Hot Topics

Redesigned Franklin / East River Pkwy / SE 27th Ave. Intersection

Prospect Park Coopertive Nursery School (2006-07-21)

U of M Stadium Environmental Impact (2005-11-23)

Pratt School and the Minneapolis School Board (2004-02-09..2004-02-16)

Save the Southeast Library (2003-05-27)

U of M Regents Reject Vikings Stadium Proposal - 2002-11-08

PPERRIA Executive Committee Observations on McKinsey Report (2002-08-12)

Open House: Recommended Approah for the Franklin Ave / East River Pkwy Intersection

Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 6:30 - 8:30 p.m., St. Frances Cabrini Catholic Church, 1500 SE Franklin Ave. Sponsored by Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis. All invited.

Redesigned Franklin / East River Pkwy / SE 27th Ave. Traffic Intersection Redesign

Short, & Hendrickson engineering firm as a web page at:

http://www.sehinc.com/online/franklin/

describing the Hennepin County study for the intersection including timelines, maps, and invitation for public partcipation. The intersection is being reviewed because of the impact of closing the Washington Ave Bridge plus the new approved route for the Grand Rounds Scenic Parkway running down 27th and across the Franklin Ave Bridge.

The kickoff meeting was on 2009-02-19 at Cabrini. Another meeting is scheduled for the end of May to show "concepts" and then another at the end of July to show the final design. The necessary authorities (County/City/Parkboard) are to sign off in August.

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is in response to the University of Minnesota On-Campus Football Stadium Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Its purpose is to respond to the draft EIS and to propose mitigation strategies that will diminish the negative impacts of the stadium on the Prospect Park East River Road neighborhood and other host communities:

We find the circulated draft of the University of Minnesota On-Campus Football Stadium Draft Environmental Impact Statement weak. It presents an unclear and internally conflicted description of the project, its uses, and its impacts on its host communities. The basic questions of who will use the new Stadium how often and for what are either not addressed, or are addressed through platitudinous policy statements such as “University campuses and facilities exist to meet the needs of the institution and further its teaching, research and outreach mission,” immediately qualified by “the President can allow external users access to University facilities.” (p. 10). As a document from which the University and host communities are to arrive at an understanding of likely environmental impacts and their mitigation strategies, it fails.

However, even given a strong document of this type, planning for mitigation strategies would be a daunting task. No one can possibly foresee all the possible environmental impacts of the stadium on our neighborhood over the 20 years the draft EIS purports to examine. Not simply how much traffic and how much noise, but how will University Avenue – and the rest of the Prospect Park East River Road neighborhood – be impacted? What kinds of development will be encouraged, and what kind discouraged? What will be the impacts on existing businesses? Will people be more or less inclined to live in our neighborhood, and what will be the result in terms of property values and property taxes? These and many other questions like them are unanswerable today.

And because many of these questions represent complex, ever-evolving dynamics, we propose that rather than create and attempt to address a static set of mitigation measures, the University establish an ongoing Stadium Area Advisory Group, similar in constituency to the current SAAG and have that group provide oversight of stadium operations. Indeed, the Draft EIS proposes such a group for the first year of operations. It is our opinion that the group should continue to exist as a part of the ongoing operation of the stadium. Obviously specific questions regarding roles and responsibilities would need to be proposed and negotiated.

In terms of providing funding for mitigation measures, these funds should be generated as a percentage of stadium revenues. The SAAG would then receive grant proposals to address specific mitigation issues and fund those proposals with those revenues. Any group impacted by Stadium activities, including the surrounding neighborhoods, the surrounding business community, and the University itself would be welcome to apply for funding. The advantage of funding the mitigation strategies through stadium revenues, is that as Stadium activity and revenue increase, so likely will the need for mitigation measures.

A list of potential moderate-cost, high value measures for just the Prospect Park East River Road neighborhood might include:

• Parking stickers & signage
• Post-event trash collection
• Neighborhood planning initiatives
• Part-time neighborhood stadium administrator/coordinator
• Stadium complaint hotline
• University Avenue strategic planning and development guidelines
• Improvements to University Avenue streetscape
• Neighborhood appreciation activities
• Reduced ticket prices at designated events for neighborhood residents
• Historic District designation for Prospect Park neighborhood
• Collaboration between University School of Education and Pratt School to provide student teachers and other support
• University-sponsored homeownership program for the Motley neighborhood
• Aggressive stadium jobs program targeting Glendale residents
• Could include both construction jobs & operations jobs
• Collaboration initiatives to encourage development on University Avenue
  

Undoubtedly, other neighborhoods and affected groups could create similar lists very easily.

