All posts in the topic Park Board Comments (Short link)
Summary
- There are 34 posts — by 21 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Tim Bonham at 2008 Jun 22 10:09 UTC
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
Scott, I feel compelled to respond to two points here:
1. You write:
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.
My question: how do you know they were "specifically and intentionally
misquoted?" Were you party to either communication? Saw an original email? Or
taking someone else's word for it?
This is a sincere inquiry, not an attack. I know James Shiffer, the Strib
reporter who wrote the "parkland you can't use" story and I consider him a
journalist of great integrity. If he's the unnamed reporter Scott is accusing
of malfeasance, I some convincing proof.
2. Of my "comments," you write:
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."
Me: Those quotes were not mine. They were made by the person who commented
after me ("Downriver). It's OK, Scott - you're not the first one to be confused
by the old Minnesota Monitor comment layout. (A TV reporter once wrote me
really pissed off about a comment the next person actually made.)
You can read my actual quote here:
http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4110
The irony is, I called the policy an "abortion," which may be worse than what
Scott inaccurately accuses me of. I wouldn't repeat that language on this
civility-driven list except to note I am guilty of a cheap shot, just a
DIFFERENT cheap shot.
My larger point in the comment was that the Park Board accepted these ads from
a company that doesn't even do business in the city.
But the truth is, I'm very much against advertising in the parks, which this
is. I think that's a legitimate policy position, if cheaply expressed. The park
board (preceding Scott) has long looked to let this camel's nose into the tent,
and it's only the fierce, fierce opposition of citizens that's stopped it in
the past.
Let it be said that the Park Board, whatever their intentions, can be wrong.
They have the power, and we really don't. Sometimes, that can enable asymmetric
dialogue.
All that said, I think Scott raises some legitimate issues; I'm a sucker for
constructive engagement and don't mind being reminded to uphold that goal.
On Jun 14, 2008, at 3:20 PM, <email obscured> (Scott Vreeland)
wrote:
>
>
> 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?
>
The Library Board voted for a consolidation with the Hennepin County
library system. That's different from losing your right to be an
elected official, which happens when you lose election to office.
What some call art others call garbage. That's opinion going back to
caves and canyons.
And, needing an ice rink does not mean the public may have no opinion
about the source of the money to keep the rink operating. I think
this is a root argument of tax revenue to support government activity
for the public good versus corporate advertising fees. Corporations
that crept onto the edifices of public buildings are now creeping
into the operating budgets of public services. How much is too much?
My husband and I used the news of the Stone Arch bridge being used
for advertising as a teaching moment for our granddaughter. We will
honor her considered opinion that we should wait until after Red Bull
has vacated the public bridge before we continue to use it. The
bridge itself is all the illume we could ever want.
>
> 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?
>
Scott Vreeland here echoes the questions asked by the Library Board.
These are the questions we will be judged by in future decades.
Laura
Southeast/Como
Laura Waterman Wittstock
President and CEO
Wittstock & Associates
913 19th Ave SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
612-387-4915
www.laurawatermanwittstock.com
Laura Waterman Wittstock wrote:
> And, needing an ice rink does not mean the public may have no opinion
> about the source of the money to keep the rink operating. I think
> this is a root argument of tax revenue to support government activity
> for the public good versus corporate advertising fees. Corporations
> that crept onto the edifices of public buildings are now creeping
> into the operating budgets of public services. How much is too much?
Maybe. Or, maybe the root argument is: If tax revenues are
not available, should services be cut or should alternative
sources of revenue be found?
> My husband and I used the news of the Stone Arch bridge being used
> for advertising as a teaching moment for our granddaughter. We will
> honor her considered opinion that we should wait until after Red Bull
> has vacated the public bridge before we continue to use it. The
> bridge itself is all the illume we could ever want.
Will you also visit the park facilities that this exhibit
funds? Or, better yet, you could visit a park facility
that _would_ have been open if more revenues (from any
source) had been available.
In some sense, this debate almost seems to be one between
those who see the mission of the park system to preserve
open space (which can easily limp along on reduced operating
budgets) and those who think that the park system should
provide organized recreational activities (which are
reduced or eliminated when budgets are reduced).
Or, maybe it is a debate between families with young children
(who are more likely to make use of organized recreational
activities) and adults without young children. Or, maybe
it is a debate between families who can afford to pay for
organized educational and recreational activities for their
children, and those who are dependent upon the park system.
Or, maybe it is mostly complaints from those who don't
like corporations (although I do wonder where their
retirement funds are invested...).
Scott and Tim make great points here.
Specifically, Scott says, "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" and "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."
And Tim hits the nail on the head spelling out the seemingly opposing
choices (cutting programs v. finding alternative revenues; and organized
activities v. open space.)
At this moment I am sitting on a deck at St. Anthony Main observing a lovely
mix of small business owners (artists) and larger businesses (corporate
chains) at the Stone Arch Festival. My question is, *at what point does a
business become offensive in terms of dealing with the parks? Is it to do
with revenue and profit size, location, employment practices, beauty, what?*
I don't have anything else to add. Great, constructive thread. My small
thanks for the hard work the park commissioners and staff do.
-Nikki Carlson
Linden Hills
Scott Vreeland said:
> 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.
First off, I have to say that I share Scott's concerns about the level of
capital investment in this city. We have had the funding crises that occured
with the changes in the tax classification rates, the increasing residential
property values, the slashing of LGA, the increasing health care costs, the
increasing fuel and materials costs, and now the potential recession and the
decreasing of residential values (which leaves everyone poorer). These (and a
few other things) have added up to a real crisis in funding at the City.
