Hennepin County judge's ruling is final piece to end lawsuit against Downtown East development

  • Article by: David Chanen , Star Tribune
  • Updated: December 20, 2013 - 10:37 PM

Judge’s denial of temporary restraining order for park means that Minneapolis development project can move ahead without delay.

  • 12
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
readthiscommentDec. 20, 13 6:18 PM

Will be happy to see most of this current city council hit the road. Looking forward to some new members with common sense. The city always seems to find money for non-necessities but can't find money to fill potholes or fix crumbling infrastructure. Glad Ostrow, Woodruff and Cohen at least tried to put a stop to this drunken-sailor-spending-spree and charter abuse.

6
18
paultostrowDec. 20, 13 6:43 PM

The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the merits of Count 3 which alleged the Council had no authority to acquire, own or maintain a park. Quoting from the opinion "the Court rejects the City's position that the Council retains concurrent power with the park board.." The Court also finds there is "evidence that the city may act contrary to the Park Board's authority." The Court also leaves the door open for injunctive relief in the future but states the issue is not yet ripe. The opinion should be linked to the article.

5
6
dtmonkeyboyDec. 20, 13 6:54 PM

This development will bring in close to $20 million per year in tax revenue....but only cost the city $85 million to build skyways and the ramp. That is a GREAT deal for Minneapolis tax payers...after just four to five years Minneapolis will see a net gain. In addition Minneapolis might make even more money by selling the building rights above the ramp. It takes additional revenue to fill pot holes and infrastructure and this project is exactly what is needed to do that

17
8
cav1234Dec. 20, 13 8:57 PM

It's not 5000 new jobs, it's relocating 5000 people from elsewhere.

10
4
dr4golfDec. 20, 13 8:59 PM

So glad we have an intelligent judicial system that actually follows the law. Build it and they will come. thank you.

8
5
billkahnDec. 20, 13 9:22 PM

"Michele Kelm-Helgen, chairwoman of the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority, which is overseeing construction of the $1 billion Vikings stadium, said she was pleased by the ruling and 'thankful that there is nothing that is going to stop this part of the project'." Hee, hee. There may, of course, be something out there that will stop the other part of the project. There is an appeal to the decision of Judge Philip Bush on Doug Mann's petition for writ of mandamus for the Minneapolis City Council to hold a referendum on financing the Vikings stadium. The Minneapolis City Council acted against their own city charter in approving 'that other part of the project' with a bit of unconstitutional misdirection from the MN Legislature. None of the relators of the suit this article addresses are on board, but the whole basis of the 'Minneapolis share' of the Vikings stadium is non-existent per Judge Bush, although he did not see it as his place to hold up the stadium. The whole Vikings stadium package is at risk. There is no more reason for those who oppose this public subsidy of an NFL franchise to despair than there is for Zygi Wilf to pay off the partners he swindled, because the law is on their side (unlike Wilf in his New Jersey suit; perhaps he can sell the Vikings to pay off his former partners). I don't think there are any folks out there who seek to keep a Vikings stadium from being built, but if there is to be a public subsidy, there are a majority of folks who want to see all of the taxpayers of this state screwed equally (not counting any mindless purple people in this tally).

4
6
bellczarDec. 20, 13 9:34 PM

Among the plaintiffs were TWO former council presidents. Dan Cohen is also a former council president.

4
1
Ron LietzDec. 20, 1310:40 PM

I am so glad I do not live in the City of Minneapolis; so glad. As a life-time member of the DFL--and a former Ward Chair--I cannot wait to vote against Mark Dayton.

8
6
rshacklefordDec. 21, 13 3:29 AM

The NRPA (National Recreation and Park Association) should be provided with a summary of how this new "public park" was created from the Peoples' perspective (ie the taxpayers). I am certain that the association would be interested in learning how a nationally recognized park and recreation operation (the MPRB) was left completely out of the picture with regard to this new park. Perhaps this should be the end of the MPRB? Very recently, the MPRB voted for a wage increase for themselves. Why not dissolve that board, save the money, and let the City Council decide what the Mpls Parks Department will do from now on? But, I get the feeling that the City Council will consider this issue an "extraordinary circumstance" or something similar to explain their actions away.

1
5
sdtDec. 21, 13 3:38 AM

Planning Commission members serve at the pleasure of the City Council. They are also apolitical. Mr Cohen exhibits neither of these traits and needs to be removed from his position for working against city goals.

3
2

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Can the Wild rally to win its playoff series against Colorado?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT