[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see the park “reform” people have made their “endorsements.” I think these folks started out with legitimate criticisms of the MPRB's processes, but it has evolved into something far nastier and destructive. Apparently, opposing a playing field for the kids at DeLaSalle has become one of their litmus tests. Too bad the kids are an acceptable casualty of their campaign. In case anyone on this list would like to show support for the playing field on Nicollet Island that doesn’t involve a land give-away, doesn’t result in loss of green space, and is a win-win for the city and parks, I would vote for Mary Merrill Anderson and Dan Froehlich for the at-large seats. They are the only two candidates who do not appear to have been scared into submission by these “reformers.” Peter Surmak 13th Ward
Since Peter Surmak's post is full of factual errors and distortions, it seems appropriate to post the truth. I don't particularly like his obviously insulting broad brush of dismissing a broad variety of separate park interests with half-clever usage of quoted words, either. Minneapolis Citizens for Park Board Reform's message hasn't changed since day one. The Athletic STADIUM* (correct usage, look it up in a dictionary yourself) that DeLaSalle wants to build on park land -- after already having been given over an acre of park land by the Park Board in the past years -- is hardly the "litmus test" that Surmak claims it to be. In fact, if you search their web site (www.parkboardreform.org), you won't even see DeLaSalle mentioned once. DeLaSalle would have had room to build this Stadium had they not covered another acre or so of their own land with a building expansion in 2003. In 1996, during the Master Planning process for the Island, of which DeLaSalle was a fully participating member, not once did they mention their desire to build this expanded athletic stadium. Why is it a need of crisis proportions now? The claim that "kids are an acceptable casualty" is complete nonsense. All of the people I know who are interested in change at the Park Board, are strongly interested in changing the system to provide more access and more programs for youth. It's the penny-wise, pound-foolish extravagances that are resulting in youth programs being cut from the budget under the current controlling faction. Moreover, this statement is far wide of the issue at DeLaSalle: it is NOT the responsibility of the Park Board to provide land to PRIVATE SCHOOLS or any other institutions for their "kids" to use. If it were, there are lots of other schools and institutions just as deserving as DeLaSalle, and located in far less historically valuable and environmentally fragile sites. And don't for a minute be fooled by a claim that DeLaSalle will "share" the field of this stadium with park users in any significant manner. Their athletic programs and normal school usage will dominate the usage of this stadium, reserving over 90% of the available time exclusively for DeLaSalle's usage. Additionally, how will those supposed city "kids" get to this field on the Island from their home neighborhoods? The closest neighborhoods from which one might imagine they would walk are 95% adults. It's very clear from Surmak's second paragraph that contrary to his claims in the first paragraph of DeLaSalle being the "litmus test" for park reform interests, it is in reality the SINGLE ISSUE LITMUS TEST for him. He appeals to anyone who wants to help DeLaSalle and the "kids" (mom and apple pie, too, I'm sure) to vote for two candidates who represent more of Bob Fine's arrogant, self-serving mismanagement. The DeLaSalle issue is the ONLY argument he gives for supporting Froehlich and Anderson -- so clearly it is Surmak who is the single issue person, not the people he calls "reform". Froehlich and Anderson are the wrong choice because they represent a continuation of the power of the controlling faction. When Anderson was superintendent and Fine was board president just a few years back, she made NO SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS without calling Fine on the phone first. She was absolutely worthless, part of the same cronyism, inside-baseball favoritism that is ruining the parks and putting the Park Board in jeopardy. Anderson is the person who GAVE AWAY THE STORE by renting the 5000 square foot historic Theodore Wirth House in Lyndale Farmstead Park to Bob Fine's high school buddy Jon Gurban's Minnesota Recreation & Parks Association (MRPA) for a piddling $750 a month, utilities included -- and then proceeded to spend over $200,000 worth of tax dollars renovating the house for the MRPA at no charge. Anderson is the one whose botched negotiations at Ft. Snelling resulted in a ridiculously short 30-year lease on the land from the DNR that the Park Board then spent over $15 million building improvements upon ($9 million over budget). Anderson also so angered other parties to the negotiations at Ft. Snelling that some members of those other groups asked that someone other than Anderson be sent to negotiate. Those negotiations also resulted in more than one lawsuit against the Park Board, for which the taxpayers paid untold large amounts of money. Froehlich was not even on the Park Board campaign radar until the filing date in July. Just how informed and interested in the parks can he be? I've never seen him at a Park Board meeting, and as you know, I attend darn near all of them. Well, it's really no surprise when one also learns the Froehlich has been chaperoned around town by Bob Fine, Jon Olson and Walt Dziedzic. Froehlich is clearly their pick as their phony "outside man" after their former phony "outside man" John Lilly dropped out of the race. Froehlich might be a fine fellow personally, but he is far too beholden to Fine and company, who are the essential problem with the Park Board. Lastly, it seems PECULIAR to me that Peter Surmak of the "13th ward" did not reveal that HE HIMSELF is a DeLaSalle PARENT, and that the did not this time identify the neighborhood in which he lives, which he stated as Linden Hills in previous posts. Surmak's repeated instances of disingenuousness and distortions ought to make it hard to believe anything he says. I am a member of Park Watch, a group which has been active since January of 2004, and is interested in a better Park Board. I reject Surmak's lumping us together with the Minneapolis Citizens for Park Board Reform, even if the two group's positions on issues may coincide and even though we endorsed the same candidates -- as did the Sierra Club, by the way. Are all Sierra Club members also part of Surmak's slur on "reformers"? Chris Johnson Fulton -- http://MplsParkWatch.org/ 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
