Sadly no suprise that the City Council voted as it did. Barb Johnson's vote would not be important if everyone else voted no...but ethics don't exist and conflicts of interest are just helping your pals get whatever they want no matter how you do it and no matter what the cost to island residents.

DeLaSalle has a fantasy that "BIG LEAGUE" sports in a "BIG LEAGUE" arena with astroturf, megawatt lights, press boxes, concessions, big crowds, loads of parking will deliver big money for their school, media attention for their less than stellar teams and an easy path for their jocks and cheerleaders to the corridors of power...both private and public sector.

Yet a good sports venue for "the kids" could probably be provided without the excess they insist they need and without ruining the historic character of the island.

They will not compromise. They will get what they want the way they want it. They probably already have the court system ready to dismiss all lawsuits and any one else with the power to make it happen firmly in their pockets by now.

As to making the "stadium" available to city kids... forget it..it'll always be "in use" or locked or the city kids will have no way to get there and thus be blamed for their non-use of the field...can't have the rabble ruining the expensive new facility.

I just had to say how spot on (if pessimistic) your comment is.

Minneapolis May be the "cleanest city" when it comes to litter, but it has the dirtiest city council around.

They don't even care about the IMAGE of propriety, thats how arrogant they've gotten. Johnson could have recused herself and the thing still would've gone through.

It sets a precedent for more cavalier behavior from the council.

Dangit--I'm a democrat, a DeLa alumnus (not grad, but went three years) and live not too far away. So I'm their target voter, but Im so disgusted by everything they do lately.

Why does the DFL persist in jamming these opportunistic Ostrows and Johnsons and other opportunistic types on us?

*sigh* I'm going to go try to calm down with a cup of tea now....

Agreed Coucilmember Johnson should have recused herself, but was she a deciding vote? How did the other coucilmembers vote? How can an empty dirt road be 'historic'? Also, if we're going by the original 1866 street grid, any homes built on the island after that time should also be removed, yes including hypocritical sandy's

Just got home from a reception at the new Westin Hotel, the one opening in the old F&M Bank. Beautiful, full of character that's been preserved, plus sleek new amenities.

Mayor Rybak spoke about the importance of not only preserving individual historic buildings, but pointed out that the historic districts also need to be protected. This on the day the #%$&* City Council voted to overrule the HPC when it said that Nicollet Island is just the WRONG spot for the DeLaSalle Stadium because it'll not only damage the island, but it will have a negative effect on the entire St. Anthony Falls Historic District. Yet I believe that Mayor Rybak has indicated that he thinks the stadium proposal within the historic district is okay by him! Outrageous. Where did they teach him to talk out of both sides of his mouth like that?

The city has an HPC, and twice the political powers that be have thumbed their noses at it. Maybe it's CM Schiff and Goodman who've been giving the Mayor some lessons on double talk. Once noted for their strong preservationist stands, these two are doing the famous bend-over-kiss for DeLaSalle, while simply kissing off preservationists.

And today CM Lilligren reversed his stand and voted to back DeLaSalle. Coincidentally, there were at least FIVE people representing DeLaSalle at his last fundraiser, and not a one of them lives in his ward. Yes, coincidence.

And none of those voting "yes" will really go on record as to why this project deserves to break all the rules. And they won't address the fact that there are many good options outside the historic district, yet a couple of blocks from DeLaSalle. As elected officials, surely they owe the public that.

Rybak said Mpls. used to be so bad on preservation and touted the progress. Can anyone say political blind spot? Considering that no one can seem to see bias when they're staring it in the face, this project is setting a new low for the city council.

Just returned from a reception at the new Westin Hotel (former F&M Bank) where Mayor Rybak spoke about the importance of not only preserving historic buildings, but preserving and protecting historic districts. Yet he supports the intrusion of a DeLaSalle stadium in the St. Anthony Falls Historic District, which the Council gave the nod to today over the HPC's unanimous rejection of the project for that site.

It seems the Mayor can talk out of both sides of his mouth with great skill. Although he's nothing when compared with CM Schiff and Goodman. Long champions of historic preservation, they've simply suspended all the rules for the Stadium. "I really like DeLaSalle," CM Goodman oozed at the Z&P committee hearing that rejected the HPC's second ruling that the stadium was WRONG for the location with the historic district.

Today CM Lilligren reversed his earlier position and jumped on the DeLaSalle bandwagon. Coincidentally, at his fundraiser just a couple of days ago, at least FIVE DeLaSalle representatives made their appearance, despite the fact that NONE live in his ward. Coincidence, yeah right.

And if you believe that, you'll also believe that trustee of DeLaSalle Council Pres. Johnson's vote was not tainted by bias or favoritism. Yeah, right.

I'm sorry folks, as an East Coaster, where there are Revolutionary War, and Civil War buildings/fortress's there is nothing to compare in Minneapolis.

AFAIK, they can tear down anything they want. The stuff here isn't historic. It's just old and in the way of progress.

There isn't a past here, just antiquated buildings.

Because you're so fired up, I can only imagine you're an Island resident. The only people who have a legitimate opposition to DeLaSalle's stadium project are the ones who actually live on Grove Street, like the residents of the Flats. Their through-street will be cut off by DeLaSalle's stadium project, but the rest of the Nicollet Island residents should join the rest of the city and back this project. The positives far outweigh the negatives.
1. Barb Johnson would have recused herself if her membership on DeLaSalle's board caused a financial conflict of interest. She was cleared to vote.
2. By authorizing a stadium, the Park Board is honoring a long-standing commitment to DeLaSalle.
3. The city is gaining a first-class facility for all city kids to use-- at DeLaSalle's expense.
4. My understanding is that all Island residents are leaseholders of the Park Board. Why go against your landlord's wishes?
5. DeLaSalle was a good steward of Nicollet Island when it was a slum no one cared about. Now that it is gentrified, its residents are hoping a half-block of old street will get people righteously angry about historic preservation.
6. Why would anyone be against a high school having its own sports field, unless they don't remember being a kid?

I believe Mr. Larson has hit the nail on the head. Our city council has become so corrupt they don't even bother with the image of propriety. The FBI investigated and prosecuted Brian Herron and Dean Zimmerman, two former city council members. But I think they were small fish. The FBI should continue its efforts and look into each member of the city council, and every commissioner on the Park Board, as well.

As a property owner (ajacent to the park board owned land) who has been the victim of an attempted 'shake down' by the Park Board...

Let me tell you that the Park Board is the biggest bunch of idiots that anyone has ever assembled.

If you want a good (pathethic) laugh, attend one of their meetings. They make the 'Village Idiot' look like Albert Einstien.

In response to "Because you're so fired up":
Perhaps the controversy would have not become so inflamed if supporters of a stadium on Nicollet Island would take the time to inform themselves, instead of just echoing the DeLaSalle mantra.

Mr. Kaiser, to follow your reasoning, no one but a next door neighbor has stake in the historic districts created by the federal, state and local governments. Are you telling me that protecting the St. Anthony Falls Historic district -- the one this project would impact so negatively -- should only concern neighbors on the same block as the stadium?

If that's true, why are there local, state and federal protections for the District? Why did the National Park Service, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Minnesota Historical Society, the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota and the Sierra Club all testify in strong terms against this location for the project? And why did the city's own Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) TWICE unanimously reject the project because of its negative impact, not only to Nicollet Island, but to the historic district as a whole?

DeLaSalle's strategy from the beginning is to frame this as an issue between the school and the Island residents, a tactic you've tried to micro-focus down to just those on the same block as the project. If you'd give even a minute's thought to that characterization, you'd have to realize that it's simply illogical.

I'm desperately trying to be respectful of your position, but even you have to acknowledge that this goes beyond a normal street closing. This is a project proposed for locating within an historic district that simply breaks all the rules established to protect that district!

The City Council recently went to great lengths to prevent a developer from closing an ALLEY on one block within the Warehouse Historic District. According to your logic, the HPC and the City Council that upheld their decision, simply had no business ruling on that matter.

Say what?! Following your reasoning, we shouldn't even HAVE a HPC and the regulations that protect historic districts. In fact, based on your logic, we wouldn't need zoning laws at all, for we could just let the people on the same block decide what goes in next to them.

Of course, I have to realize what a gap in knowledge and reason I'm addressing here when I read the party line about DeLaSalle being "a good stewart of Nicollet Island when it was a slum no one cared about." Are you referring to the WWII era when DeLaSalle, through the Diocese, evicted hundreds of the poor from the cheap housing on the Island during a time of housing shortages, in order to build the home football field that DeLaSalle had in the '40s and '50s?

What do you say? This can't be because DeLaSalle has "never had a home field," which is another of the old bromides that keeps recirculating despite the fact that yearbook pictures prove otherwise?

When you chose to wallow in the illogical, it may be hard for you to see that there are many other options for the "first class facility for all city kids to use," the expansive Parade Stadium that will be completed this year being one. And those options, including the B.F. Nelson site just two blocks away, wouldn't mean giving away public parkland, destroying historic resources and damaging the historic district.

