About three years ago the SENA NRP group put a shallow trench alongside
Minnehaha Creek to catch the storm sewer runoff unless the storm was just
too big. It was a good project. Fairly cheap, and reduces the flow of
organic matter into the Creek (at least from that source).
I heard a proposal to do a similar thing with a chunk of the Hiawatha Golf
Course. I don't know how the golf course felt about being told they were
getting a water hazard, but a golf course CAN be used to provide "green
space" for more than just visual enjoyment. Used smartly, that green space
in the Golf Course can be "usable" every time it rains by people who don't
even realize they are getting something from it. even if you are a
non-golfer like myself.
I don't know if the second plan went anywhere, but even the fact that the
Golf Course is open, unpaved surface helps with the runoff.
Rich Chandler - Ward 9
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 12:11 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Was Meadowbrook, now more
>
> In a message dated 11/1/2000 7:37:42 PM Central Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes, in part, regarding earlier suggestion to
> sell
> Meadowbrook Golf Course:
>
> << It's a beautiful course, and my kids and I have taken golf lessons
> there for very affordable prices. So when people say that the taxpayers
> don't derive benefits, I have to disagree. Most folks can't afford to
> shell out $40,000 to join a private club like Minikahda, so if they like
> to golf, they golf at municipal owned courses (Hiawatha, Theodore Wirth or
> Meadowbrook in Minneapolis; Fred Richards or Braemar in Edina) or county
> owned courses. I think these municipal courses are a wonderful thing,
> comparable to lakes, parks and public swimming pools.
>
> Am I missing something? >>
>
> First off, I'd suggest that most taxpayers derive no benefit from public
> golf courses other than some largely unuseable green space value...
> naturally the golfers using the facilities enjoy them and support the
> concept-- but what percent of Mpls. households are 'golfing households'?
> I think there is ample justification for the parks being supported by the
> public because they are available to and used by more of the public, less
> so for stand-alone public swimming pools when we have all the city lakes
> (although they have experienced deteriorating quality in recent years--
> for swimming, fishing, canoeing, etc.). [Swimming pools in public schools
> make more sense, and they can also be opened to the general public during
> non-school use periods, with a reasonable userfee that provides a
> contribution toward upkeep and maintenance-- similar to gymnasiums in
> public schools that should be open to the public as school scheduling
> permits.]
>
> The above golf course argument sounds strikingly similar to that of a
> father/mother that wants to take the kids to professional
> baseball/football/basketball games and therefore endorses public funding
> for sports stadium(s)- private team ownership/salary issues aside. The
> fact remains that much of the population in Minneapolis either isn't that
> interested in sports, and/or can't afford to attend the games anyway (also
> there is great competition for discretionary income via numerous
> leisure/recreation options). Taking a family of five to professional
> sporting events (with a hot dog/drink, etc.) costs anywhere from $75 -
> $250, a cost not affordable for many city residents... it could just as
> well be $40,000... well almost. Meanwhile those same residents will be
> experiencing dramatic increases in their property taxes or monthly rent
> payments over the next decade-plus, due to City development policies
> (excessive use of TIF and excessively large amounts of subsidy per
> project) and poor fiscal management practices (i.e. Internal Services
> deficits due to inadequate transfer pricing, growing social programs that
> necessitate annual cuts in basic services, etc.). I think this argument
> (excessive government involvement in things beyond basic services that it
> can't afford) is also valid for municipal-supported golf courses- it's
> another unecessary public subsidy (especially when Meadowbrook isn't even
> located within the city limits) that doesn't provide a public return
> commensurate to the assets involved.
>
> And when the combined results of all these government excesses and poor
> management result in financial harm to our lower-moderate income residents
> and elderly on limited fixed incomes, the arguments become more than a
> tax-cutting diatribe! They question the very logic of all this DFL
> overspending in recent years. As Barret Lane and Lisa McDonald have
> stated in several previous posts, it's time to prioritize what we want to
> spend our tax dollars on in Minneapolis because we can't afford everything
> on the menu! CM Lane has even asked list members for suggestions... I
> wonder what the response has been?
>
> M. Hohmann
> 13th Ward
