current polluted and poorly maintained state. It is an undisputed
and strategic highpoint in the viewshed. The question we need to be
asking ourselves is 'is this project really that important that it become
a dominating or prominent element for the river, is this how we want to
represent ourselves', if the answer is no I think we need to step back
from this, we should maintain this land as parkland, at least for the time
being. We don't have a clear understanding how this property ought to be
used, and we shouldn't proceed with a project that could be viewed as a
mistake by future generations.
Some people view this kind of protectionism as being
'anti-development'. I view it as the exact opposite. The trick here is
to use the river for development, but not kill the goose that laid the
golden egg. It is very easy to sell off prime land for a few million
dollars, but if that quick payback endangers hundreds of millions of
dollars in City, State and Federal investments, and cuts short long term
plans, we have made a poor decision. The goal should be to leverage many
tens of thousands of housing units and businesses from this investment,
funded and built with private dollars, not a few hundred units that
cannibalize public resources. Our other goal should be to build up the
Minneapolis Riverfront into a world class amenity, which it could
become. The advantage of building on land near the Mississippi is not
from the land itself, that land can be polluted or ugly. The advantage is
from the views you get and the proximity to the river as a recreation
space. That value is what makes the Mississippi an engine for
development. The more people want to be near it, the more valuable it is
and the greater the pressure will be to build on it. If we damage the
views and the recreation aspects of the river, we damage the river as a
development tool, and we reduce its value. Inhibiting our engine for
development will cost us money and jobs and over time that will affect our
quality of life.
We need to protect and improve our investment in the river. Doing that
will help build up Minneapolis as a world class destiniation. That kind
of distinction as a great place to live will attract the kind of talent
that can compete in the global economy. Businesses can feel secure that
an investment in Minneapolis will leave them well positioned to compete
because they will have access to a great work force. We are in worldwide
competition. If we end up looking and feeling like a dumpy midwestern
town in decline, we will end up with an economy to match our lack of
vision, as the best and brightest among us leave. Companies will follow
and move to cites around state, or the world for that matter, that can
better support and attract workers with the intellectual capital they
need. Right now we are treading water. If we improve our public
resources, we improve our ability to attract and keep the work force we
need. It is a simple and calculus everyone should understand. At least
in part, our fate is linked to the river.
Peter Vevang
Audubon
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 09:14:34 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Mpls] Gasworks Bluff
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Tony Scallon did indeed raise environmental concerns and it was
appropriate to
do so. But that is but one of many factors to consider in the Park plan and
unsupported allegations and the generic bogeyman of "environmental problems"
are not sufficient reasons to shelve the hard work and planning efforts
of the
neighbors and concerned citizens.
Has anyone determined the extent of the purported environmental
issues? If so,
what is the cost? Are federal or state monies avialable to assist in any
required cleanup (as they often are)? Oftentimes in situations like
this, the
recommended and most economical form of environmental remediation is to
add one
to two feet of topsoil and not disturb the ground for a hundred years or so -
i.e. a Park!
Shouldn't we at least analyze the issue before selling off Park land to
developers?
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
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
