MPRB's multiple agreements with the Loppet Foundation that have essentially
privatized Wirth Park are reaping numerous negative
consequences--environmental, financial, economic, and more.
A few examples:
"Between agreeing to accept a $2 million personal guarantee in lieu of a
performance bond and now, consideration of a loan guarantee on the
construction, and with no approved projected operating budget for the
MPRB-Loppet Wirth operation, the Park Board (so taxpayers) are risking unknown
millions on this project."
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/topic/4vPB90ay7jd6beI05Jfk7D/
âVery regrettably, it looks like environmental stewardship isn't the priority
is should be at the recently privatized Wirth Park."
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/topic/1I5oiJnToyklkkDQz9luIl/
"Basically the Park Board has already decided to allow the Loppet sponsors free
rein in publicly-owned natural areas, meaning endless ski trail grooming (noise
pollution and air pollution), motorized equipment on frozen lakes (but only for
a few hours a week!), and lost trees (with few restrictions and no compensation
for these losses). It also appears that MPRB gave the Loppet permission to
build a permanent pond for ice-making, which will certainly have adverse
effects on trees and other vegetation that will suffer increased competition
for water."
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/topic/4x29390b2hjD7AYspc7dE5/
"The Loppet is currently reshaping Wirth park to suit its own purposes. While
that is not surprising, the degree to which it seems to be ignoring the
sanctity of the oak savanna, erosion control, safety protocols, and common
sense is."
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/topic/5FLIARxGEo1FtzGJAZcbTd/
Add to all these negative consequences of privatizing Wirth Park: a new $10+
million building on parkland that won't be safe for birds, with attendant lack
of MPRB accountability for this environmental problem.
The environmental damage and fallout caused by the privatization of Wirth Park
continues, as the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board is now allowing the
Loppet Foundation to build a âTrailhead" buildingâ that will likely injure and
kill birds.
The building will be located in a very active area for migrating and newly
fledged birdsâtwo of the groups most vulnerable to bird-window collisions.
Since 2016, local bird conservation groups have made repeated attempts to
obtain a commitment that bird-friendly glass will be used.
MPRB states that it has no control over the building before or during
construction, and defers to the Loppet Executive Director, who states that cost
and scheduling issues prevent them from using birdsafe glass. The contractor
states that the glass will exceed the project's glass budget, and that glass
must be ordered immediately. These disingenuous claims demonstrate the Loppet's
lack of concern and unwillingness to seriously address this important
environmental issue.
Bird conservation groups shared information with Loppet representatives and
MPRB staff on less expensive glass options available from a glass manufacturer
in Minnesota. Yet the Loppet contractor obtained just a single quote for one of
the most expensive bird-friendly glass types in the world, which must be
imported from Germany. Other options are available. At the Springbrook Nature
Center in Fridley, for example, a similar area of glass was made bird friendly
for an additional cost of $9,500, and the Minnesota manufacturer donated the
additional cost of the birdsafe glass.
MPRB had been on notice about this problem since last year, when bird
conservation groups made numerous attempts over many months to resolve this
problem. Now, suddenly, the Loppet insists that time is of the essence and
scheduling concerns prevent them from using bird-friendly glass.
Why does the Loppet Foundation get to build a facility--on public parkland and
with public funds--that we know will kill birds?
Itâs one thing if a professional football team knowingly constructs a building
that will kill birds; itâs an entirely different matter if the Minneapolis Park
& Recreation Board allows and even subsidizes a building that we know will
injure and kill birds on public parkland and with public funds. It is
unacceptable to build a public use building on public parkland that threatens
wildlife. At the very least, the Park Board should require that the recent
$200,000 loan guarantee it authorized to the Loppet Foundation be contingent on
using bird-friendly glass. But since Commissioners already approved the loan
guarantee and the building design, they will be looking for taxpayers to foot
the bill to solve this problem, yet another subsidy to the Loppet Foundation.
privatized Wirth Park are reaping numerous negative
consequences--environmental, financial, economic, and more.
A few examples:
"Between agreeing to accept a $2 million personal guarantee in lieu of a
performance bond and now, consideration of a loan guarantee on the
construction, and with no approved projected operating budget for the
MPRB-Loppet Wirth operation, the Park Board (so taxpayers) are risking unknown
millions on this project."
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/topic/4vPB90ay7jd6beI05Jfk7D/
âVery regrettably, it looks like environmental stewardship isn't the priority
is should be at the recently privatized Wirth Park."
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/topic/1I5oiJnToyklkkDQz9luIl/
"Basically the Park Board has already decided to allow the Loppet sponsors free
rein in publicly-owned natural areas, meaning endless ski trail grooming (noise
pollution and air pollution), motorized equipment on frozen lakes (but only for
a few hours a week!), and lost trees (with few restrictions and no compensation
for these losses). It also appears that MPRB gave the Loppet permission to
build a permanent pond for ice-making, which will certainly have adverse
effects on trees and other vegetation that will suffer increased competition
for water."
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/topic/4x29390b2hjD7AYspc7dE5/
"The Loppet is currently reshaping Wirth park to suit its own purposes. While
that is not surprising, the degree to which it seems to be ignoring the
sanctity of the oak savanna, erosion control, safety protocols, and common
sense is."
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/topic/5FLIARxGEo1FtzGJAZcbTd/
Add to all these negative consequences of privatizing Wirth Park: a new $10+
million building on parkland that won't be safe for birds, with attendant lack
of MPRB accountability for this environmental problem.
The environmental damage and fallout caused by the privatization of Wirth Park
continues, as the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board is now allowing the
Loppet Foundation to build a âTrailhead" buildingâ that will likely injure and
kill birds.
The building will be located in a very active area for migrating and newly
fledged birdsâtwo of the groups most vulnerable to bird-window collisions.
Since 2016, local bird conservation groups have made repeated attempts to
obtain a commitment that bird-friendly glass will be used.
MPRB states that it has no control over the building before or during
construction, and defers to the Loppet Executive Director, who states that cost
and scheduling issues prevent them from using birdsafe glass. The contractor
states that the glass will exceed the project's glass budget, and that glass
must be ordered immediately. These disingenuous claims demonstrate the Loppet's
lack of concern and unwillingness to seriously address this important
environmental issue.
Bird conservation groups shared information with Loppet representatives and
MPRB staff on less expensive glass options available from a glass manufacturer
in Minnesota. Yet the Loppet contractor obtained just a single quote for one of
the most expensive bird-friendly glass types in the world, which must be
imported from Germany. Other options are available. At the Springbrook Nature
Center in Fridley, for example, a similar area of glass was made bird friendly
for an additional cost of $9,500, and the Minnesota manufacturer donated the
additional cost of the birdsafe glass.
MPRB had been on notice about this problem since last year, when bird
conservation groups made numerous attempts over many months to resolve this
problem. Now, suddenly, the Loppet insists that time is of the essence and
scheduling concerns prevent them from using bird-friendly glass.
Why does the Loppet Foundation get to build a facility--on public parkland and
with public funds--that we know will kill birds?
Itâs one thing if a professional football team knowingly constructs a building
that will kill birds; itâs an entirely different matter if the Minneapolis Park
& Recreation Board allows and even subsidizes a building that we know will
injure and kill birds on public parkland and with public funds. It is
unacceptable to build a public use building on public parkland that threatens
wildlife. At the very least, the Park Board should require that the recent
$200,000 loan guarantee it authorized to the Loppet Foundation be contingent on
using bird-friendly glass. But since Commissioners already approved the loan
guarantee and the building design, they will be looking for taxpayers to foot
the bill to solve this problem, yet another subsidy to the Loppet Foundation.