Things have recovered somewhat. We have been able to restore some of the cuts
in public safety and crime is down. But it is the more incideous cuts that
are now starting to impact the City. You can skimp on maintenance for a
while and things will be fine. But the longer you do this, the bigger a hole
you dig yourself into and the harder it is to get out.
I posted recently about my concerns about street maintenance and I have
spoken about my concerns about park maintenance at the Board of Estimate
meetings. I believe this year we need to start putting more money into
maintenance of our streets and the related street infrastructure (has anyone
noticed how illegible our stop signs are coming as the years have worn away
any reflectivity?). I also believe we need to increase our park maintenance.
I say this as my previous union contract settled for a 0%, a 1% and a 1% and
my new contract is two years at 2.3%. And I have had two dead bodies within
a block of my house.
I do believe that some responsiblity is with the City. We can't just do all
the cool, sexy things like a bike shop on the Greenway or fountains or a $3.8
M conference room when we cannot fix our potholes or park benches.
But I also have to say that the Park Board has had a "growth only" policy
which has fueled this problem. For folks who don't know, this means that the
Park Board will not give up any land that is currently under Park control.
But the Park Board will accept or purchase additional land, setting us on
continual growth path. This has also exacerbated our maintenance problems. I
do believe that until we have a "no net gain" policy from the Park Board, we
continually be in a financial crisis with park maintenance.
Carol Becker
Longfellow
PS
Scott Vreeland also wrote:
> 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.
I accept it is the citizen's role to yell at me. Some are going to yell at me
about taxes being too high. Some are going to yell at me about services
being too low. Someone once told me that good budgeting is the equal
dispersion of dissatisfaction and I have to say I feel this personally. But I
do appreciate anyone who takes the time to go out and fight for what they
believe in. Because that is their job as a citizen and it is what a
democracy is based on.
Scott said: "I wanted this job and am working very hard to address the
challenges that
put the park system at risk."
and he noted: ". . .our city taxes are going up . . ." and as concerns the
Park
Board, "We are in a financial crisis."
He goes on to use the example of Sea Salt, located in the Minnehaha Park
shelter
as an example of successful privatization on Park property, noting that the
"Park Board got $103,000 from this arrangement last year."
Unfortunately, Scott makes no mention of the much less successful (read lost
$$)
endeavors involving private use of Park Board land.
At least Scott fought against the Switcheroo that lost the Park Board the
promised money that DeLaSalle was obligated for the land swap involved on
Nicollet Island. For Attorney Brian Rice's assurance that De would pay the
money that didn't come, see
Then there's the recent incident of what I would project to be half a million
in
tax NOT paid by the two event companies leasing Park Board properties. And I
can
tell you that what the Park Board realizes from THOSE privatized arrangements
do
not give a good return based on industry standards. (As a private business
owner, I competed against them and paid $75,000 in property taxes for ONE year.
See earlier post if you want details.)
These are only part of the big picture, but the Park Board Administration has
developed such a pattern of non-responsiveness to requests for public
information and had such a history of relying on non-written agreements (how's
that for responsible business operating tactics) that they frustrate efforts
for watchdog organizations to find out just what IS the big financial picture.
If the Park Board wants respect for their operation, administration and
Commissioners, they have to start operating according to respected standards
and be open and responsive to public scrutiny (it's the law, after all).
If it resists pressures to operate responsibly, responsively, and openly,
problems will result and the criticism will continue.
A few good Commissioners working hard aren't enough.
At 6:06 PM +0000 6/15/08, Carol Becker wrote: >But I also have to say that the Park Board has had a "growth only" policy >which has fueled this problem. For folks who don't know, this means that the >Park Board will not give up any land that is currently under Park control. >But the Park Board will accept or purchase additional land, setting us on >continual growth path. This has also exacerbated our maintenance problems. I >do believe that until we have a "no net gain" policy from the Park Board, we >continually be in a financial crisis with park maintenance. Carol, Can you elaborate? Will Rogers famously said, "Invest in land. They ain't makin' any more of it." I am only aware of one large piece of land left for the Parks Board to consider acquiring: the Bureau of Mines property south of Minnehaha Park and abutting Fort Snelling State Park. Is the Park Board buying that? And what other land is under consideration for purchase? What are the maintenance requirements for these new purchases? I have noticed that the mowing I expect on the parkland nearest my house isn't getting done as promptly as it should (and that moreover the person who is doing the work is just terrible at it), but how are new land acquisitions taking money from the mowing crews? Are we acquiring new parkland that needs maintenance beyond mowing? At 4:20 PM -0400 6/14/08, <email obscured> wrote: >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. Scott, It's true that collecting $103,000 over a deficit is an incredible and laudible success, and it's also true that this private business is an "un-doable" situation: the Park Board can reclaim that space should it choose to, so why not try the experiment? But it's also true that the Park Board hasn't been able to enforce that business returning the receipts for annual parking permits that it used to sell on behalf of the park board. (I drove over to the Park Board headquarters to buy my annual permits because Sea Salt no longer sells them, and the person who sold me the permits told me this.) Given this, and given how they've lost my trade a few times this year because they close so early on Sunday and Monday, and because they get bogged down so quickly when busy, I find it easy to imagine that Sea Salt could be a better source of revenue. As for the topic of beer, when a restaurant serves "world class beer" in a place where "only 3.2 beer in cans is allowed on park property. All other alcohol is prohibited" (<http://www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=132#alcohol>), it's the Park Board who come across as inconsistent. Just what is the actual law or policy about alcohol in public parks, anyway? Nikki, At 12:57 PM -0500 6/15/08, Nikki Carlson wrote: >At this moment I am sitting on a deck at St. Anthony Main observing a lovely >mix of small business owners (artists) and larger businesses (corporate >chains) at the Stone Arch Festival. My question is, *at what point does a >business become offensive in terms of dealing with the parks? Is it to do >with revenue and profit size, location, employment practices, beauty, what?* I don't think that either Sea Salt or that crazy-bike-rental company at Minnehaha Park is offensive to the sensibility of the park. Obviously, gigantic advertising banners of any kind would be an aesthetic issue, and the rest of your good questions are ones I can only opine about, and have no inside information on.
