Reprinted from the Star Tribune Website Netlets for Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2007 with permission from the Star Tribune and the author.

Though the publicity about DeLaSalle’s groundbreaking last week creates the impression that the school’s athletic field is a “done deal,” this is far from the reality, as a listing of the remaining hurdles quickly shows.

Currently three lawsuits are moving forward, including one in the Minnesota Court of Appeals where the ruling will be issued by mid-December. That court can order DeLaSalle to search among the many options that have been identified for an alternate location that would not destroy historic resources.

The reciprocal agreement, which is the basis for shared use of the land by DeLaSalle and the Minneapolis Park Board, has been rejected by the state finance commissioner. Since the public land proposed for the project was purchased with state bonds, compliance requires the Park Board to control the land, a standard the DeLaSalle/Park Board agreement did not meet. One solution might entail the Park Board leasing DeLaSalle’s portion of the Nicollet Island land. Alternatively, the Park Board could sell the land and reimburse the state for the amount of bonding.

Rulings on the archeology plan for excavation of up to 5 feet of surface in the Historic District and natural vs. artificial turf are upcoming. A significant problem remains over questions of ownership and control of pertinent parking lots, and the city cannot issue permits until they are resolved.

Virtually everyone involved in both sides of the controversy want a field for the kids of Minneapolis and DeLaSalle. If an Appeals Court ruling opens consideration of appropriate locations outside the historic district, we may begin to see real progress toward making that a reality. But until the substantial problems are resolved and the courts reach their decisions, DeLaSalle’s home field is far from a “done deal.”

CHRISTINE VIKEN, NEWPORT

Reprinted with the permission of Ms. Viken

Yes, DeLaSalle had a groundbreaking yesterday, but here’s a few clues that this is NOT a done deal:

1 – the ground they “broke” was their own.

Since the Reciprocal Use Agreement (RUA) that was the basis for use of Park Board land has been voided by the State Finance Commissioner, DeLaSalle could only dig at home.

2 – this was in “invitation only” event, and the public clearly was NOT invited.

3- the planned construction, initially signaled by DeLaSalle officials to begin
this fall, now is referred to as beginning in the spring.

Though the local media initially just played back DeLaSalle’s press release about the PR event, under pressure from Park Watch, an ad hoc citizen’s watchdog group that monitors the Minneapolis Park Board’s activities, some of them ultimately reported some hints that there are some roadblocks ahead for the field.

Though DeLaSalle supporters make every attempt to minimize the significance of the following, you can judge for yourself:

1 – There are three lawsuits pending. A ruling from the Minnesota Court of
Appeals is due by mid-December at the latest. That suit examines DeLaSalle’s
claim that there was no feasible and prudent alternative to locating the field
where it will destroy historic resources. That court can order DeLaSalle to
search for an alternate location, of which there have been many identified.

2 – The RUA for shared use of the land has been rejected by the State Finance
Commissioner. The hurdles to clear to meet the terms of a valid agreement are high and the issue is basically that the Park Board must have control of land that it owns when that land was purchased with state bonding.

(The Finance Commissioner offered two options: the Park Board could lease
DeLaSalle’s portion of the land needed to create the facility, or the Park
Board could sell the land it has on Nicollet Island and reimburse the state for
the amount of the bonding. (Land was purchased for $1.1 million.)

If the Park Board chooses to sell the land, state law would require that the
sale be open to all buyers, not just DeLaSalle, on the same terms.

While it’s true that the project has yet to clear its Archeology Plan and the
question of artificial turf, it’s widely considered only a matter of time
before they get those approvals, as the City Council has rolled over on every
issue concerning the field to date. (Watch again for fancy verbal footwork from CM Remington and Schiff who adamantly opposed artificial turf — it’ll be a reprise of their “going back on the ruling against the lights” dance.

The real hurdles the project faces are the questions about parking, which is a
tangle because of the cozy relationship DeLaSalle has enjoyed with the
Minneapolis Park Board and the fact that the Park Board has played fast and
loose with the land they acquired from the Met Council to create the regional
park on Nicollet Island. This has resulted in a number of uses in violation of
the covenants to which they agreed in accepting the land. The tennis courts
they built for DeLaSalle’s use (and which would be destroyed by a new field)
are just one of the flagrant violations that are coming home to roost.

((ASIDE: The Sept. 21, 2007 memo which reveals to the Pk. Bd. Commissioners that the DeLaSalle RUA has been rejected by the Finance Commissioner, also notes that there are “several other facilities with lease agreements where State Bonds were used to acquire the property or buildings” that are likely also in violation of the State’s policies and need to be reviewed and brought into compliance. Seems the DeLaSalle proposal opened the proverbial Pandora’s Box.))

The question is not — and never has been — whether there will be a field for
DeLaSalle’s use, but where that field will be. Mr. Maas is sincere in his wish
to give back to a school that shaped his life so positively, and memorializing
that with a first-class facility that will serve the kids of Minneapolis and
the kids of DeLaSalle is the wish of virtually everyone involved.

And once the door is opened to discussions of locations outside the historic
district, which is what I believe the Appeals Court will rule, then we’ll begin
to see real steps toward making the dream of Mr. Maas and the host of DeLaSalle supporters a reality.

Until then, it ain’t over by a long shot.

Christine Viken