Before you make another illogical statement about the fact that the B.F. Nelson neighbors don't want the stadium and they have a plan for the space, let me remind you that there is a plan already implemented for the space on Nicollet Island -- not just contemplated. And the Nicollet Island neighbors don't want the stadium, as well. Why would their wishes and plans be of less value than those neighbors of B.F. Nelson? Especially when the plans for Nicollet Island are supported by National, state, and local regulations because of its location within the historic district.

It would really help the level of discourse on this issue if DeLaSalle supporters would address the facts and real issues, rather than perpetuating myths and constantly reciting emotional and inflamatory rhetoric. You know the stuff -- "if you don't support the field, you're against kids," the residents are "elitist," etc.

There are solutions that would provide wonderful athletic opportunities for DeLaSalle students that are close by, yet out of the historic district, but you aren't going to see them as long as you keep clouding over the real solutions with distorting statements like, "Why would anyone be against a high school having its own sports field, unless they don't remember being a kid."

I could point out the many problems with the logic of that statement, but I think an unbiased reader can pretty much figure that one out without any help.

There is plenty that is historic here in Minnesota. Just because it's different types of stuff that is historic here doesn't mean it has less value than the historic stuff from out east. What is shining in your post is you definate stuck up east coast attitude.

The poeple that live on the island are elitests! They all have that "not in my back yard" attitude! Why should the kids go somewhere else (as you say, not far off the island) when they have been promised a field on the school site for a long time? It would be the same issue as it is now when they have to go to a different location (Benilde) for their home field.

As someone who graduated from De, it is about time that they get their field. They are a first class school and their enrollment shows that. Not to mention that they are very competive in their sports. Really, let them have their field already!

Minneapolis hasn't given two bits about historical preservation in a long time. Sure, they throw bones to people once and a while (the Monte Carlo/Pacific project comes to mind); but I'm honestly shocked that this has dragged out as long as it has ($$$?).

Since the city has ultimately decided that its "character" will be linked to sloppy new landmark architecture, why should anyone be surprised that this has gone on this long?

I moved from Minneapolis to St. Paul about two years ago; and it was a breath of fresh air...aesthetically and (somewhat) politically. There's a general consensus of what the priorities of preservation are; and it doesn't seem to get mired in planning committee after planning committee.

Just do the right thing, Minneapolis. Don't let this field get built.

Why not Parade Stadium? Many high schools don't have football stadiums adjacent to the campus. No, that would make too much sense. This is all about power, narcissism, and elitism.

What wonderful behaviors to instill in the children. All you need to do is buy off your local politicans and the world is yours! Better yet, throw in a bit of religous piety and use the children as shields to ward off those pesky citizens. I, for one, would never send my children to this pathetic school.

The MPRB, City Council, and the Mayor do not, I repeat, do not care what you think. At least, not unless you contribute money to them, provide feelgood political fodder, or are a threat to their criminal organizations.

I am a life-long Minnesotan and I love this state with all my heart and soul, but I have to side with dgb on this one -- there really is not very much of historic value in Minnesota. The most obvious reason is that Minnesota was settled more recently than almost anyplace else on earth (with the notable exception of some sparsely settled, but nonetheless important, indigenous groups who, for the most part, left no remains). But another important reason is that very little happened here that affected the outside world in any way. In addition, what did happen occured in the context of a mostly stable and peaceful society.

It's important to remember that there is a difference between history and nostalgia. A building where something important happened is very different from a building that is simply old and pretty. They are both important in their own way, but with the important distinction that what is historic is irreplacable, while a old, pretty building can be satisfiably replaced with a new, pretty building. I concede that the state of architecture is such that new buildings are extremely unlikely to be pretty, but that is a digression to this digression.

To be more topical, Council President Johnson's failure to recuse herself due to conflict of interest in this case is immoral and unbecoming to her post. She should step down from her role of president, if not of councilmember.

Come on, the city owes it to the school to FINALLY have a place to play besides the 'practice field'. They have been promised this field for years! The people who live on the island should, for once, shut their mouths and allow it to be built. Surely they have better things to worry about (safety in Boom Island park, safety on the trail, etc.) than some kids finally getting a place to play ball. No one is talking about a bar and strip club here, people, GEEZ!

The sense of entitlement expressed by DeLaSalle supporters is blatant -- and yet they call the island residents "elitist." Within the city there are schools -- public and private -- that don't have a home field, and many more where the athletes have to go some distance.