A 'no net gain' policy for the park system would be very unfortunate for the
future of the city. The future vitality of the city depends on growing the tax
base, which includes population and business growth. Amenities and,
specifically the "Above the Falls" development, are vital components of this
future vision.
I share deeply the concerns about the immediate pains (and wounds) within our
city yet continue to believe that a certain percentage of public investment
must always be future-looking. Focusing narrowly on the most immediate
concerns at the expense of long term investment brings short term relief at the
expense of long term good health.
Kind regards,
Jason Stone
When a discussion of the Bureau of Mines property came up at the MPRB
they decided they would not do anything other than wait and see. They
would be willing to take the land if it were given to them but
otherwise they weren't really going to pursue anything there. On the
other end of the river in the area known as Above the Falls the MPRB
has been acquiring land for more parks and trails and the Upper
Riverfront Corp. legislation that the State passed recently will
probably aide them in acquiring more property for parks there if they
pass a resolution supporting its formation.
There are also plans to create more parks along the Mid-town greenway,
the Grand Rounds Missing Link and the Mayor has been advocating for
more parks in the North Loop area between the new Twins ballpark and
the river. There is even a suggestion of turning the Shoreham Yards
area ( CP rail ) in NE into parks in the future ( see the MPRB Comp
plan for more of their expansion plans at www.minneapolisparks.org).
Liz Wielinski
www.mplsparkwatch.org
Karen Cooper <email obscured>> said:
> Can you elaborate? Will Rogers famously said, "Invest in land. They
> ain't makin' any more of it." I am only aware of one large piece of
> land left for the Parks Board to consider acquiring: the Bureau of
> Mines property south of Minnehaha Park and abutting Fort Snelling
> State Park. Is the Park Board buying that? And what other land is
> under consideration for purchase? What are the maintenance
> requirements for these new purchases?
I am unfortunately out of town at a conference so cannot lay my hands on the
statistics for the growth of the park system. I will see if I still have
those when I am back later.
I should clarify that I am looking at this question over the long term. Off
the top of my head, the larger areas are those along the riverfront, the Ft
Snelling complex, and scattered park land here and there. I'm also thinking
the community centers we built in the 1980's and 1990's, the play
infrastructure, the wading pools, etc etc etc.
And understand that it isn't that I don't like parks or the park
infrastructure. With a kid, I use it all the time now. And I live near a
big park (the river). The fundamental question though is given that our
population has declined (substantially), how much park infrastructure is
enough? When have we built out the park system? When do we declare victory?
Here is the population for the last 50 years to help put this in
perspective.
1950: 521,718
1960: 482,872
1970: 434,400
1980: 370,951
1990: 368,383
2000: 382,618
2005: 387,711
I am curious to hear what other folks think. A couple folks have written in
saying that they think the park system should continue to expand. The
question I would put to them is this. We already have one of the most
expansive urban parks in the country. When have we done enough? And how
much more are you willing to pay, knowing that we are already in a serious
hole just maintaining what we have today?
Carol Becker
Longfellow
Carol Becker wrote:
>I am curious to hear what other folks think. A couple folks have written in
>saying that they think the park system should continue to expand. The
>question I would put to them is this. We already have one of the most
>expansive urban parks in the country. When have we done enough? And how
>much more are you willing to pay, knowing that we are already in a serious
>hole just maintaining what we have today?
I respond...again:
It is time to realize and to internalize that we really have two park
"systems".
1. Parks, nature areas, trails, lakes, green space.
2. Recreational areas.
IF we were to reduce the number of recreational areas by creating multi-use,
low maintenance facilities we could turn many of those under used, under
maintained facilities back into Parks, nature areas, trails...
So in other words...build more Neiman complexes. And while your at it sell
those advertisements and hang 'em on the fences! If it helps pay for the
construction or upkeep why not? It seems that most of the people on here that
are against commercialization are those that really have no desire to be
involved in recreational activities that occur on soccer, baseball, football or
ultimate fields. I think that it is appropriate to think that our open spaces
should be free of man made influences. So put them where people like me don't
care on ugly chain link fences!
Rick Kuhlmann
HPDL
Karen Cooper in a Minneapolis Issues post asked Carol Becker about
acquiring more Minneapolis Park land:
Carol,
Can you elaborate? Will Rogers famously said, "Invest in land. They
ain't makin' any more of it." I am only aware of one large piece of
land left for the Parks Board to consider acquiring: the Bureau of
Mines property south of Minnehaha Park and abutting Fort Snelling
State Park. Is the Park Board buying that? And what other land is
under consideration for purchase? What are the maintenance
requirements for these new purchases?
I would like to once again set the record straight about the Bureau of Mines
property and the remaining land at Fort Snelling. The Pike treaty of 1805
in a Conditional Deed of land to the United States clearly states that the
Sioux Nation shall retain full use of that land that does not interfere with
the use as a military post. Since any use as a military post stopped when
the land stopped being used by the Military then there should be a reversion of
all such land rights to the Sioux Nation. The Sioux Nation in question is
the Mdewakanton Sioux people. Of course all of Minneapolis is not going to be
given back but the remaining land should certainly be returned.
