Terry White is a regular contributor. He is also the author of the Better Minneapolis newsletter and podcast. He lives in Field.
The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board was scheduled to consider two proposed amendments at its first regular meeting of the year on Jan. 7. Due to the fatal shooting of Renee Good, they were rescheduled for the January 21 Planning Committee meeting.
“ Despite the shortened timeline, the board received hundreds of emails and public comments opposing the proposals.”
Both amendments were introduced by new Board President Tom Olsen, an at-large commissioner. The measures could significantly affect parkland use and traffic flow.
There were 54 speakers signed up for Open Time during the board meeting, most of whom were there to express their dissatisfaction over the amendments. Both amendments passed out of the Planning Committee and will now be considered by the full park board at their February 4 meeting.
One proposal, a version of which failed last year, would direct the park superintendent to remove roadway and replace it with grass following sewer work by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, tentatively scheduled to begin in spring 2026.
The project would include closing roads, removing asphalt and eliminating parking to return the area to green space.
“Residents of North Minneapolis express concerns about closures being a traffic barrier to their accessing the parks and other parts of the city.”
The second amendment, known as “Open Parkways,” would allow parkways to be temporarily closed to automobile traffic using road-closure devices to be installed. Specific configurations would be determined through a pilot program.
The proposed pilot directs the superintendent to create criteria to evaluate temporary parkway closure infrastructure for economic revitalization in the downtown riverfront area between 4th Avenue North and 11th Avenue South, and Main Street Southeast between Merriam Street and 6th Avenue Southeast.
Community members who closely follow Park Board actions said they were not surprised Olsen advanced the proposals, as he publicly supported them during his campaign.
Some, however, said they were taken aback by what they described as an accelerated process that brought the amendments forward at the board’s first meeting of the year, with limited opportunity for public comment.
Despite the shortened timeline, the board received hundreds of emails and public comments opposing the proposals. Attendance at the January 21 meeting further confirmed resident opposition to the amendments.
Opponents of the Mall Park amendment argue the area already has sufficient green space and say the changes would eliminate parking relied upon by nearby residents.
They also contend the redesign could restrict access for emergency vehicles, including fire trucks serving surrounding buildings. When the proposal was previously introduced, more than 780 members of the East Isles Neighborhood Association formally opposed it.
Supporters say the amendment would expand green space and aligns with the Park Board’s long-term planning goals.
They also argue that coordinating the restoration with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services sewer project could reduce overall costs.
Supporters of the Open Parkways amendment say existing park space is insufficient for biking, walking and rolling during peak-use days and argue the proposal advances the park system’s health equity goals.
Opponents counter that the Park Board already has procedures and equipment in place to temporarily close parkways to traffic. They argue that installing permanent infrastructure, such as fixed gates or fencing, would be unnecessary and costly.
They also say the amendment could lead to more frequent closures, making access more difficult for residents who rely on vehicles, including older adults and people with disabilities.
Residents of North Minneapolis express concerns about closures being a traffic barrier to their accessing the parks and other parts of the city.
Some critics also question claims that the closures would benefit the environment, arguing drivers would be forced to take longer routes to reach destinations elsewhere in the city.