This strategy also allows the University greater freedom to drive revenue from the Stadium opportunistically. If the host communities benefit from stadium activities, there is likely to be less opposition to those activities.

Many, if not most, residents of the Prospect Park East River Road neighborhood support the idea of an on-campus stadium. However, there is broad concern that the Stadium will be built and operated at the expense of the neighborhood; that the problems of noise, traffic, parking, trash, errant behaviors, etc. will become our problem and that we will be left without adequate recourse. Unlike most people involved with the planning process for the new Stadium, the residents of this neighborhood will live with the results of our work as long as they live where they live. It is incumbent on the University of Minnesota as neighbor and good citizen to ensure that this neighborhood, and others, are well-protected from the impacts of this potentially very positive addition to campus life.

Best regards,


Joe Ring
President, Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association

= = = = = = = = = =

U of M STADIUM ADVISORY GROUP MEETS ON EIS GUIDELINES
Tuesday, November 1, 5:00 to 6:30 p.m.
Room 238A Morrill Hall, 100 Church Street SE, Minneapolis

We are convening the advisory group at the earlier hour to avoid as much as possible conflict with other community meetings scheduled for the evening of November 1.

Before the meeting, please take time to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, available on the web at http://www1.umn.edu/stadium/environmental_review.html.
The Draft EIS is a 160+ page document, so you may wish to see it online before selecting portions of it to print.

The room will be open and light supper available from Vescio's of Dinkytown, beginning at 4:30 p.m. If you must drive to the meeting, parking is recommended at the Church Street garage, adjacent to Morrill Hall. Bring your parking stub in to be validated.

Morrill Hall is located one and one-half blocks south of University Avenue. Turn right (south) off University Avenue at 17th Avenue SE (which becomes Church Street) where it enters campus.

STADIUM AREA ADVISORY GROUP PROPOSED MEETING AGENDA
Welcome and introductions
Environmental review process, next steps andimportant dates
- Open house and public comment meeting, November 10
- Deadline for public comment on the Draft EIS, November 23
- Summary presentation of Draft EIS
- Discussion of Draft EIS -
Other updates around the room
- Next meeting
- Closing remarks and adjournment

= = = = = = = = = =

Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 16:42:14 -0500
From: Jan Morlock <jam@umn.edu>
Subject: CANCELLATION OF MONDAY, JULY 11 STADIUM AREA ADVISORY GROUP MEETING (Yes, I
Members of the Stadium Area Advisory Group and interested others:

Please be advised that we have decided to cancel the meeting scheduled for Monday, July 11. The agenda and discussion will be deferred to the next meeting, as previously scheduled, on:

Monday, August 8, 5:30 to 7:00 p.m., at the McNamara Alumni Center, 200 Oak Street SE, 2nd floor conference room, University of Minnesota Alumni Association offices.

The decision to cancel next week's meeting is with regret, but in the interests of including the greatest number of Advisory Group members in the discussion. We've been advised that the Minneapolis Police Department is convening a meeting on 2nd Precinct community public safety (includes all of SE Minneapolis), which a number of the Stadium Area Advisory Group members will wish to attend. We have also heard from a number of members that they will be out of town next Monday and unable to attend.

A couple of brief updates:

• Environmental testing on the stadium site has begun. Wenck Associates has been hired to undertake the investigation, and Joe Otte of that firm will join us at the August meeting to talk about their tests and preliminary findings. If you drive by the proposed stadium site (the Huron Boulevard parking complex), you may see machinery and Wenck staff taking soil borings and doing other testing. Joe Otte and Brian Swanson have been out interviewing a number of people in the community about the environmental investigation. Thanks to those of you who have given of your time for an interview, or who have recommended others who should be consulted.
• As for an update on the legislative front: there is no news. At this late date, it's hard to say if any stadium legislation will be considered, as the State's basic budget bills are yet to be resolved. If there is no legislation passed this year on the Gopher football stadium, it's likely that the University would complete the EIS process, but the timetable for any activity beyond that would need to be re-evaluated.

