Park Board Comments
From:
Scott Vreeland
Date:
Jun 14 20:20 UTC
Short link
I read the Minneapolis issues list and usually enjoy the opportunity to have
a forum to debate and discuss issues about public policy especially related
to Park Board issues.
A great deal of the comments made about the park board recently are not
really an attempt to have an enlightened discourse about public policy, but
really an attempt to make the Park Board look as bad as possible as often as
possible.
My friend Chris Steller has done less than a stellar job of reporting on
park board issues. Since the DeLaSalle project, which he hates, he has
consistently written inaccurate and incomplete articles about the Park Board.
He is not reporting the news, he is making up opinion pieces explicitly
excluding information he has that would make his stories more accurate. I
think
this is one of the challenges of Internet news, and formats like the issues
list... accuracy is optional.
The recent flurry of comments about parkland you can't use are based on an
article where Tom Nordyke and Dawn Sommers were specifically and intentionally
misquoted.
This is an issue that can be resolved without character assassination
I have no doubt we will resolve these issues in a principled and pragmatic
way based on additional research of original acquisition and historical
agreements that were made about permits and land use in that area.
I have great respect for Tom Nordyke's work as president and colleague.
People in glass houses should not throw stones...
A former Library Board member that lost his right to be an elected official
because of financial management problems of the Minneapolis Library system
writes "What idiot approved this? " about a revenue producing art event that
will provide revenue to keep the Matthews Park ice rink open next year.
Sheldon Mains is the president of the Seward Neighborhood Group. I have been
told by hundreds of people in Seward that we absolutely need to keep the
Matthews ice rink in the Seward neighborhood open next year. Where do you think
the money comes from to do that?
OK... if the Seward Neighborhood Group could have a national art event
sponsored by Red Bull that would bring a world class art project to Franklin
Ave
for a day, and that event would pay for a neighborhood staff person for a
year- would I call the board idiots for approving that project?
Oh and by the way.. Seward Neighborhood Group had to lay off all its staff
because of financial mis- management. ( So this is an example of a cheap
shot.. Sheldon Mains has done a great job of trying to straighten out a mess
that
was not his fault, but I can easily unfairly smear him by innuendo).
So another example of some cheap shots come from David Brauer who provides
commentary after a Chris Steller article.
I have respect for David Brauer and his work on the Mpls. issues list and
local politics. Because of that I am surprised that he has taken these cheap
shots at the Park Board.
He recently wrote about sponsorships:
"More lack of foresight and planning"
"This typifies the current way of operating at the Minneapolis Park Board.
It's all react, not planning for the future and developing a comprehensive
approach."
OK .. ignore the fact that we have done an incredible job on comprehensive
planning that has resulted in an approved comprehensive plan that really
reflects a city wide perspective on the future direction of the park board and
ignore the months of hard work for the 2008 budget process that determined
that,
rather than cut free services to park users, we would seek some sponsorships
to pay for budget deficits.
I wanted this job and am working very hard to address the challenges that
put the park system at risk.
What is missing from the recent discussions is a clear understanding of the
big picture issues about funding our operations and the lack of capital
investment in neighborhood parks.
Too few people understand the role of the city council, Mayor and the Board
of Estimate and Taxation and now the state in determining the viability of
the Park system.
The real question for members of the issue list, City Council and voters is:
How important is it to maintain a great park system and is this a city wide
priority? And how do we pay for the services we want?
Historically this has been a great city because of its park system.
These are difficult times and our city taxes are going up and costs, fuel
and health care as examples, are going up at a much higher rate than MPRB
income.
So we are in a downward spiral of service cuts, increase of fees, and huge
deficits in capital investment.
We are in a financial crisis.
With the libraries as a cautionary tale of great relevance, we are working
very hard to address these issues.
What has been missing in many of the recent comments about the park board is
information or the context of choices we have made.
I will use Sea Salt as an example. With harsh criticism of privatization of
public land concerning restaurants on Park property, there was controversy
about putting a private restaurant in the Minnehaha Park shelter.
In my humble opinion this arrangement has worked out well.
I can have a great meal, seafood or vegetarian, drink a world class beer in
an outdoor setting that might be one of the ten best locations in the State
and be contributing to the park system when I do so.
The Park Board got $103,000 from this arrangement last year. When the Park
Board ran a restaurant there it lost money.
Believe me, I have my disagreements with staff and my fellow board members,
but we all share the same mission and have a unanimously approved
comprehensive plan that really reflects what we learned from a comprehensive
conversation with the communities we serve. We also are having extensive
conversations
about 5 year planning for the continuing financial challenges we face. We have
done a good job of doing more with less, but if we have to cut $1 to 2
million a year in services there is no fat to cut. We are already understaffed
for
services people expect.
We have asked the city and the Board of Estimate and Taxation to fund the
Park system at a level where we do not have to cut services and to fund
capital
investment in neighborhood parks. Those requests have basically been denied.
I understand the complexities of the debate about private and public
partnerships. I am aware of our weaknesses and strengths as a system. What is
missing from the conversations on this list is that certain financial choices
lead
to specific outcomes. (Not funding infrastructure has predictable results).
I think a great deal of effort has been made by this current board to be
both principled and pragmatic about some really hard choices.
For me the hard choice today is when to go to the Stone Arch Bridge
Festival. When I get back, we can have further discussion about whether it is
malfeasance for me to let all those artists make a profit on public land...
Thanks,
Scott Vreeland
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
Commissioner District # 3
(612) 721-7892
.