Parks Commission turns down Chester Park trail proposal

It feels to me like Matt overstepped his authority when he stated he would not seek funding if multi-use stays as the user group. I’m assuming the City thought that the commission would support their position or why would the trails coordinator make a statement that now he is backing away from? This is troubling because it could have influenced the decision-makers in their vote. Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon practice within the past ten years or so. The parks staff looks to its leadership in how to make presentations. They continue to emulate their leadership’s method.

The Parks Commission’s No vote is encouraging. There was a time when no commissioner would ever cast a No vote. The first one I’m aware of is for the Cross City Trail’s odd section above Grand Ave., where Don Ness did not want to lose $300,000 in grant funding just after he had to turn back $500,000. Don sent to the commission at the last minute a request to build the little-known section. The one No vote stated that building a section that is not connected to the existing one could cause issues in the future because there were no secured plans to make the connection to the existing trail. He was so correct. This segment is causing all kinds of issues to complete the 40-year project.

The second No votes were during the Duluth Traverse where the commission voted 4-3. The third one was historic because the commission voted down a park plan at Tallas Bay, aka Kayak Bay, now called Spirit Launch Landing. The council just a few days later caved to the Mayor’s plan to create a park complete with a new road and parking lot to develop an already quiet park space instead of looking six blocks upriver and developing an area that already has parking and roads.

All this indicates that the Parks Commission is doing its job by looking hard at the City’s plans and listening to the public and those that are involved in the process. We need to thank these volunteers that give so much of their time to assure we do what’s best for the community in the face of power. They are only advisory so the council can either take or reject their position. This is an issue in itself because the council will take action within days of the commission’s advice. One can only assume that the council lacks the reasoning of the commission’s recommendation because of the short timeline and volume of items on the council’s agenda.

Can we do better? I think, YES!