The United States Federal Courts, the Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court
have recently consistently ruled in favor of Native tribes in treaty
disputes. I am sure if the Mdewakanton Sioux people found they needed to
pursue this case in the Courts they would also eventually get a similar
positive ruling. It is presumptive in the highest to assume that real
estate law does not now, or previously, apply to Native people. It is also
racism at its very worst.
Some parts of Fort Snelling were inappropriately given to the Minnesota DNR
after the Post was closed in the 1970s. This transfer of property was
inappropriate even at that time. The rightful owners were simply to busy
attempting to survive and lacked the wherewithal to challenge at that
time. This is clearly not true any longer. In fact they have
notified Federal, State, and County officials that they wish to have the return
of their land. I believe the State Legislature should do the right thing
and transfer that property back to the Mdewakanton Sioux people. I also
believe the Federal government should fulfill its obligations under that land
transfer and return full use of the land to the Mdewakanton Sioux people.
ANY talk of the Minneapolis Park System participating in an illegal taking of
that land violates any ethical standing which the Park System may have with the
people of Minneapolis. I believe there have been quite enough gray area
conflicts of interest, and unethical dealings already. We do not need
dealings added to with further stealing of Indian land and the ignoring of
Native rights in the name of Public Good.
I had such discussions with State Senators two years ago, and hope our United
States Congressman and our two United States Senators will right this wrong and
take appropriate action to return that remaining land to its rightful
owners. This land has special meaning for the Dakota People. It is
the birthplace of their nation as well as the concentration camp where the
Dakota people were kept. If anything that land, and the Springs should be
a shrine to commemorate the people of Minneapolis' and Minnesotas shame for the
attempted genocide of an indigenous people. It should remind us that
the United States has also participated in the same ethnic cleansing and
genocide that we now abhor from other peoples. All in the name of Public
Good!
Jim Graham,
Ventura Village
>"It is always an utter folly to underestimate the lure and attraction of a
great evil. The whitened bones of their victims litter the highways and
byways of mankinds history. Stopped only by the few willing to pay the ultimate
price and make a stand."
- Toe
<email obscured> wrote:
>
> 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.
Private vendors were located in the Minnehaha Park Pavilion during the
years 2004-2007 inclusive. These vendors paid a percentage of gross
sales to the Park Board. That percentage equals MPRB Gross Revenues
shown in the Park Operating Enterprise Fund income statement.
Minnehaha Park Refectory Revenues, 2004-2007
Year, MPRB Gross Revenues, MPRB Expenses, MPRB Net Income
2004 -$147,965, $178,806, ($30,841)
2005-$9,369, 51,870, ($42,501)
2006-$68,475, $45,062, $23,413
2007-$111,905, $14,839, $97,066
MPRB total net income for the years 2004-2007 was $47,137 or an average
of <$12,000 per year. Sources: Park Board audited financial statements
for years 2004, 2005, and 2006; unaudited annual financial statement for
2007.
Note the major decrease in MPRB operating expenses in 2007 compared to
earlier years. Similar reductions occurred at all Park Board
refectories in 2007. I don't know if this is a change in accounting
practice or if the actual savings is real. The savings in Minnehaha
expenses in 2007 equals about 60% of Park Board net profits at Minnehaha
for the past four years.
Starting in 2008, property taxes of $7,000+ have been assessed against
the private business portion of the Minnehaha Park Refectory.
FYI,
Shawne FitzGerald
When I get Mr. Graham's postings and those of two or three others on this list, they are liberally (in the spatial sense) sprinkled with character strings that read " ". This renders the message impossible to read and I don't even try any more. Furthermore, many of the messages on the list are very wide; the long lines also make it very difficult to read. (One should only have to move one's eyes sideways three times for comfortable reading.) This may well not be the poster's problem, but if someone wants these messages read, someone should fix this problem. I read several e-mail groups and these are the only ones giving me these fits (Mpls Issues and MN POL.). I'm sorry to sound so scrappy, but I want to know what's being said! Jeane Moore Southeast Como On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:54:45 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: > Karen Cooper in a Minneapolis Issues post asked Carol Becker about acquiring more Minneapolis Park land: >Carol, >Can you elaborate? Will Rogers famously said, "Invest in land. They >ain't makin' any more of it." I am only aware of one large piece of >land left for the Parks Board to consider acquiring: the Bureau of >Mines property south of Minnehaha Park and abutting Fort Snelling >State Park. Is the Park Board buying that? And what other land is >under consideration for purchase? What are the maintenance >requirements for these new purchases? > >I would like to once again set the record straight about the Bureau of Mines property and the remaining land at Fort Snelling. The Pike treaty of 1805 in a Conditional Deed of land to the United States clearly states that the Sioux Nation shall retain full use of that land that does not interfere with the use as a military post. Since any use as a military post stopped when the land stopped being used by the Military then there should be a reversion of all such land rights to the Sioux Nation. The Sioux Nation in question is the Mdewakanton Sioux people. Of course all of Minneapolis is not going to be given back but the remaining land should certainly be returned. > >The United States Federal Courts, the Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court have recently consistently ruled in favor of Native tribes in treaty disputes. I am sure if the Mdewakanton Sioux people found they needed to pursue this case in the Courts they would also eventually get a similar positive ruling. It is presumptive in the highest to assume that real estate law does not now, or previously, apply to Native people. It is also racism at its very worst. > >Some parts of Fort Snelling were inappropriately given to the Minnesota DNR after the Post was closed in the 1970s. This transfer of property was inappropriate even at that time. The rightful owners were simply to busy attempting to survive and lacked the wherewithal to challenge at that time. This is clearly not true any longer. In fact they have notified Federal, State, and County officials that they wish to have the return of their land. I believe the State Legislature should do the right thing and transfer that property back to the Mdewakanton Sioux people. I also believe the Federal government should fulfill its obligations under that land transfer and return full use of the land to the Mdewakanton Sioux people. > >ANY talk of the Minneapolis Park System participating in an illegal taking of that land violates any ethical standing which the Park System may have with the people of Minneapolis. I believe there have been quite enough gray area conflicts of interest, and unethical dealings already. We do not need dealings added to with further stealing of Indian land and the ignoring of Native rights in the name of Public Good. > >I had such discussions with State Senators two years ago, and hope our United States Congressman and our two United States Senators will right this wrong and take appropriate action to return that remaining land to its rightful owners. This land has special meaning for the Dakota People. It is the birthplace of their nation as well as the concentration camp where the Dakota people were kept. If anything that land, and the Springs should be a shrine to commemorate the people of Minneapolis' and Minnesotas shame for the attempted genocide of an indigenous people. It should remind us that the United States has also participated in the same ethnic cleansing and genocide that we now abhor from other peoples. All in the name of Public Good! > >Jim Graham, >Ventura Village > >>"It is always an utter folly to underestimate the lure and attraction of a great evil. The whitened bones of their victims litter the highways and byways of mankinds history. Stopped only by the few willing to pay the ultimate price and make a stand." > - Toe > > > >Jim Graham >Ventura Village, Minneapolis >Info about Jim Graham: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jimgraham > >This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1kXPQ1alxFPpuRwU8Mn5Fs
David,
Off List
I will also respond on the issues list.