While I realize that DeLaSalle is a good school with a diverse enrollment, does that make them SO much more deserving than those other schools? And what about the fact that they expanded over their previous home field -- the one they had through the 1940's and '50s.

DeLaSalle supporters so cleverly try to negate the opposition of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the MN Historical Society, the Preservation Alliance of MN, and the Sierra Club and try to make it sound like it's only the island residents who oppose the stadium in this location.

PLEASE, read the previous sentence carefully.

If I were speaking to you, Anonymous, I'd say the following v-e-r-y slowly -- this is being fought because of its inappropriate and damaging location within the St. Anthony Falls Historic District. The small number of island residents make up but a fraction of the opposition.

The Park Board has empty land two blocks away that is OUTSIDE the historic district. Its use for the stadium would not be opposed as a location by these same organizations. However, that location (B.F. Nelson field) is in Michael Rainville's backyard.(You know, the M. Rainville who's worked tirelessly for this stadium and is related to Council Pres. Barb Johnson, who votes for the field even though she's a DeLaSalle trustee).

It seems M. Rainville can oppose it for his backyard, yet the island residents are called elitist for opposing the location WITHIN the historic district in violation of all the rules that apply? Where's the logic and fairness there?

GEEZ! Have you thought about that? Do you listen at all to the issues involved and weigh the pros and cons, or do you just repeat the DeLaSalle line?

It seems the thing that's really shut tight in this situation is your mind.

Oh yeah, I know the Mike Rainville story. He is really crooked as well. The story of the old BF Nelson site is kind of interesting. After many meetings several years ago about that site, the truth fdinally came out. MANY years ago, BF Nelson buried old shingles and such and so that site is a "dirty" site. No one wants to pay to clean it up. (It would have to be done similar to the park next to Gabby's.) That is why that site isn't suitable.

I would say the majority of schools have their own field on the schools land. Benilde, Totino Grace, Osseo, Park Center, Brooklyn Center - really everyone I can think of has one - why not DLS?

No one was worried about preserving anything until the school wanted a stadium. I suppose they have to come up with some excuse. Sad isn't it?

Calling Mike Rainville a crook seems very unfair. I'm certainly not a M. Rainville supporter, but I'm an advocate of fair play.

As to the B.F. Nelson Field, it has undergone remediation, so the "dirty site" label is no longer a reason for not locating DeLaSalle's stadium there. In fact, some very good drawings for an earth bermed stadium exist that show that DeLaSalle could have soccer, football AND track and field in that space. At B.F. Nelson, DeLaSalle students and the kids of Minneapolis could have a much better and more extensive facility than what's possible to shoehorn onto Nicollet Island.

As to your uninformed comment that "no one was worried about preserving anything until the school wanted a stadium," are you completely unaware that back in the '70s the area became the St. Anthony Falls Historic District. Virtually everything on Nicollet Island BUT De LaSalle is listed as contributing to the district as a whole. Do you think they did that just for the fun of it?

Districts are established to provide protection from just the kind of incursion and erosion that this stadium would represent.

Until DeLaSalle proposed this assault on the historic resources of Nicollet Island, there really wasn't anything to worry about, as the protections were in place. What wasn't taken into account was the kind of political connections for DeLaSalle that enabled this project to slide through Park Board approval (a number of commissioners and Atty. Rice have strong DeLaSalle connections) and now to void those protections with a City Council bowing to politics using a complete and blatant double standard.

THAT'S what is terrifically sad!

DGB raises a question preservationists return to again and again. When does something become "historic?" I have heard many east coasters chuckle at what we midwesterners call historic. I myself, have chuckled at what Californians call historic. The Europeans guffaw at all of America. And the Greeks and Egyptians bust a gut at the lot of us.

We can all argue endlessly about the precise age a building or landscape should be before being labeled historic - Should it be 25 years? 50? two centuries? four? But that misses the point somewhat. In order for something to be historic - it has to survive all the intervening years - every single day. It may sound trite, but we preserve today for the benefit of FUTURE generations, not ours. The fate of our midcentury modern commercial buildings, for example, is pressing upon us now - although they are only just half a century old. They need repairs, they must adapt to new uses, and development pressures threaten their financial viability. If we don't act to sustain them now, people in the 23rd century won't have the opportunity to preserve them later.

I personally believe that preservation is evolving away from restoring "old" builidngs, and moving towards protection of important buildings. That's maybe more my hope than a prediction.

East Coast snobbery, I can safely foretell, will always be unnatractive.

Phillip Koski, Chair, Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission