DeLaSalle, the Minneapolis City Council, and wealthy people

[1]: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:nx1GbeRwU08J:startribune.com/dynamic/story.php%3Ftemplate%3Dprint_a%26story%3D5557773+delasalle+site:startribune.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=safari
[2]: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:njOYgHi1N9wJ:www.startribune.com/dynamic/story.php%3Ftemplate%3Dprint_a%26story%3D5557774+delasalle+site:startribune.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8&client=safari
[3]: http://www.delasalle.com/
[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLaSalle_High_School_(Minneapolis)
[5]: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/members.asp?district=59B
[6]: http://www.delasalle.com/SitePlan_files/v3_document.htm
[7]: http://www.minneapolisparks.org/documents/NicIs1983.pdf
[8]: http://www.startribune.com/357/story/427579.html

My friend Amy brought up the fracas concerning the DeLaSalle school athletic fields at Nicollet Island. I found a summary of the issue from StarTribune.com in [Google’s cache][1]:

> DeLaSalle, a highly regarded Catholic high school, has been a mainstay on this magical island for 106 years. In tougher times it could have fled to the suburbs, but instead has stuck to its noble mission of educating inner-city kids, rich and poor.
>
> In 1983, as the island’s turnabout began, the school negotiated a joint agreement with the Park Board to construct an athletic field for the school’s use, partly on park land. Now, 22 years later and still longing for a field of its own, the school wants to resume the project and the Park Board seems poised to go along. But affluent neighbors who have arrived in the interim are furious.
>
> Actually, both sides are right on this issue.
>
> DeLaSalle can’t be faulted for wanting its own field and bleachers on campus. And the Park Board is obligated to pursue some sort of “athletic facility,” as the 1983 agreement stipulates. There’s nothing sinister about such a partnership — the Sculpture Garden and the Nicollet Island Inn are examples of others. And, in this case, the Park Board is right to seek concessions that shift financial burdens to the school and broader use of DeLaSalle’s field and gym for the public.
>
> But the neighbors are right, too. Although the Park Board owns the land on which their homes rest, they’ve invested heavily in their properties, and they and the wider public deserve extra consideration because of the island’s unique character.

Well, if DeLaSalle has a deal, shouldn’t the city honor it? It’s about *kids*, it’s about *education*, it’s about a *school* that stuck with the *inner city*… and oddly, all of these normally DFL foundational issues pale in apparent value to the personal desires of a few wealthy folks. Interesting.

And sure, their investment should definitely be honored. But are they the only ones who’ve invested? Are they the only ones who get to invest? And their investment means the “wider public deserve extra consideration?” I’m missing the math on that one.

Also from the Strib (via [Google’s cache][2]), quotes from interested parties:

> “We have an obligation to honor our 1983 commitment to DeLaSalle. We also need public input to get the best project possible.” – Jon Olson, Park Board president.
>
> “What hasn’t happened is the discovery of a compromise that everyone can live with.” – John Erwin, Park Board vice president
>
> “The Park Board should follow its own ordinances, which call for a citizen advisory council when a project is proposed, not after it’s passed.”- Barry Clegg, Nicollet Island resident

These may be old quotes, but to Mr. Clegg’s point, citizen’s have indeed been part of the process and concessions and adjustments have been made in light of their feedback; see [DeLaSalle’s Site Plan][6], approved by the Park Board last March.

But my favorite quote…

> “It’s pretty hard to deny DeLaSalle two acres when private houses are taking 30 of the 45 acres of Park Board land.” – Walt Dziedzic, Park Board commissioner

These “residents” are **living on Park Board land, too.** Ungrateful.

Well, a “resident” of *106 years* called [DeLaSalle High School][3] – the [most diverse private school in the state of Minnesota][4] – simply wants the city to live up to a 23 year old agreement (see page two of the [1983 agreement PDF][7]). They want to use space. Just like the other residents do. And they have an agreement which allows them to.

And they have [resident politicians][5] [ed: error removed, see below] with multi-million dollar homes (according to my searching MLS listings for the area) fighting them? Can anyone say conflict of interest?

By the way, I’m pro-wealthy people. I hope to be one some day. I’m also pro-contract. And pro-property-rights. I just don’t think wealth and political savvy should win the day over existing agreements and property rights.

[Ed: I removed the link to the politician I incorrectly linked to originally. I simply remembered it wrong, and there’s no reason her name should live on in Google associated with something that has nothing to do with her just because I remembered something wrong.]

UPDATE: Good heavens. I can’t believe Coleman [wrote something I agree with][8].