Jim Graham accused the park board commissioners (i.e., me) of malfeasance.
Calling me a criminal without even a whiff of substantiation is not civil
dialogue.
Now that I have your quote correctly, that completes the trifecta of being
called a criminal, idiot, and abortionist on the issues list. (Sorry for
misquoting you the first time around.)
I had a very long and interesting conversation with Jeff this morning.
I should not have said that he intentionally misquoted anyone. I do not know
that as factual information and will gladly retract that part of my
commentary. Both Tom Nordyke and Dawn Sommers personally told me that the
article did
not accurately portray what they said. That is reportable factual
information.
(The power to parse is a pretty powerful weapon)
By the way, I did not accuse any one of malfeasance. So David Brauer
unintentionally misquotes me and I have unintentionally misquoted him while I
am
trying to make a plea for quoting people accurately. So much for clarity.
Jeff believes he was unfairly treated by my comments about his article. I am
sorry he feels that way. That is kind of my point. People he quoted told me
they were misrepresented, that is my source. I should have said that.
I had a very interesting conversation with him about fairness.
So he thinks that I am unfairly commenting on his work in a way that hurts
his reputation. Welcome to my world Jeff.
You wrote:
"Let it be said that the Park Board, whatever their intentions, can be
wrong. They have the power, and we really don't. Sometimes, that can enable
asymmetric dialogue."
I disagree... we all have the power to screw things up. That is why I think
we all have to take responsibility for our roles in this Minneapolis drama.
I am very appreciative of the recent important and insightful commentary
about whether the park system should expand or contract and how will we pay
for
what we want in our city.
Thanks,
Scott Vreeland
Me Too Jeane,
This is a problem that started a month or so ago, and I have been told it stems
from my use of Yahoo.com. I need to change my e-mail address to my
comcast.net address, I guess. Though the last time I attempted that, the
site refused to do so, saying the address was already on the "List". Any
suggestions on how to change addresses? I have attempted the different
ways suggested by the List. Scribing and pasting, Running it
through my Outlook Express and having it put in "Plain Text" format etc.
Any suggestion would be helpful. I have to agree with Jeane. It is
even difficult for me to read my posts after they are goofed up, and I wrote
them!
Sorry Jeane,
Jim Graham,
Ventura Village
Jason Stone wrote:
> A 'no net gain' policy for the park system would be very unfortunate for the
future of the city. The future vitality of the city depends on growing the tax
base, which includes population and business growth. Amenities and,
specifically the "Above the Falls" development, are vital components of this
future vision.
>
> I share deeply the concerns about the immediate pains (and wounds) within our
city yet continue to believe that a certain percentage of public investment
must always be future-looking. Focusing narrowly on the most immediate
concerns at the expense of long term investment brings short term relief at the
expense of long term good health.
>
>
Mark Anderson:
1) Adding land to our parks decreases our tax base; it doesn't increase it.
2) Adding land certainly hasn't added to our amenities over the last ten
years or so. The increased land has decreased amenities because our
Park Board is way over -extended and can barely afford to cut the grass,
fill the pools, and pay for the toilets.
3) Who says that adding more land is the correct long-term investment?
Instead of providing amenities to future populations, we'll be dooming
our children to perpetual crisis mode because they'll never be able to
afford to afford to maintain the large park system they inherited. As
Carol's latest e-mail shows, population in Minneapolis is much lower
than it was 50 years ago,or even 35 years ago. There is no sign that
the population will be turning around any time soon. How can a smaller
population afford to maintain ever increasing park land, which costs
money to keep up, even as it also takes land off the city's property tax
rolls. I often hear about how suburbanites use the amenities of
Minneapolis even though they don't pay for them. Why don't we let the
growing suburbs be the ones to build a bigger park system for the
metropolitan area, since the metro is continues to grow, contrary to our
city.
4) Instead of blindly keeping all land, the Park Board should actually
make some strategic decisions on which land would be most valuable in
the public hands for future generations, and divest of the rest.