Thank you for your participation in the Stadium Area Advisory Group--it makes a difference in the quality of the planning process, and it will make a difference in the quality of the final product.

I look forward to seeing you on August 8.
--
Jan Morlock, Director of Community Relations, Twin Cities Campus
Office of University Relations
University of Minnesota
Room 3 Morrill Hall, 100 Church Street SE
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

Vox: 612/624-8318
Fax: 612/624-6369

Pratt School and the Minneapolis School Board (2004-02-09..2004-02-23)

Message 10

From: "Michael Atherton"
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004

Don Fraser & Dr. Jerry Stein wrote in the Star Tribute:

> Pratt's students, 51 percent of whom qualify for free lunch,
> are culturally and economically diverse. Nevertheless, their
> average scores on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment Test
> are the highest in the city. Pratt's scores are third-highest
> in the state in reading, and second-highest in the state in math.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4618723.html

Do you interpret these statements to imply that the Pratt students who scored the third-highest in reading and second-highest in math are culturally and economically diverse? If
so, by most interpretations you would be wrong. That's because of the 16 third grade students who took the MCA Test last year at Pratt 12 (75%) were White and 4 (25%) were Asian. There were no students who took the test that were classified as Black, Hispanic, or Indian. 3 (18.75%) of the sixteen qualified for free or reduced lunch (FoRD) and 2 (12.5%) were classified as Limited English Proficiency (ELL) (as reported to me by the Minnesota Department of Education). This is not what would be considered as representative sample given the statistics cited for the Pratt (Mr. Fraser and Dr. Stein cite 51% as qualifying for free lunches for Pratt) and this is certainly not reflective of the District as a whole: Student Demographics (2002-2003)

To imply that these test results reflect anything special about Pratt other than a unique set of demographics is disingenuous at best. It should be noted that Pratt uses the same curriculum, philosophy, and teachers as the rest of the District. If there are any factors that make Pratt standout it's parent involvement and (for last year's 3rd grade) smaller than average class sizes. It's unclear if the same class sizes can be duplicated equally to other parts of the District and the same may be true of parent involvement (although I think that the MPS should at least have an active parent involvement program).

What brothers me most about the campaign to save Pratt is that people we would normally expect to approach the issue with integrity, don't seem to have given these issues much thought. Some parents, of those who are still speaking to me, are willing to concede that the statistics may be distorted, but seem to think of these tactics as a necessary evil and they are unwilling to denounce their misapplication. Indeed, it seems that I am evil for pointing out their lack of validity

Previously, I would have believed that liberal Democrats with a sense of social justice would have moral qualms about using misinformation to achieve political objectives, but I've since learned that, for some people, the means are subordinate to the ends, that ethics are situationally relative, and that by moving into a neighborhood one is expected to subjugate their values to the will of the most vocal.

--------------------------------

Message 9

The following is a summary of the Emergency PPERRIA meeting of Feb. 15, 2004 regarding Pratt school. The summary has been written by Steve Cross, a past president of PPERRIA.

A meeting of the Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association (PPERRIA) was held Sunday February 15, 2004 to discuss the proposed closing of Pratt School by the Minneapolis School Board.

The central decision was made to sue theschool board if Pratt is closed. The basis of the lawsuit is that MCDA/NRP/PPERRIA have a contract with the MPS to operate a K-4 school at Pratt next year and a K-5 school in 2006 - 2007.

As the quid pro quo, to pay for the renovations necessary to do that, $480,000 of MCDA/NRP/PPERRIA money was pledged. Closing the school instead of operating the K-5 school is a breach of the explicit wording of the contract.

The lawsuit is not based on the administrative logic or the public policy behind the decision. Everyone believes that there is no administrative logic or sound public policy behind the decision, but that won't be the bases for court action. It is based solely on the written contract that is in effect. This situation puts Pratt School in a situation that is apparently different from all the other schools proposed for closure. As far as it is known, none have a contract with the MPS that is like the MCDA/NRP/PPERRIA contract with the MPS. Others have spent money on their school (and the PPERR neighborhood has spent $620,000 in money on the school other than the $480,000 that was committed to this project) but the contract here involves the specific action that the MPS are doing now that violates that contract. Other legal action is also possible.

Several people have attempted to contact Acting Superintendent Jennings or school board members about this contract but none have resulted in any statement that any even recall the contract let alone what their position is on whether they live up to their contracted promises. (Anyone who is in contact with the schools can do a lot of people in PPERR a favor by asking anyone with authority whether they are going to live up to their contract.)

The resolution adopted by PPERRIA does hold out a carrot as well as a stick. Provided that the MPS lives up to its contract now, the neighborhood is willing to talk about other alternatives in the future. Those other alternatives may include converting Pratt into a charter school. But, what can be talked about is wide open. Many hope that the "big stick" of the lawsuit might help with the soft talk that several people have had and will have with the authorities at the MPS.

PPERRIA has filed lawsuits against various public entities at least twice before. It has won both. One was when an open-air cement crusher was proposed to be established in the middle of the neighborhood. The other was a zoning case where the city claimed that the map that controlled zoning changes was the one only available at city hall or the one that was widely published. (The courts decided that the published map is the one that counts and not the privately-held one at city hall.) Both cases went all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court but, as said, the neighborhood prevailed in both cases. The fact that the cases were pursued and paid for all the way to the Supreme Court should testify that the neighborhood doesn't give up when it starts a lawsuit.

Steve Cross
Past President, PPERRIA
612-376-0094
--------------------------------

Message 8

We've set up a Save Pratt! email list for the open exchange of ideas and information to prevent the closure of Pratt Community School. If any of your subscribers are interested in joining this list, please have them send their contact information (especially their email address) to darin-pratt@44clarence.com.

In addition to the email list, we've also set up a Save Pratt! website:
http://44clarence.com/pratt/

There are three important School Board meetings coming up that affect Pratt:

1. School Board discussion meeting, Tuesday, February 17, 2-6 P.M., at the Education Service Center, 807 NE Broadway. Apparently the audience will not be allowed to participate, but you'll be able to listen to the debate. As was pointed out in Sunday night's emergency PPERRIA meeting, it's important to make sure they know they're being watched.

2. Public Hearing on Recommended Changes for Minneapolis Public Schools: Wednesday, February 18, 7-9 P.M., Washburn High School, 201 W. 49th St. We plan to attend en mass. The more warm bodies we can pack into the room, the better. PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING IF AT ALL POSSIBLE! More details coming soon. All three meetings are critical, but this is the most critical of the three.

3. Public Hearing on Recommended Changes for Minneapolis Public Schools: Thursday, February 19, 7-9 P.M, North High School, 1500 James Ave. N. Not sure what current plans are for organized attendance at this meeting. It will be very similar to meeting #2. Many schools are planning to attend both to better ensure their voices are heard at least once.

Darin Warling

--------------------------------

Message 7

From: Meredith Poppele
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:19:05 -0600

Pratt seems to meet well many of the criteria for survival that Mr. Jennings mentioned on MPR's Midday program recently, including high academic performance, neither an excess nor a dearth of low-income households, neither excess nor dearth of minority students or of students where English is not spoken at home.

In December of 2002 the Pratt students were heartwarming and enchanting as they sang their winter program. I was thrilled to see and hear EVERY child looking happy and joining in lustily singing traditional songs from all cultures represented at Pratt. This school and its natural attendance area optimize safety, learning and multicultural comfort. Will the MPS please maintain it?

(Meredith Poppele)

--------------------------------

Message 6

From: Michael Atherton
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 07:25:56 -0600
Subject: FW: [Mpls] Pratt parents appeal to school board

[Post for PPERRIA website. (from: Minneapolis-Issues Forum: mpls@mnforum.org)]

"Build it and they will be forced to continue financing it."

This seems to be the strategy of a group of parents in my neighborhood who have been lobbying the School Board to create a K-5 school at the Pratt Community Center. They have been successful in highjacking $400,000+ in NRP funds from housing related allocations to fund "Pratt Elementary." From the outside this would seem to be a model of good intentions, but what good has been done is quickly dispelled when you look closely at the tactics employed.

We can begin with an NRP reallocation meeting in which approximately $400,000 was shifted to fund the Pratt school. At this meeting (to the best of my recollection) School Board member Judy Farmer warned that there were no guarantees that the school could be kept open while other similar schools were being closed and I personally tried to warn those in attendance that the individuals promoting Pratt had previous reneged on a promise not to seek additional NRP funds. Regardless of these caveats the reallocation was approved. Now parents are *shocked* that the school may be closed and the former president of our neighborhood association is saber rattling about suing the school district because they acquiesced to the demands of parents to have the building remodeled, as if this legally commits them to keep the school open.

