Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

Mr.

Mayor and Members of the Council,

I have several observations about the meeting on the 19th, when action was taken on Arden
Park.

1. In spite of all the cautions, caveats, and promised check-ins by the MCWD and staff
although the MCWD is clearly in the drivers seat it was obvious to me that the deal was really
consummated that evening. Director Kattrehs lack of enthusiasm for dealing with residents on
this project again was palpable.

2. But even if the MCWDs Great White Whale the 54th Street dam is removed, there are
multiple ways to accommodate the necessary grade change without the fanciful, ahistorical,
park-gobbling, and potentially dangerous meanders. I even suggested one a few years ago in
connection with the rebuilding of the street and bridge. In recent days, someone sent me
another one. This is the west branch of Lac qui Parle River at Dawson, Minnesota, designed by
our DNR:

This looks a little like what I had in mind, although it is wider and the grade change is 8, not 4.

It would also be possible to place two or three small grade changes along the course of the
creek through Arden Park without meandering it.

3. You will recall, though, that the MCWDs consultant, Jonathan Kusa, deflected questions by
Councilmember Fischer at the meeting in August, and by Mayor Hovland at subsequent
meetings, about such a solution.

1
4. This project has been infected with what I think is the intentional misuse of language, such as
restore and re-meander, when in fact it is itself a completely manufactured solution. As Jim
Grotz and I demonstrated at the early September council meeting, the historical record is clear
that the creek has run quite straight along the bluff on its west bank through Arden Park as long
as there are records.

Here is a 1898 plat map of the area that would become Arden Park. The Stansfield farm is
where the park is today.

Here is a 1952 USGS topographical map.

Beyond these graphics, you have to ask yourselves, though, if we are re-meandering the
creek and restoring its path, why on earth is it necessary to remove 90+ large trees and
2
never mind the many, many smaller ones even slightly less than 8 in diameter that didnt
make the measurement cut to do that. It appears that many of the larger trees are 100
years old, and the oldest and largest perhaps 140 years old. Among other things, that is
evidence to me that the creeks course has been pretty stable at least back to the Civil War,
and probably much longer.

Parenthetically, the only material changes to the creeks path since the plat map above were to
sharpen a bend near 50th Street to allow the street to be straightened, and the curve just above
54th Street where the bluff on the west side had to be cut down to accommodate a road
without building a trestle bridge. (This is why the hill is so steep leaving the bridge westbound.)

5. It was a tell to me that the MCWDs Renae Clark said on September 19th, after the MCWD
had been saying 90 (large) trees all along, fudged and said 80 to 90 (large) trees. (We can go
to the tape if you dont remember that.) But just as before, she made no commitment as to
how many trees would be taken. She was obviously trying to soft peddle the tree loss.

6. A few weeks ago, I sent an email to Ms. Clark asking if the Great Lawn (set to be the Lesser
Lawn if this project is done) had been a wetland, as the land to the south of it on the east bank
is. She didnt answer my question, but parroted the talking point that lowering the creek would
dry out the lawn. But just a little thought renders that idea unlikely.

At the top of the park, where the wet lawn is, the creek would only be lowered a foot or two.
The idea this would lower the water table to dry out the park borders on ludicrous. The
groundwater in the park comes from rain that soaks into the ground, both in the park, and
which migrates in a continuous plume off the higher ground surrounding the park.

If this enormously disruptive and disfiguring project is done, and the lawn does not dry out, you
know who will get the calls dont you? Just a hint: it wont be the MCWD.

There were many more speakers against the project than for it at the public meeting.
Councilmember Brindle says comments to her were split about fifty-fifty. Based on the fact that
many of the pro-project speakers at the meeting (again, we can go to the tape) were concerned
mostly about the wet lawn and playground and were under the illusion that the project would
solve the problem an illusion promoted by the MCWD I believe there is a considerable
prospect for disappointment among our residents.

No one from the staff or the MCWD suggested to the council the old Iowa farmers trick for
drying out the lawn, either: drain tile. Youd have to filter the draining water before it entered
the creek, but that wouldnt be so hard, and it would be cleaner than street runoff or the
effluvium from the Methodist Hospital campus (which enters the creek via sump pumps),
anyway.

7. There was sentiment expressed by the council that the project had gone so far there was no
turning back. But just an observation: when you are on the road to Perdition, you dont press

3
on; you turn back. Having the staff and MCWD check in with you at the 30, 60, and 90% mark
is no solution. If were past the point of no return now, think about 30 or 60% from now.

If you cant imagine the MCWD standing before you at some point in the future, heaving a huge
sigh of regret for dramatic effect, and saying, Mayor, Council, we just couldnt save any trees,
I submit that you arent paying attention. I think that is what will happen. By that time, you will
all be well and truly stuck. And then the people who arent paying close attention to this, and
that includes most people, probably, will be horrified at the denudement of the of the little, old
hardwood forest.

I will close by observing that sometimes, my friends, as elected officials, you have to dance with
the ones what brung you.

Steve Timmer

Вам также может понравиться