Follow The Lawsuit

Six troubling facts surrounding the sale of the Public Annex Building.

#2 The Comprehensive Plan was misrepresented to advance the sale

At the Nov. 8 HRA vote, Planning and Economic Director Mr. Sage-Martinson asserted the sale was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan because:

1. Preserving buildings is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. This sentence exists about the park: "Any future use may not be denied exclusively on the basis that the vision for the block is of a public park."

In Context...

There is a noted exception to the goal of preserving buildings. So much so, the Planning Commission created a special sub heading to single it out.

Planning Commission Findings

In 2006, the Saint Paul Planning Commission recommended supplemental language to clarify the legal status of the plan’s recommendation for a full-block park on the block bounded by 9th, 10th, Minnesota and Robert streets. This language is found in Priority Strategy #20, shown on page 4 of this plan summary. In 2010, the Planning Commission recommended amending the plan to address the opportunities presented by Central Corridor Light Rail Transit serving the Fitzgerald Park neighborhood.

The supplemental language is:

“For planning purposes only, the preferred future land use on Block 10 is a full-block City park. Until such time as the City is able to take the necessary actions to assemble land and build a park, parcels on the block may be used for any legal use permitted under their current zoning classification, provided that the proposed use meets all applicable conditions and/or standards. Any future use may not be denied exclusively on the basis that the vision for the block is of a public park. (Figure 2). (Parks and Recreation)

Exceptions to park use on Block 10 is for private owners. Non-park uses are allowed only until the city is able to assemble land to build a park. The Pedro donation created an assembly of land. To sell the Annex Building is to disassemble land - the OPPOSITE of the Comprehensive Plan's intentions.

If there is any doubt, refer to picture graphics in any city plan or any stated city position prior to 2017.

#4 Park plans were made with extensive community involvement. Office development plans were made behind closed doors.

From the Planning and Economic Development (PED) office, here is their emailed response to a community member's two questions:

1st Question: How many people were involved in the neighborhood council with staff support and how many months (or years) and person hours were spent to prepare the park plan adopted by the city to demolish the building and replace it with park space?

PED response:

There have been two planning efforts related to the block. The Fitzgerald Park Precinct Plan (FPPP) was developed with significant public input and adopted in 2006. Work on the FPPP began in 2004, with the creation of a community task force. The task force held two visioning workshops in 2004, at which nearly 100 neighbors shared their vision for the neighborhood and worked with City staff to flesh out ways to accomplish that vision. A draft precinct plan was presented to the task force in February 2006, a community meeting was held in March 2006, the Capitol River Council approved the Plan in April, and the City Council approved the FPPP in August 2006 after a recommendation to do so by the Planning Commission. The Plan was amended in 2010 to reflect the construction of the Green Line and the location of the 10^th Street Station in the planning area.

The second planning effort was creation of a Design Advisory Committee (DAC) to advise Parks staff on the design of the park envisioned in the FPPP. The DAC was a group of 22 community stakeholders, and held public meetings in 2011 and 2012 that included participation from other community members and City staff. This group explored plans for a variety of park options that contemplated both partial and full-block parks including leaving the Union Gospel Mission Day Care building on the block and options that included development parcels on the block. All documentation from this process is available here.

Exactly, lots of investment!

2nd Question: How can all this planning and discussion be thrown away.... and replaced by a bureaucratic steamroller to fast track a 180 degree turn in direction with no public input?

PED response:

The proposed project provides new private sources of funds that would allow the first permanent capital investment in Pedro Park, and an ongoing operating investment in the park. These investments will strengthen park space on the block and provide for permanent improvements to Pedro Park.

In terms of previous planning and engagement work through those processes, the adopted Fitzgerald Park Precinct Plan (FPPP) identifies the future vision for this block as a park, but also states that, “until such time as the City is able to take the necessary actions to assemble land and build a park, parcels on the block may be used for any legal use permitted under their current zoning classification, provided that the proposed use meets all applicable conditions and/or standards.” The Plan further states that a “future use of the block may not be denied exclusively on the basis that the vision for the block is of a public park.”

Section VII of the FPPP also identifies the Public Safety Annex Building as a “significant” structure, encourages adaptive reuse, and states that significant structures should only be demolished as a last resort. The analysis the City is currently undertaking has so far identified the value and potential in redeveloping the existing building.

Rebuttal:

1. Section VII off the FPPP was not adopted by the city council and not included in the final Comprehensive Plan.
2. See Fact #2. Language presented argues that assembled land is to be converted to parkland. Only unassembled land remains open to alternative uses.
3. Good intentions behind closed doors are still behind closed doors.

#6 Adding parkland anywhere else will be astronomically more expensive.

• The cost to convert one half acre of city owned land to a grassy knoll is $500,000. Pg 39, 2011 Pedro Park Study
• The offered purchase price for that half acre is $1.3 million dollars.
• The proposed cost to buy back and create a half-acre park elsewhere is $4.5 million. Staff Report to HRA, Nov. 2017

There is a lot to unpack and debate about these numbers and the realities they represent, however, it is fiscally irresponsible, or simply a park killer, not to address this.

We have one shot at cheap parkland downtown. One shot.