I find this all very interesting for a number of reasons. First, the NRP and Education are my favorite topics on the list server. Secondly, after becoming involved in Minneapolis politics (there's no going back ;-), I will be fascinated to see if a "small politically connected clique" is going to be able leverage keeping open a small neighborhood school of 80 children while other larger schools all over the city are being closed in the name of efficiency. You might think, "No way!," but you have to realize that this is Prospect Park; home to the current and previous city council members, as well as a current school board member, AND a lot of angry politically active White folks. If that's not power in Minneapolis I don't know what is (unless it's a majority of Park Board Members who could care less about public opinion).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to neighborhood schools. I clearly stated in my campaign for school board that as long as it didn't cost more dollar-for-dollar to educate students in small schools, that I supported them (I don't think that they provide as many educational opportunities as larger schools, but that's another issue and a personal decision for parents). But, that may be the kicker then: Does it cost more to educate students at Pratt than it does at other elementary schools? If it costs less, THEN END OF DISCUSSION! Keep up the good work! If it costs more...well then we should leave it to the School Board to make the right decision. Pratt Parents say:

> On the state math and reading tests last year, Pratt third graders far
> exceeded both district-wide and statewide averages -- even
> outperforming students in affluent suburban communities like Wayzata
> and Edina.

This seems impressive, but if it's because Pratt receives more dollars per pupil then I'm not sure that would meet our social expectations for fairness. I am also somewhat put off by the lack of forthrightness of these parents. Sure these students' scores look impressive, but the parents failed to tell you that this was based on a class size of 18 students and I have yet to be told how many of these 18 were minority members. Regardless, an N of 18 may not make the results statistically meaningful.

Ok, look, I don't really want to be a killjoy, so please allow me to suggest an alternative that may please everyone. I had always suspected that the promoters of Pratt had always intended to turn Pratt into a charter school after they had funded their renovations. After all who would be so unrealistic to believe that the School Board would be able keep open such a small school while closing others in a period of severe budget reductions? Anyway, I think that a charter school might be a better alternative for Prospect Park. Certainly, parents would have more control and would not be subject to the periodic educational fads and fancies of the Mpls Public Schools. The School Board could compromise by funding Pratt for one additional year to give parents time to complete the conversion.

If there is any one overriding moral to this story it's that the NRP process is flawed if it allows a neighborhood to ignore warnings and fund $1,000,000 worth of renovations in a building is then put up for sale.

Michael Atherton
Prospect Park

--------------------------------

Message 5

From: Julie MacKenzie
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:41:42
Subject: post opinions to website regarding Pratt

Website Manager:

It has long been my personal and professional opinion that commitment by the School District to the permanence and intended grade range of Pratt has always only been a legal one. Having worked in public legal contracts, grant agreements and other binding mechanisms, this perpetual fight for recognition and promise to the neighborhood Pratt vision is erroneous (and exhaustingly unnecessary task from the School District). During scare #2 by ill informed and big mouthed school district staff, I pushed for PPERRIA Pres. to look into legal strong arm mechanisms. Upon his research, it was revealed that no written contract in a more strict legal sense, existed up until that point (I would think the NRP Plan would constitute such on a certain level but, PPERRIA having a formal understanding of such with the City of Minneapolis as opposed with the District themself, it didn't fly...).

I understand that there is some such protectionist and more traditional written contract now,(?) limited though it may be in scope and apparently dependant upon inference of past understanding (an easy to dispute thing - but without me having read it). Still, that's good. It may be argued in fact, that the lack thereof prior was due to an implicit understanding between the neighborhood and the representative city power...

Nonetheless, just as strong can be verbal agreements, passage of the PPERRIA NRP Plan by the Minneapolis City Council under whom City operations fall, conversations, documentation of those developmental conversations, mutual intentions reflected in other conversations between planners/staff, like materials. There should be enough of this to fill a mobile home (well almost). Yes, the ringer would be a tight legal contract (and the neighborhood would learn from this naive but well intentioned omission). But the absence of such does not indicate a lack of binding terms between the neighborhood, the City or its public offices! The key is finding an Attorney who thinks this and will argue the points in the interest of the neighborhood. Such would put us well beyond eternal situational arguments from the School District.

