Another Great post from Two Putt

I thought I would post this. For those of you who are looking for a good blog to read it’s at: http://www.mncampaignreport.com/
I read it every day.

Thank you Tommy! TPL

What I Said Last Night (+)
by: TwoPuttTommy
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 11:51:39 AM CDT

Two weeks ago I wrote a post entitled "Protecting A Parking Lot" where Park Watch's June 17th testimony to the Park Board was duly noted and dismissed as the junk it was. I was going to fisk that junk; but other things got in the way. So, I thought I'd attend last night's Minneapolis Park Board meeting, and do some fisking there. Here's what I wanted to say; I gave an abridged version as I thought I'd have three minutes but was only given two:

Mr. President, Ms. Vice President, Commissioners: My name is Tommy Johnson. Most of you know me as TwoPutt Tommy. I am a blogger at MNProgressiveProject. I am here to speak about blogging, ParkWatch, and a little bit about Crown Hydro.
MNProgressiveProject is a group of bloggers that speak for no one but ourselves. We cover issues all over the state of Minnesota. Like all reputable blogs, we try to follow something loosely called the Blogger's Code of Ethics. There are two basic elements we go by.

First, be honest in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. This means checking facts. One of the tenets of this guideline is to distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.

Second, be accountable. We admit our mistakes, and correct our posts.
In the course of my blogging, I covered the issue of Crown Hydro, and became aware of ParkWatch. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is covered extensively by the blog ParkWatch, and they are also activists against certain projects, such as Crown Hydro. On June 17th a blogger from ParkWatch addressed the Park Board and posted said comments on their blog.

I made a brief blog post about this on Friday, June 19th - I brefly touched on Park Watch's comments, but didn't get into specifics. Tonight, I'd like to.
On June 17th, a Park Watch member, Arlene Fried, made the following comments:
She said, and I quote: "We know that the public will lose control over St. Anthony Falls to a private developer and the FERC. No one can predict water flows over the next 50 to 100 years, and an EAW will not enlighten you on this topic. The FERC will have the authority to let the Falls run dry in order to produce energy."

This is completely at odds with what the FERC License says. The FERC license Article 309 requires Crown Hydro to work with the other water users on a flow plan. (1) They did this. (2) There are 4 water users at this elevation, the City, the Army Corps and Xcel Energy. Crown Hydro has last use. First to turn off, last to turn on, and will never run at times of low flow. Article 404 (3) requires them to have a plan to implement this. And finally, the lease terms negotiated by the Park Board indicate the Park Board has control of water diversion when flows are at 1000 cfs or below. (4) This lease term becomes part of the FERC license, in essence, fully enforceable federal law. Some people might call what Ms. Fried said untrue; I'll simply say the license contradicts what she said.

The second statement she made, and I quote: "We know that a FERC hydropower license will preempt local control of historic preservation issues."
Again, completely at odds with everything I've read. This is local park land, on a federal waterway, in part of a national park. The Minneapolis Heritage Preservation office will work with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to create a Programmatic Agreement that addresses historic preservation issues. Some people might call what Ms. Fried said untrue; I'll simply say the record contradicts what she said.

I hope the ParkWatch blog accepts these fact corrections and edits their blog accordingly.
***
1 - pages 10 and 17 of FERC License, 19 March 1999
2 - System-Wide Low-Flow Management Plan, Mississippi River above St. Paul, revised 11 March 2004
3 - pages 10 and 20 of FERC License, 19 March 1999
4 - Crown Hydro Proposed Lease Term Sheet

Quite frankly, the Park Watch people don't source their work and for the most part their work is junk. When people have to make stuff up to make a point, their point isn't worth making.

Recently, I mocked, ridiculed, and scorned the ParkWatch folk. Shortly thereafter, I recived an e-mail, notifying me of a new blog, Minneapolis Park Watch Watch, which is now mocking, ridiculing, and scorning the Park Watch folk.

FOR THE RECORD: I was not involved in forming the Minneapolis Park Watch Watch blog, I have not been invoved, nor am I now involved. But, I'd like to think that my mocking, ridiculing, and scorning of the Park Watch folk was part of the inspiration to the people that did. And who knows? Down the road, I might just make a post or three or more over there...

The Minneapolis Park Board - A "bunker mentality"?

A hat tip to Two Putt Tommy at www.mnprogressiveproject.com for exposing one of the main symptoms of Civic PsychoActivism, namely, costing taxpayers incalculable dollars and draining human and other resources while deluding oneself into thinking these actions somehow serve a public purpose.


The Minneapolis Park Board - A "bunker mentality"? (Part 1)
by: TwoPuttTommy

Wed March 25, 2009 at 12:20:29 PM CDT

Today's Avista Capital Partner's Strib has a story about the Mpls Park Board; apparently, Park Board President Tom Nordyke doesn't think it's an appropriate use of Park Board property for the City's Charter Commission to hold meetings at said property when the topic to be discussed is the possible elimination the Park Board.

Seems like these days, a lot of people are taking shots at the Park Board. In the course of investigating the Crown Hydro Project, one group that seems to especially get in the Park Board's face*, is a group called ParkWatch.org, who's whole schtick seems to be "the Park and Rec Board is filled with incompetents, liars, and thieves and you can't trust them or believe anything they say - EXCEPT when it comes to Crown Hydro."

And I couldn't believe the amount of paperwork ParkWatch.org demands. I asked for information regarding data requests from the Park Board; I simply couldn't believe what ParkWatch.org wanted. Let's look!

Here's the Data Request I asked for, in its entirety: I would like to review the "Data Requests" filed with the MPRB by groups such as ParkWatch.org, etc.

What I promptly got back on March 11th was a SpreadSheet, with 236 lines dating back to March 1st, 2006 - and the vast majority (all but 48, by my count) coming from ParkWatch.org folk like Arlene Fried, Edna Brazaitis, and Liz Wielinski.

That's 188 Data Request submissions, in 36 months - or, roughly, a little over 5 per month. However, if you figure in 10 days per month for weekends and holidays, etc - that's really more like one Data Request every four work days. One every four days, over the course of 3 years.

And let's look at a couple of what they've asked for, such as a Data Request by Liz Wielinski, on 11/1/2006 and renewed 7/20/07:
Any emails, telephone messages, or correspondence between DeLaSalle Brother Michael Collins, Barbara Johnson or anyone representing DeLaSalle or the Archdioceses of Mpls & St. Paul and anyone employed by (including counsel) the MPRB or it's commissioners prior to 10/25/06 going as far back as January 1, 2004.

Here's one Ms. Wielinski filed on March 6th, 2007:
Northeast Ice Arena - All hours scheduled / amounts paid per hour / all entities scheduled / during the 2006-2007 hockey season (Sept. 1, 2006 - April 30, 2007). I would prefer this information in the electronic format it is most likely in as you take reservations by internet. I would also like all data on expenses incurred since the arena became MPRB property including legal expenses for the transfer, utilities, repairs, staff time dedicated to this arena and the cost of any signage & advertising (fees to illegible word)

Here's one Ms. Wielinski filed on 8/26/2008:
I would like any written or electronic data regarding any possible offers of purchase or land trades, sales, or shared use of the property known as Bluff Street Park in the Cedar Riverside area. This is NOT limited to actual purchase agreements but any casual reference as well as active inquiry. This is to cover a period from January of 2003 forward.

Here's one, by Edna Brazaitis, on 10/5/2007 and renewed 3/26/08:
All data, including but not limited to: correspondence, drafts, e-mails, spreadsheets, calendars, forms, presentations, phone messages, relating in any way to state financing/bond requirements relating to the DeLaSalle project, including all inner office communications within the MPRB, communications with and between the MPRB Commissioners, and all communications of any kind with, by or between staff of the Commissioner of Finance, the Department of Administration, the Met Council, the City of Minneapolis, DeLaSalle High School, and their attorneys, including the Attorney General.
"calendars"? e-mails? phone messages? "any casual reference" - going back FIVE YEARS??!? Are you (cheney)in' kidding me??!?

Gee - no wonder the Park Board had to hire someone to answer this "watchdog" group's fishing expeditions, no, "information requests".

Now, here's what really gets me: These ParkWatch.org folk love to ask questions of others, and appear to get highly indignant when Park Board people don't jump at the snap of their fingers, but they won't answer questions posed by this friendly, progressive blogger - even though one ParkWatch.org member is running for a Park Board Seat - Liz Wielinski.

From Ms. Wielinki's site: Increase citizen review and participation. I am not only eager to listen, I want a process in place so that residents are confident they will be heard. If you have questions, feel free to phone or send an e-mail. (LizForParks.com)

Please note - NOWHERE does she say she'll answer questions. And if my experience is indicative, she won't.

Clearly, there are people that think the Park Board has problems; clearly, ParkWatch.org is one of them. While they have every right to ask for every scrap of paper someone made a note on, it's highly ironic that a group that allegedly wants the Park Board to function more effectively is getting in the way of them doing just that.

Keep that in mind, if you see the name of Liz Wielinski on a ballot.

***

Oh, and that asterisk, above? You know, from this? "...one group that seems to especially get in the Park Board's face*..." Apparently, the Park Board Commissioners recently had a "retreat." And again, while ParkWatch.org certainly has a right, under law, to attend, that doesn't give them license to be disruptive and/or behave like jerks.