Certainly the Park Board should sell all golf courses, since the private
sector does a fine job of providing golf courses. And they should get
rid of all other land that provides marginal benefits for the citizens
of Minneapolis.
I can't remember the last time I agreed with Carol Becker, but she is on
the money this time.
We are imperfect creatures and it helps to have a sense of humor. (especially about your own faults) That said, I will quote myself, (hopefully accurately), from an email that I thought was an off list communication to David Brauer. "we all have the power to screw things up. That is why I think we all have to take responsibility for our roles in this Minneapolis drama." Thanks to all of you out there that have pointed out that my slip was showing. I have a great love of the power of journalism to inform, involve, and empower; and I am greatly disappointed when that is not the case. While I might have concerns about what Strib reporter Mr. Shiffer wrote and why- I do believe in the spirit of honesty and accuracy that my accidental "reply all" has clarified my concerns and his. I would add, that while I have no absolute proof, he does claim that his first name is James. 3.2 beer isn't considered an intoxicating beverage, The National Park Service will probably take over the Bureau of Mines property, and I would be glad to discuss whether we should buy or sell land. Thanks, Scott Vreeland Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Commissioner District # 3 (612) 721-7892 **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
In response to my comments about a 'no net gain' park policy being detrimental
to the future of the city, Mark made a few succinct points for which I'll
attempt to respond.
#1 MA: "Adding land to our parks decreases our tax base; it doesn't increase
it."
JS: Looking at the issue more broadly, if an area is redeveloped it has the
potential to increase the tax base. Even if there is a net increase in
parkland. As an aside, proximity to parks and bikeways generally increases
property value.
#2 MA: "Adding land certainly hasn't added to our amenities over the last ten
years or so. The increased land has decreased amenities because our Park Board
is way over -extended and can barely afford to cut the grass, fill the pools,
and pay for the toilets."
JS: The Park Board's difficulty funding operations and capital maintenance is
not due to "adding land". It's due to many factors which include new
facilities, maintenance on existing facilities, decreased Net Debt Bond for
capital improvement, decreased LGA, increased expenses such as health care and
fuel costs, etc.
Also, "adding land" is an inadequate term to describe the net gains that have
been made in the park system over the last decade.
The Fort Snelling Neiman sports complex, for example, includes land AND
facilities. The continuing debt service is around $1 million/year. To say this
facility is not an amenity would be wrong-- in fact it is well-liked by many
and more accurately represents shifting priorities or "shifting amenities".
Other net gains might include several popular skate parks, which also reflect
shifting amenities.
A good, and rare, example of pure land gain is the Edward Solomon Park, a land
swap between MPRB and the MAC. The fence around the land was removed and now
it sits open for simple use-- not a very expensive investment and a prime piece
of land.
Most of the parkland we have today was added within the first decade or two of
the creation of the park system.
#3 MA "Who says that adding more land is the correct long-term investment?
Instead of providing amenities to future populations, we'll be dooming
our children to perpetual crisis mode because they'll never be able to
afford to afford to maintain the large park system they inherited. As
Carol's latest e-mail shows, population in Minneapolis is much lower
than it was 50 years ago,or even 35 years ago. There is no sign that
the population will be turning around any time soon. How can a smaller
population afford to maintain ever increasing park land, which costs
money to keep up, even as it also takes land off the city's property tax
rolls. I often hear about how suburbanites use the amenities of
Minneapolis even though they don't pay for them. Why don't we let the
growing suburbs be the ones to build a bigger park system for the
metropolitan area, since the metro is continues to grow, contrary to our
city."
JS: All legitimate discussion points. New land acquisition should be assessed
very carefully in a very public way. My focal point as far as land acquisition
or redevelopment goes would be the Above the Falls development. Also, rather
than leaving population to chance, I advocate a deliberate campaign to increase
the city's population as an important building block of future vitality.
#4 MA "Instead of blindly keeping all land, the Park Board should actually
make some strategic decisions on which land would be most valuable in
the public hands for future generations, and divest of the rest.
Certainly the Park Board should sell all golf courses, since the private
sector does a fine job of providing golf courses. And they should get
rid of all other land that provides marginal benefits for the citizens
of Minneapolis.
JS: The proposed liquidation of golf courses appears to be grounded in
political ideology-not strategy.
Regards,
Jason Stone
Diamond Lake
Jason Stone wrote:
> #1 MA: "Adding land to our parks decreases our tax
> base; it doesn't increase it."
>
> JS: Looking at the issue more broadly, if an area
> is redeveloped it has the potential to increase the
> tax base. Even if there is a net increase in parkland.
It appears to me that Mr. Stone either doesn't understand
that how property taxes are determined (i.e., by allocating
the City's budget to the taxable property) or is simply
playing games with words.
If you take land that is currently paying taxes and make
it parkland, all of the remaining tax-generating land
(like people's homes) must pay higher taxes to make up
for the lost revenue. (This is also true if the
tax-revenue-producing land becomes used for a highway,
a government building, a school, a church, or a bunch
of other uses that are tax-exempt).
This isn't to say that we should or should not convert
tax-revenue-producing land into parkland, just that we
should understand the fiscal implications (and be honest
about them).
> As an aside, proximity to parks and bikeways generally
> increases property value.
So? If the City's budget (and the other local budgets)
remain the same, the same amount of total taxes must be
paid, by someone. I suppose you might see a slight shift
in taxes towards property that is near the new parks.
Is this a good thing?
Jason Stone wrote:
> #4 MA "Instead of blindly keeping all land, the Park Board should actually
> make some strategic decisions on which land would be most valuable in
> the public hands for future generations, and divest of the rest.
> Certainly the Park Board should sell all golf courses, since the private
> sector does a fine job of providing golf courses. And they should get
> rid of all other land that provides marginal benefits for the citizens
> of Minneapolis.
>
> JS: The proposed liquidation of golf courses appears to be grounded in
political ideology-not strategy.
>
>
>
Mark Anderson:
I don't understand this comment. Of course my ideology affects my
comments. In this case I have an ideological bias in favor of
government only doing what they can do better than the private sector.
But my ideology influences all my other opinions also; there's nothing
unique about my golf course comment. And being ideological doesn't
preclude also being strategic -- a good strategy for the Park Board is
to divest from those areas that can be handled well by private
organizations.
By the way, does your ideology lead you to support government activities
that could be done better by the private sector? Or do you believe the
Park Board runs their golf courses better than private firms?
At 6:06 PM -0500 6/17/08, Anderson&Turpin wrote:
> And being ideological doesn't
>preclude also being strategic -- a good strategy for the Park Board is
>to divest from those areas that can be handled well by private
>organizations.
>
>By the way, does your ideology lead you to support government activities
>that could be done better by the private sector? Or do you believe the
>Park Board runs their golf courses better than private firms?
>
The question isn't about "better." It's about how much it costs the
average citizen to play a round of golf (to use the example in this
string) and whether his or her access to the golf course is
restricted on the basis of money or social class or ethnicity or
gender or something else.
Public golf courses, like our parks, are subsidized by a public
entity (of The Many) so that the average citizen has access to
recreational sports despite not having much money (for The Common
Good).
Not terribly long ago (to a historian), "parks" were the open,
forested land on country estates of the gentry. Outsiders allowed in
only by invitation. Some suburban pseudo-urban developments have this
kind of private, for-us-only little lake and green space with
"trails." There are not even public streets in some exclusive
developments, like North Oaks.
The origin of this thread was an apparent contradiction of the
restricted, private use of public park land in Minneapolis. I suppose
you could say that MPR can't afford to put fancy gazebos and docks on
Cedar Lake the way private owners seem to have done with sections of
public park land. In that sense the privatizing of public lands,
however informally or secretly done, is "better" than what a public
service could provide. But, for whom? The same goes for the debate
over private and exclusive use of public park land on Nicollet Island.
That's the whole point: for whom is open air, recreation, sport,
water views, even fireworks on July 4th, to be made available? For
the few who can pay for them? Or for everybody?
One of the extraordinary features of Minneapolis is the fact that
neither [most of] the river nor the lakes exclude the Regular Joe
from strolling or riding beside them, because their edges became
public land quite early. We have a marvelous parks and parkway system
in that regard. And, it upsets people when they realize that part of
Cedar Lake falls outside that framework of public park land==public
access. However nice the private docks are there.
And let's keep the public golf courses, too. The greens fees are
lower, and anybody can play.
Connie
former golfer
Como, in Southeast Mpls
Constance Sullivan wrote:
> The question isn't about "better." It's about how much it costs the
> average citizen to play a round of golf (to use the example in this
> string) and whether his or her access to the golf course is
> restricted on the basis of money or social class or ethnicity or
> gender or something else.
>
> Public golf courses, like our parks, are subsidized by a public
> entity (of The Many) so that the average citizen has access to
> recreational sports despite not having much money (for The Common
> Good).
Golf courses profitable
Don't have a Park Board history handy but its my recollection that the
public golf courses were established with the caveat that users, the
golfers, and not general taxpayers, would pay their cost including land
acquisition. I believe this is unique within the MPRB system. Public
access at affordable prices was a goal.
I've heard that at a time African-American golfers could not access
private country clubs, a group of African-American golfers adopted
Hiawatha as their course. One of these was the BBQ-lover Ted Cook and
this was how his rib joint on 38th Street came to be named the 19th Hole.
Per MPRB annual financial statements, Park Board golf course revenues
and expenses for 2005-2007 were:
Year, Gross Golf Revenues, Golf Expenses, Net MPRB Income
2005- $6,247,534, $5,970,531, $277,003
2006- $6,255,585, $5,801,818, $453,767
2007- $6,622,598, $5,789,220, $833,378
Wirth and Fort Snelling have not been profitable in recent years; these
operating losses are offset by profits at the other golf courses. The
variation in net income is the result of an intense successful effort by
golf course staff to reduce costs and weather conducive to golfing.
Park Board golf revenues are pledged to pay off the bonds at the Fort
Snelling Nieman complex. Those bonds paid for the land under the tennis
center (but not the center itself which was privately built and is
privately owned.) The bonds paid for purchase of the 201 Building and a
few surrounding acres; the Park Board is currently selling this parcel
to the Boy Scouts. It is not yet (publicly) clear if that transaction
will be profitable after deducting for initial cost, improvements, legal
fees, liens, and a share of bond debt service. Finally, the bonds paid
for athletic field improvements - the Park Board owns the improvements
but most of that land is owned by DNR. The Park Board makes annual
lease payments to DNR including a percentage of permit fees paid by
athletic field users. Annual debt service on the bonds is just over $1
million annually.
FYI,
Shawne FitzGerald
Powderhorn
:)
How do you fit 1,600 cubic feet of photo cubes on the bridge and still provide a decent commute to bikers? What about those of us who run the bridge and like the unobstructed views. I put up some of my thoughts on the Red Bull Cube issue at my blog. I'm against it. Also links to press release and the Star Tribune "story." http://is.gd/AJu
I've brought it up before, I think, but there are two monstrous
wastes of land in the world: golf courses and cemeteries. I think it
would be be a net gain for MPRB, the whole wide world really, if we
were to combine these two atrocious land uses into something more
innocuous. We could adapt the monuments so that they did not pose
insurmountable hazards and bury our dead -- should we just have to do
that rather than something more environmentally friendly and wasteful
Shawne FitzGerald wrote:
> Constance Sullivan wrote:
>
>> The question isn't about "better." It's about how much it costs the
>> average citizen to play a round of golf (to use the example in this
>> string) and whether his or her access to the golf course is
>> restricted on the basis of money or social class or ethnicity or
>> gender or something else.
