Minneapolis Park Expansions

I'm fortunate to live in the Twin Cities, which by some evaluations have the best public park systems in the country. I certainly appreciate being able to walk across the street to a large dog park surrounded by bike and ski trails. What makes this most impressive is that they not only have a large percentage of city land dedicated to public parks, including waterfront, recreation centers, and playgrounds, but have generally good access to park resources across age and income. There are some limitations to this methodology, it didn't include access to park programming and services, the study defined access as being within a ten minute walk of any designated park property, regardless of condition, amenities, or safety. Things are improving, however, as the Park Board has adopted an explicit racial equity component in some of its planning. It is also true that having designated park land is better than not, and that once it is in the system it can be improved and serve as a gathering point or anchor for the neighborhood. An important piece of this is the ability to add important parcels to the system and obtain enough funding to support effective programming and ongoing maintenance.

In Minneapolis, unlike in many other cities with large or famous park systems, the idea of public parkland was present at the very beginning and an independent park board charged with overseeing and acquiring land for the system was created before the city was even 30 years old. This has led to a much more organized and thoughtful system, much of it planned or engineered (including the lakes and parkways), that is much more evenly distributed throughout the city. Compare it to Boston Common, a green space with roots in colonial custom, or Philadelphia's Fairmount Park, founded to protect the city's drinking water (lots of foresight, but also concentrated along the river, leaving large portions of the city without good access). In Minneapolis, the system was growing from the beginning with, as one writer put it a "get the land and adapt as you go" attitude. After all, as the same writer put it, when tastes and desires and trends change and new uses come into fashion, "people use the land as they want to. There have always been contentions about how parks should be used, but it's nice to fight over land we own."

That it is better to own the land already than need to acquire and repurpose it can be seen in Minneapolis' own history as well as the experience of other cities. Minneapolis has had a steady, planned growth of the system, adding units by purchase, eminent domain, and donation, in a regular and systematic way, including traditional parks, public squares, greenways, community centers, playgrounds, and miles of river and lakefront. This process is continuing to this day with the city set to acquire one of the last remaining parcels of riverfront that is not already part of the system. This would provide an almost uninterrupted stretch of river from one end of the city to the other all under public ownership. It is true that the land will need to be cleared and remediated, it is currently an industrial site, but there should be no problem clearing it eventually and converting it to some kind of appropriate public use. It helps that the Mississippi River is not a working river in Minneapolis. The mills are gone and almost all shipping is done by rail or truck. Barge traffic is present but not necessary (most stops in St. Paul). This allows riverfront property to be given over to desirable public parks (and often closely associated expensive condos), unlike, say Providence, Rhode Island, where the working harbor with alluring waterfront views have created headaches for would-be developers. They have learned that its hard to build a development on land that has current industrial value that supports established industry and a large workforce (this is part of why many parks were initially formed, they were viewed as "wasteland" or had unusuable grades or were otherwise viewed as unsuitable for other uses, but that's a very big digression).

Not all system acquisitions are smooth, or official. While Minneapolis doesn't have a large number of privately owned public spaces (the SkyWay and some indoor plazas might qualify, but I would need to do more research), there is the plaza/park at the new Downtown East development near the new Vikings stadium. Basically, it is a small area that would add some green space to the area, but would also be largely given over to use by the Vikings, NFL, and Stadium Authority. While funded by private funds, those funds are ultimately driven by tax incentives from the city and state as part of the larger redevelopment plan. Time will tell what the ultimate park looks like, with only a few months left before completion it is hard to tell what the final state will be. It does look safe to say that it won't be as good a deal for the city as it could have been though (as is true for almost every aspect of the stadium mess).

Finally, running parks is expensive. They require maintenance and upkeep, land must be acquired, programs must be run, buildings and equipment repaired. They also don't directly generate revenue for the city as they are public, non-taxable, and generate minimal revenues (even program fees often only partially offset the costs). However, they are an amenity that draw people to a city, particularly young professionals and other potential drivers of the tax base and they can also increase property values, another important factor in determining total city revenue. But periodically they must raise additional money, either from a general fund appropriation or from a levy (special or general). This could be related to an acquisition, the need to pay off bonds, or the desire to eliminate a backlog of work. In Minneapolis, the Park Board has sought to place a levy on the ballot for voter approval to raise $300 million dollars. While it seems like a large number, when spread out over the entire population and scaled to property values, it is a relatively small number, less than $28 on a $100,000 house. All to support maintaining the quality of the system. Why not just impose the levy unilaterally? Because the Park Board lacks that authority. Despite being an independent body, it does not control city property taxes and only has one vote on the committee that does. So it is forced to ask the city council for permission to ask the voters for permission. The city council could act without the voters, but it appears that even when it comes to supporting things as popular as parks (the last levy passed easily), the council would prefer to punt the issue to the ballot, unless it can get it to go away completely. I hope it passes. It would be a shame to see the system slip further behind in maintenance and upkeep and potentially endanger the continued expansion and improvement of the system.