Our goal is to offer readers diverse perspectives on newsworthy events or issues of broad public concern to the Hill & Lake community.
Don't take away my leafblower!
My wife and I leave on a double corner lot with 15 oak trees and a beautiful rose garden. I have had to use a backpack leaf blower for the past 38 years to maintain the property.
At age 74 and 76 respectively, we will not be able to live in our lovely home any longer if backpack leaf blowers are made illegal in Minneapolis. Just one more example of woke progressive overreach lunacy in what used to be a wonderful place to live.
Sounds like a very substantial Amendment V. taking of a large part of the value of our property. No need to give it a second thought as I will not sue.
We will sell and move and someone else can pay the $20K in property taxes that we pay every year.
Paul Leutgeb | Cedar-Isles-Dean
Dear Mr. Leutgeb,
I’m sorry that our proposal to restrict leaf blowers caused such a strong reaction in you.
I have lived on a corner lot for 42 years, albeit with fewer trees and no rose garden, and I know what a chore it is to keep things tidied up.
To clarify, we are not talking about banning all leaf blowers (although the insects would appreciate it if we did!) only the gas-powered ones which emit as much pollution as the dirty two-stroke engines on the iconic tuk-tuks used in places such as Bangkok and Jakarta. Tuk-tuks are now being phased out in those countries for that very reason.
In America, gas-powered leaf blowers have been banned in cities as diverse as Sanibel Island, Fla., and Washington, D.C., with no reports of anyone moving away as a result.
There are currently city and state rebate programs which will cover much of the cost of emission- free and quieter battery-operated backpack style blowers, which not only help protect the environment, they help protect our hearing and the serenity of our ‘once wonderful’ city.
Susan Lenfestey | Hill & Lake Press
PS. James Fallows wrote an excellent article about the damages caused by gas-powered blowers in the April 2019 issue of the Atlantic.
Park Board President Meg Forney on Cedar Lake Boulder Wall
There seems to be some misunderstanding in your September article, “Permit for Cedar Lake Boulder Wall Roils Park Board” by Marty Carlson. Per MPRB Assistant Superintendent of Planning, "I think there are some inaccuracies in the article, mostly prominently that the 1941 permission from the park board showed the encroaching features.”
I’ve read the minutes of the meeting and there is no such mapping mentioned. In fact, it seems the board’s action at that time granted post-construction permission for plantings and structures dating to 1938 (or around then, but certainly before the 1941 action). The same minutes indicate owners would have to remove the encroaching features upon direction from the park board and it notes walls as a part of the encroaching features. But the 1941 action addressed several properties and did not enumerate or locate any encroaching features. To my knowledge and contrary to what is being suggested by the article’s author, there is no such map.
Because the permission existed for plantings and structures and because there was a wall and because staff could not discern whether there was or was not a wall in 1941, staff was advised that permit issuance was in order. Where the Marzecs claim there was no wall in until it was constructed in the mid-1990s, they cannot demonstrate that there was not a wall in 1941 (or 1951 or 1961…). The operative factor here is the Superintendent’s letter reminding the property owner of the board’s ability to direct removal of encroaching elements at any time. The property owner knew of the potential for elimination of the wall and determined to proceed with the wall project.
Additionally, Commissioner Shaffer proposed a resolution to address these issues, titled RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO REQUIRE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APPROVAL FOR ANY ACTION RELATING TO AN ENCROACHMENT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO WATERBODIES, INCLUDING AN ACTION TO ISSUE A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, BEGINNING ON THE DATE FOLLOWING APPROVAL OF THIS RESOLUTION AND EXTENDING FOR A PERIOD OF NOT MORE THAN 365 DAYS. It passed at the September 6th, 2023 full board meeting.
Meg Forney | President | Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board
A Response to the Response from President Forney
A few points in response to Park Board President Meg Forney’s letter to the editor regarding the Cedar Lake boulder wall article are warranted.
First, quoting an assistant superintendent, President Forney argues it was inaccurate to assert there was a map of the private encroachments existing on Cedar Lake when it issued a “temporary” permit related to those encroachments in 1941. So why did the article say there was a map? Because the 1941 permit specifically says there is a map. As in: “…the plat hereto attached entitled ‘Cedar Lake Southeast Shore – Showing Private Improvements on Park Property,’” to quote directly from the 1941 permit.
While the 1941 meeting minutes may not state there was a map, why would they? The map’s existence is memorialized in the plain language of the permit itself, which matters far more than the meeting minutes. Finally, during an interview for the underlying article, the assistant superintendent did not dispute that there was a map in 1941, but rather conceded that the park board could no longer find it, nor could it find the original permit from 1938.
That leads directly to the second point, which faults the objecting neighbors for failing to “demonstrate that there was not a wall in 1941 (or 1951 or 1961…).” This turns basic property law on its head. In the normal world of Real Property 101, it is the permit applicant who bears the burden of proving that they are entitled to build a particular structure in a particular place. As in, a person who wants to build a wall must prove that there was a wall in 1941 (or 1951 or 1961…) and that the replacement is consistent with the key features of its permitted predecessor. If you can’t, then no permit.
Here, the park board effectively shifted the burden of proof from the applicant to the adjoining neighbors, requiring them to prove a negative. It also implicitly rejected the Marzecs’ statements that they saw the original wall being constructed in the 1990s, despite the fact that such direct, personal observations are admissible legal evidence.
In his interview for the underlying article, the assistant superintendent was asked directly if the park board had a written policy regarding which party (applicant or neighbors) carried the burden of proof in encroachment applications, and the answer was that the park board has no such policy. President Forney might want to think about that before criticizing the neighbors.
On a related note (and as mentioned in the article), the Hill & Lake Press was able to do some of the park board’s work for it and located both photographs and remnants of the earlier structures. As of this writing, no one from the park board has expressed any interest in seeing those materials.
Finally, President Forney directs readers’ attention to the fact that on September 6, the full board approved Commissioner Shaffer’s resolution directing a limited moratorium on future encroachment permits. The original article plainly stated that as well.
Marty Carlson | Hill & Lake Press