>>
>> Public golf courses, like our parks, are subsidized by a public
>> entity (of The Many) so that the average citizen has access to
>> recreational sports despite not having much money (for The Common
>> Good).
>>
>
>
Mark Anderson:
When I was young and poor, I decided not to take up golf partly because
it was so expensive; both for the clubs and for the greens fees. It
seems to me that public golf courses subsidize the game not for the
poor, who can't afford it anyway, but those well-to-do enough to pay for
private courses if they wanted to. Subsidizing a rich person's sport so
the middle class can play certainly doesn't match my concept of what
city parks are for. Has anyone campaigned on a platform like that?
> Per MPRB annual financial statements, Park Board golf course revenues
> and expenses for 2005-2007 were:
>
> Year, Gross Golf Revenues, Golf Expenses, Net MPRB Income
> 2005- $6,247,534, $5,970,531, $277,003
> 2006- $6,255,585, $5,801,818, $453,767
> 2007- $6,622,598, $5,789,220, $833,378
>
>
Mark Anderson:
Since the start-up costs of buying and building the courses aren't
included in the expenses, the "income" above is deceptive. The golf
courses are only truly profitable if they cover the full opportunity
cost of owning the courses. In my opinion, the courses are truly
profitable only if the income above exceeds what the Park Board could
make each year by selling the golf courses and investing the proceeds in
a safe investment like Treasury Bonds, in addition to the additional
property taxes that these private golf courses would then pay. I don't
know how much golf courses go for, but I doubt the courses meet this
test. Does anyone know the market rate for golf courses?
Truthfully, even if the courses were truly profitable, I would tend to
be in favor of divestiture, because of the distraction factor. The Park
Board has enough on its plate; they should be spending their time on
maintaining the green space that is open to everyone.
At 9:28 PM -0500 6/18/08, Anderson&Turpin wrote:
>
>Mark Anderson:
>Since the start-up costs of buying and building the courses aren't
>included in the expenses, the "income" above is deceptive. The golf
>courses are only truly profitable if they cover the full opportunity
>cost of owning the courses. In my opinion, the courses are truly
>profitable only if the income above exceeds what the Park Board could
>make each year by selling the golf courses and investing the proceeds in
>a safe investment like Treasury Bonds, in addition to the additional
>property taxes that these private golf courses would then pay. I don't
>know how much golf courses go for, but I doubt the courses meet this
>test. Does anyone know the market rate for golf courses?
>
I'm sure there are lots of people out there laughing at a suggestion
that our Park Board buy Treasury bonds that are only earning about 4%
for 30-year bonds (the rate of inflation is currently higher than
that), and much lower interest at shorter terms. There's a risk in
every type of investment, and the one Mark recommends entails
inflation risk. And, why sell things that long ago were paid for--our
public golf courses?
And, while I don't have the data at my fingertips for all the Park
Board's golf courses, I do know that the original cost to MPR to
purchase the Gross Golf course land was zero dollars. It was donated
in 1913 to the Park Board by Armour and Co. of Chicago, which had a
ton of land just outside the NE edge of Minneapolis but decided
ultimately to put their stockyards in South St. Paul instead. The
segment of St. Anthony Parkway that was constructed between that golf
course and the cemetery was built by Armour, too (i.e., on its dime).
Talk about civic-minded corporations, back in the day! They did get
naming rights: it was Armour Golf Course for some years.
So, any profits made by the Gross golf course for Minneapolis Parks
has been pure gravy for the system, for more than 85 years. And,
think of all the golf rounds played in that time.
Cheers!
Connie
who started golfing with six 3rd-hand clubs, on public courses, in
shoes without cleats
Como, in Southeast Mpls
Unfortunately in this era of Public/Private cooperation and less
reliance on taxes for income the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
is constantly looking for new "businesses" to run in their Enterprise
division. These businesses are not however scrutinized for their
viability and are rarely ever evaluated for their actual profitability.
At one point last year they had hired a person to take on this task.
He is no longer working there.
When a commissioner asked the GM for Admin ( budget discussions for
2008 last year) how they would be checking to see how the new
contracted vendor carts that operate at a few locations would be
audited as they are a cash only business, the answer was less than
reassuring.
This summer the MPRB will open their newest business venture... the
Mini Golf course located by the Lupient Water Park. It is currently
under construction. Hope you all use it as the MPRB looks to be having
a $700,000 to $1.4 million shortfall for the 2009 budget.
Liz Wielinski
www.mplsparkwatch.org
:~l
Logan
It would be nice if you had words and maybe some commentary on the issue
rather than a few symbols.
IMHO, not all of us know all these symbols, and some of us think them
less than adequate.
That said, if all your contributions are going to be symbols, you will
not reach me for much longer as I will start to delete without even
looking at your contribution to a discussion.
This request is from me, and not meant to be from anyone but me, but I
am betting there are others that feel the same way.
Thanks.
Ron Leurquin
Nokomis East
Logan's posts also seem to be in violation of the list rule that you sign your
posts with your full name & neighborhood.
Need help? Please contact technical support and we will follow-up in 24-48 hours.
Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using the open source web-based mailing list manager GroupServer.