This past Wednesday the new park conservancy framework was introduced by
Innovation to all commissioners. I say park conservancy instead of Loring Park
conservancy because that is how the title of the framework read - it did not
indicate Loring specifically. Regardless, It was a very enlightening discussion
in that it showed ample amount of distrust the majority of commissioners share
for the model. In an earlier post I listed the ten points that comprise the new
model. Assistant Superintendent Sigglekow was able to get through only three
before it became abundantly clear that the only commissioners that were
fighting FOR the concept were Erwin and Tabb. In addition to the seven
commissioners against, Superintendent Miller expressed great concern as well
that the project would ultimately fail. I took notes on the proceedings until I
realized the discussion was pretty much over. In all, if a vote were to occur
that night, I believe the conservancy would have been defeated 7-2 (Olson,
Young, Kummer, Vreeland, Fine, Wielinski, and Bourn to Erwin and Tabb). This
was a good step forward for the park board. It was very touching to hear the
support for the system, and as I have said before but need to say again because
people often accuse those who criticize of being mean-spirited: I personally
fight the model because I truly believe in the MPRB and the citizens of
Minneapolis can maintain and develop the finest park system in the country
despite any hardship we endure - we have done so 125 years.
*******
MPRB Loring Park Conservancy Model Discussion
21 September 2011
Don Sigglekow
⢠Fourth meeting of topic
⢠Requests the board move forward, the public have input, and it goes back to
the board.
⢠Experience âfrom working with this kind of thingâ? No ones ever worked with
this kind of thing.
Point One
⢠Vreeland asks if there are already conservancies or if we should work with
the systems that already exist? Sigglekow says there already conservancies on
different scales. Erwin says Peavey Park is a conservancy. Liz W. says
partnerships currently are with established non-profits not like this model
where the non-profit is new. Erwin says again Phillips again is a conservancy.
Fine says we need to carefully think about the unique nature of the park. Young
says she agrees with commissioner Fine and others that have concerns â why are
we doing this when we have a foundation? There is a place for the foundation.
âI am very nervous.â We are an independent park board and we are stewards of
parks. âI have a lot of concerns.â Erwin fights back to Youngâs comment about
the Foundation about passes going through the Foundation. Erwin suggests a
review after one year. Vreeland says that conservancies for future projects,
where the land is not currently owned by the MPRB, is more appropriate.
Point Two
⢠Bourn says we need to have a better idea of where a conservancy would take us
before we move forward. Young says she canât understand why we need to have
improvements through a conservancy, it sounds like a problem for MPRB. Erwin
and Tabb say itâs all about bringing money into the park and we should give
everyone and anyone the opportunity to do so
Point Three
⢠Vreeland asks âwhat does this mean?â This is a conversation about sharing
with our partners. What are the caveats? Sigglekow retorts âwe are not
proposing this, we are taking it through a process.â Olson says he doesnât see
what the public gets of the deal. He believes this is doomed to fail. Says lets
just let it die. âI donât see why we are wasting everybodyâs timeâ Jane M says
she believes it will not continue â to wetted down and will continue to be
wetted down. Young says she will not support this concept. Bourn says weâre not
ready to move forward. Erwin asks Sigg for âadviceâ on future projects when the
âneighborhoodâ wants to improve its park. Young says the Foundation should be
similar to the MPLS Foundation and suggests that model should be used. Vreeland
says he needs a case statement before doing anything in the future and that the
neighborhood needs to be involved form day one. The need for Loring is less
fleshed out. Sigglekow says that the need is thee, the board just doesnât see
itâŚ
Some other talk and Erwin calls it a night. Olson asks if there will they will
âwaste more staff timeâ on this project to which Erwin responds he will talk to
Sigglekow and Harris â not answering question.
FIN
*******
The Minneapolis Riverfront Development Initiative was also presented that day,
second on the agenda, and it despite what people may say about the plan itself,
it was very well developed with ample public input and much consideration. The
north side is still lacking the connectivity relative to NE, and I'm not sure
how much of the cost would be from soil clean-up at the waste/industrial sites
or how much of it was actually included in the plan - but overall it is a
refreshing look at the future of the river.
Lots of discussion about road maintenance, which I think - and many of may as
well -is a very important though less publicized part of what MPRB oversees.
Peace,
Brad Conley
Loring Park