--------------------------------

Message 4

From: Bill Seeley
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004
To: PPERRIA Executive Committee
Subject: RE: Proposed Pratt school closing

February 12, 2004

Dear concerned Prospect Park residents,

I agree with Karen Murdock's analysis below. My other comments are:

1. Has anyone talked with Judy Farmer to assess her read on this dire situation? If Judy is opposed to closing Pratt, I would think she would be one the neighborhood's strongest advocates for keeping Pratt open as both an elementary school and/or a community education center.

2. Has the School Board provided enrollment data for Pratt in comparison with other elementary schools in SE Minneapolis where children from our neighborhood would most likely attend if the School District closes Pratt?

3. Has the School Board given any indication as to whether they could continue to use Pratt as a community education center, even if the school were not used as an elementary school? (This would be similar to the building use prior to re-opening it as an elementary school; except the Loft is no longer a major building user.)

4. Given the extensive building renovation that took place over the past 10 years, do we have data showing the total rennovation cost, what percent came from various sources, and what the projected life of the rennovated building? This might be helpful in convincing the School Board to not abandon the building for ongoing use as a community education center, and again re-use it as an elementary school if financial constraints force a temporary closure of the site for elementary education. (I say this realizing that "temporary closures" often turn into "permanent closures". Thus this would be the least desirable outcome for advocates of continued use of the building as an elementary school.)

5. Steve Banks may be right in saying that hiring a good PR firm is preferable to spending all of our resources on hiring attorneys to fight the closing, but I think there are some core school district policy, financial and legal issues that are driving this proposed closure. These core concerns cannot be washed away, or glossed over, with a rosey PR campaign. Hopefully Judy Farmer has access to, and will share with the community, all of the relevant school district policy, financial and legal issues that are driving this proposed closure.

Yours,

Bill Seeley, PPERRIA Exec. Committee Member and

Prospect Park community resident

--------------------------------

Message 3

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004
From: "Karen Murdock"
To: PPERRIA Executive Committee

I do think we have to keep in mind that the NRP money we have poured, and are pouring, into Pratt is not really "our" money. It is NRP money, raised from the city as a whole and not specifically from Prospect Park. I don't know if that makes a difference, legally speaking.

That said, I think the School Board is guilty of, at the very least, bad faith. They took the NRP money and now act as if that committment on the part of the neighborhood makes no difference at all.

Also, we should keep some historical perspective here. The last time the school district closed a significant number of schools (1970?) they ended up regretting that decision within just a few years of the closings.

Karen Murdock
612-340-1338

--------------------------------

Message 2

From: Gratia R
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004
To: PP E-list (via Lois Willand)
Subject: Re: PP e-list: post opinions on PPERRIA website

As a teacher in the Minneapolis Public School System, I feel there is little I can do to change the ideas of David Jennings. However, I am willing to work toward saving Pratt as a building, hopefully as a community center if not a school. My fear is that they would tear it down and build a new building (with what money???) similar to the school on 50th Ave. that just about dwarfs Mt. Olivet. Happy to attend meetings, distribute flyers, etc.

--------------------------------

Message 1

To Whom It May Concern:
From: Darin Warling, 2004-02-09
Phone Number: (612) 623-9749

We are extremely angry over the planned closing of Pratt Elementary.

Any purported cost savings will be little more than a drop in the proverbial bucket and will drive the best and brightest students out of the district, further exacerbating the cycle of deficits, dropping enrollment and falling test scores. In our particular case, for example, we will most likely choose St. Anthony Park Elementary, a private school or a charter school over any of the remaining Minneapolis schools.

Furthermore, this sudden and unexpected move has shattered our faith in the Minneapolis school system. In the fall of 2002 we spent a great deal of time investigating schools, both public and private. We were offered a spot in the prestigious St. Paul Academy and were very close to taking it. Academically, a small public school -- even one as highly rated as Pratt -- simply can't hold a candle to a well-funded private institution like SPA. However, we felt that a small neighborhood school offered advantages that SPA never could: friendships with neighborhood children, interactions with neighborhood parents, the ability to walk to school, and the ability put down solid roots in our own neighborhood. Closing Pratt completely removes all of these advantages. Let me repeat -- if we have to bus out of our neighborhood, there will be absolutely no reason for us to keep our daughter in a Minneapolis public school.

Unfortunately, having already given up to the opportunity to attend SPA, we're now stuck with a wide variety of poor choices and are forced to start the painful school search process all over again, but this time at a great disadvantage because this decision was left until so late in the school year. Yes, we could meekly accept the merger with Tuttle, but frankly, judging by the numbers, Tuttle is academically inferior to Pratt, and has none of the advantages that Pratt offers, at least for us.

One of the primary reasons we moved into the Prospect Park neighborhood (rather than somewhere in St. Paul or one of the surrounding suburbs) was because Pratt was going to be reopened as an elementary school. It's a historic building in a historic neighborhood. It, along with the adjacent water tower, are the focal point for the neighborhood and its families. We've heard several administrators and teachers say that "it's not the bricks and mortar that make a school, it's the people." Frankly, we disagree. Pratt is a beautiful building, solid and well-preserved, and its beauty is part of the reason we chose it. It has bright, sunny classrooms, wide hallways, original woodwork, and its playground faces a hilly, wooded park. In short, it's both an architectural gem and a well-maintained, working building.

Pratt has been standing at the center of community life for over 100 years. So much neighborhood planning and effort went into reopening it, and there was so much community pride and when it finally did reopen. The neighborhood has worked hard to support it, so much so that at a raucous community meeting last fall we overwhelmingly voted to contribute the vast majority of our Neighborhood Revitalization Funds to renovating new 5th grade classrooms. Closing the school -- much less closing or destroying the building itself -- would destroy the fabric of our neighborhood and in a single blow undo so much that the neighborhood has worked so hard to achieve.

While we have absolutely no doubt that some cost savings will be realized by merging with Tuttle, the savings are small and come at a great price. The stated savings of $2.8 million, spread over roughly 40,000 students, comes to $70 in savings per student. Even if enrollment were to drop to roughly 32,000 students by 2008, that's still only around $87 per student. With it will come a loss of public goodwill toward the Minneapolis school system, a loss of community cohesion, disruption of families, and additional busing costs (since a large percentage of the children currently walk to school). In addition, it would destroy one of the best schools in the district, based on test scores. As David Jennings stated during an interview on Minnesota Public Radio, he wants to "focus on the programs that are really working well." Unfortunately, Tuttle in not one of those. Pratt is. Why kill one of the few bright spots in the school system?

In addition to the fact that the school is going to be closed -- and possibly razed -- we're extremely upset about the decision-making process itself. Unless we missed something, there was no public discussion about this prior to the announcement, and very little time for public input following it. It sounds as if the decision has already been made and it's all over but the crying. And while some may think it's extremely clever to ramrod this through under an interim superintendent (since that person has no reason to fear for his or her job as a result of popular outcry and is thus unaccountable), we believe it's extremely underhanded. The process should be open and above board and a change of this magnitude should be given proper public consideration, not simply rushed through in the space of two weeks. This change is going to cause a great deal of pain and disruption for a lot of families -- and a lot of voters.

In short, we're angry, and we don't want the school closed, and if it is we'll look outside of the Minneapolis school district. We suggest you find the cost savings somewhere else, or raise our taxes accordingly. Make a real commitment to funding public schools, instead of slowly gutting them.

Darin Warling and Debbie Schnur
44 Clarence Ave. SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3528
(612) 623-9749

Save the Southeast Library (2003-05-27)

The Minneapolis Library Board is considering closing SOUTHEAST Library due to massive budget cuts. Be an advocate for our neighborhood library–attend Minneapolis Library Board Meetings:

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21 at 6:00 P.M. and

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4 at 6:00 P.M.

WHERE: DOWNTOWN LIBRARY 250 MARQUETTE AVE.-BOARD ROOM

Next meeting of the SAVE THE SOUTHEAST LIBRARY COMMITTEE
Wednesday, May 28th at 7 p.m. SE Library, 1222 SE 4th Street

Agenda items include:

*Special guest Diane Hofstede, Mpls. library board member
*Feedback from SE speakers at May 28th library board meeting
*Attendance at future board meetings including June 7 library board retreat
*Public imput sessions to be scheduled June 26-July 15
*Save SE Library petition forms
*New informational flyers

Questions or comments?? Please contact Kathleen Reilly, Acting Chairperson
Home Phone: (612)379-1016 or e-mail: ber 7164@aol.com

Minneapolis library board members list follows:

Laura Waterman Wittstock, President (appointed by Mayor)
(612) 721-6631 ext. 200
wittstock@migizi.org

Rod Krueger, Secretary (elected at large)
(612) 721-8076
rodmn@hotmail.com

Anita S. Duckor (elected at large)
(612) 285-1033
anita@duckor.com

George A. Garnett (elected at large)
(612) 529-0777
ggarnett@uswest.net

Diane Hofstede (elected at large)
(952) 835-0334
dianehofstede@bitstream.net

Virginia Holte (elected at large)
(612) 874-7474
virginiaholte@netscape.net

Kathleen M. Lamb (City Council appointee)
(612) 338-2525
kml@mcgrannshea.com

Laurie Savran (elected at large)
(612) 822-0606
lafscal@aol.com

UNIVERSITY REGENTS REJECT VIKINGS STADIUM PROPOSAL
- Minneapolis Observer, 11-11

The University of Minnesota Board of Regents last week rejected the Minnesota Vikings initial proposal for a joint football stadium on campus.

The Vikings proposal included a contract termination clause every five years, rent-free use of the facility, and guaranteed revenue from 17,000 game-day parking spots. "I'm sorry to say that the agreement did not meet (financial) parameters," the university's general counsel, Mark Rotenberg, told Paul Sand in the Minnesota Daily (www.mndaily.com). Vikings officials earlier had refused to guarantee the club's $100 million contribution to stadium construction.

University officials submitted a counterproposal to the Vikings, but there is growing doubt about the ability of the two parties to come to an agreement before the Regents make a final determination on December 13. "To think that we can put this together like a first-round draft choice between two agents, sign it and announce it is not going to happen," said regent David Metzen.

[At the July, 2002 Board Membership Meeting, the subject of the "McKinsey Report" came up.  There was insufficient time to consider it then.  It was indicated that the Executive Committee would study the report.  If it found it necessary, it would call an emergeny meeting for PPERRIA to consider its position.  The Executive Committee did study the matter.  It decided to adopt a position as the Executive Committee rather than calling an emergency member's meeting.  The following is the text of the resolution adopted by the PPERRIA Executive Committee on August 12, 2002]

PPERRIA Executive Committee Observations on McKinsey Report

The Executive Committee of the Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association (PPERRIA) at its meeting on April 12, 2002 discussed the report of McKinsey & Company to the City of Minneapolis.  We believe that:

(1) McKinsey & Company has performed a valuable public service in recommending the reorganization of the city?s development functions.

(2) It is useful to declare for the city to now set long term and intermediate goals for the development of housing and jobs.  All involved city departments should be required to submit regular reports on activities taken to reach those goals.

(3) The city must take additional steps to communicate and coordinate interrelated functions of the city among city departments and employees.

(4) Consideration should be given to whether a city manager would be beneficial to coordinate city functions.

(5) It is bad public policy to mix regulatory and promotion functions.  For that reason, we are opposed to the merger in one department of any building regulation and building development activities of the city.  We believe there are alternatives that promise a better result.  One is to provide for the appointment within the development offices of an advocate to the regulatory offices to expedite priority projects.

(6) Zoning is a useful way to prospectively determine the nature of city development.  Ordinarily, zoning decisions should be respected so that any zoning decisions that interfere with any development are not overturned on the request of any developer.  A possible standard for change is the inability to anticipate material events.

(7) The NRP and the MCDA are multiple-jurisdictional agencies under state law and not an instrumentality of the city.  We fail to see advantages of making those agencies "just" a department of the city's government.  However, we do think that the city must exercise its influence over the NRP and the MCDA so that they play a prominent role in meeting the city?s housing and jobs development goals.

(8) The actual role of the neighborhoods in the new development process seems inconsistent with an enhanced role for neighborhoods in that process.

(9) We do not believe that a case has been made for the merger of the city's Public Works Department into a merged development agency.

(10) Changes should be implemented step-by-step so there is sufficient time to evaluate as each step is completed.

These observations are solely those of the PPERRIA Executive Committee.  PPERRIA's membership has not yet seen let alone approved this statement.  No membership meeting is scheduled before the City Council will apparently act.
 

_______________________
Attest: PPERRIA Secretary