6 thoughts on “DeLaSalle, the Minneapolis City Council, and wealthy people”

  1. Ah, just another ignorant suburbanite TELLING Minneapolis taxpayers to GIVE AWAY public land to a privileged private school.

    To help reduce your ignorance on the issue, the best legal advice available so far on the issue says there is NOT an existing agreement to give away this land. DLS has been expanding for years, has already been given public land and has gotten itself into a tight corner all by itself. It’s time the just plain move OFF the island.

  2. Anyone who would call Ken ignorant and a suburbanite clearly doesn’t know him. I have an obvious bias, but still, this is Ken (and the Saint Paul suburb of… Saint Paul) we’re talking about.

    Speaking of bias, I wonder how such a person would determine what is “the best legal advice.”

  3. Heh heh. Hi, Chris. Welcome to my blog. How pleasant that you stroll in to call me an “ignorant suburbanite”. Funny how people will say things like this on a blog which they would likely never say in person. Especially as their “hello”.

    Funnier yet: I’m a city dweller.

    Ignorance? Well, it wouldn’t be the first time. But, I have supplied a link to the actual agreement and I have noted that the Park Board already passed the project in March.

    But I guess that should be set aside because you’ve come along to assure me what “the best legal advice available so far on the issue says?” That’s a wonderful statement. Any real data behind it? Are you saying the Park Board has acted illegally? What has happened that supersedes that 1983 agreement? Why does the Park Board Commissioner feel that the agreement should be honored?

    Why should the school move? Why not the other residents? Are you against the school’s use of the land alone, or are you also troubled that privileged individuals are also on public land?

    The key to issues seem to me to be: [a] your “GIVE AWAY” should actually be “GAVE AWAY”, and [b] people enjoying a privilege are trying to deny it of others.

    And if I’m “telling” anyone anything, it’s simply that agreements should be honored, and that wealth and political savvy shouldn’t trump simple fairness.

  4. clearly I don’t know all sides of the story, and I agree with your statement-‘I just don’t think wealth and political savvy should win the day over existing agreements and property rights’ but I took DeLasalle to be privliged party. I’m sure the homes on the island have some value (but they are NOT Summit Av mansions) but the property is what is really of value and I’m sure some big developer would love to come in and ‘bulldoze’ all of those lovely homes to make way for trendy townhomes that only the affluent can manage to afford. It seems I need my lawyer to read ’83 agreement to me like I’m four. Obviously if the property belongs to the school then there is nothing left to discuss, they can do with it what they wish. if the park board did not give the land, but offered them the land to build, then why haven’t they done it?Is their a statute of limitations-it’s been 22 years. This conversation got pretty hostile pretty fast, whats with the personal attacks? this blogging is not for me. Nick Colmemans’ article, aside from being inaccurate, (for instance, one guy I talked with has lived there 30+ years to take care of Nicks first paragraph) has such a contemptuous cynical slant, makes me glad I don’t read the StarTribune.

  5. I wonder if Chris has any problem with Minneapolis taxpayers “GIVING AWAY” the same land
    to wealthy political insiders. Oh I know it’s not exactly a “GIVE AWAY”. But it seems to be a pretty much “sweetheart deal”. What with the century long lease and almost ZERO property tax.

    Hmmm. Me thinks I shall run for office!

  6. Amy: Yeah, Coleman’s pretty caustic. That’s his style. I don’t like it much either. But I appreciated that someone with whom I wouldn’t normally agree was willing to challenge Kahn, someone he would likely generally lean toward, philosophically. And as far as personal attacks, they don’t bother me coming from someone who doesn’t even know me personally. :)

    Concerning the 1983 agreement, it is the city’s redevelopment plan for the area and it includes DeLaSalle as explicitly being able to do what’s been approved as a part of that redevelopment. The same agreement forbids other new construction, so I don’t think there’s imminent danger of developers bulldozing old houses.

    When you note that DeLaSalle seemed like the privileged party, I wonder why. Do you think it was the newsletter you saw? I think they are all privileged. They are not Summit Avenue homes, but wow, they seem to be quite expensive. It must be the location. I’ve gotta take a trip over there to look around.

    Personally, I think the homeowners enjoy greater privilege. The homeowners’ private residences take up far more park land and offer far less to the public (since they are private residences). The school’s development would be available for public use as part of the agreement, as I understand it, and it’s comparatively small footprint would serve far more people.

    I don’t mind either one enjoying their privilege. I just don’t like the way this is all playing out.

    It seems to like the public is best served by honoring the agreement the state’s authorized representatives made. If they don’t honor such a simple, explicit thing, then why should we trust them with anything? (I.e. education, healthcare, taxation, lawmaking in general.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.