MAZ

Is this the new Park board members or the old ones? What happens if they don't like either one? I would like to see continued stories on the progress of this particular item. Maybe some minutes of the meeting where minutes from meetings should be "posted at the Chaska.org site". There is a space for them but when I go to check I see nothing. I can't make it to meetings because I work nights but would like to stay informed and send opinions when I can.
thanks

Looks like some folks need a refresher on city politics. First of all it's the Park "Commission" and it works in an advisory capacity (as do all city commissions). Which means they don't have final say, the city council does.

One mess after another? Really?

The council put everyone in a tight spot with how they and the city management handled Fireman's and the new Memorial parks.

Disclosure: I neither work for the city or am a member of any commission. I do pay attention to city government however.

christian -

I am a veteran of the Mary Jo Copeland orphanage fiasco. As far as Mr. Pokorney; We are in full agreement on his power and the lack of understanding most in the city have about this. I received quite an education during the time the orphanage was being debated. Not to diminish your situation but in hindsight I would have traded places with you in a second and thrown a party for a park and ball field to avoid some of the nonsense we went through.

Also, our city isn't the only one with a government set up this way. Many suburbs have city managers or administrators. It's just a matter of how strong they are and what the relationship with the council happens to be.

And he doesn't pick the commissions. I volunteered for the Planning Commission a few years ago and the process is, send in a letter of intent, get a call, and then come in for an interview with the CC. They vote on the candidates. I'm pretty sure this is how it works for all the commissions. And legally they have no power to do anything - the CC has to approve or deny their recommendations. It does make it convenient for city gov't though to not have to take any heat as they can point to the commission or council when final decisions are made.

In hindsight I don't regret being passed over.

At any rate, the council deserves the heat on this one from where I sit. I can also see where the city isn't exactly in the clear but ultimately the CC has the responsibility. And I agree with your assessment of Mr. Van Eyll's letter the other day. He's been around long enough to understand what development/zoning/re-zoning means to neighborhoods. The city (both gov't and CC) give lip service to truly "working with neighbors". It's why these things blow up the way they do.

The only thing I can say in defense of the city is that you will never get anything done by seeking consensus. But there should be enough respect shown to be up front from the beginning with their plans and those affected. This is where they have failed. More than once.

In the end, I think the phrase I've heard that describes our little back and forth here: We violently agree.

Good Luck and keep your head up. Or run for CC!!