Court decision could set a bad precedent

Last month the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the Minneapolis City Councils decision to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for a football stadium on Nicollet Island. The case was brought to court when Friends of the Riverfront (FOR), the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota (PAM) and the National Trust for Historic Preservation appealed the Citys politically-charged decision to permit DeLaSalle High School to build a football stadium on public regional parkland in the Saint Anthony Falls Historic District.

Earlier this year, the Citys Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) rejected the proposal, but that decision was overturned on appeal to the City Council. Friends of the Mississippi River has worked closely with FOR, PAM and Sierra Club for more than a year in an effort to stop the project from being built on Nicollet Island because it would damage the scenic character of the area, require the closing of a historic street, and allow near-exclusive use of public land by a private entity. Many citizens joined us in advocating for a full and fair exploration of alternative sites for the football stadium to no avail.

At the Court of Appeals, FOR argued that the project will damage historic resources and that alternatives were not adequately explored, as is required by city ordinance and state law. The court disagreed, ruling that the city was not arbitrary or capricious in their decision to grant approval. The decision also said that the City Council was within their rights to not look at other alternatives because the proposer (DeLaSalle) defined the project as being adjacent to the school.

This part of the decision could set a dangerous precedent for environmental and historic resources statewide with respect to state law requirements to explore alternatives if resources will be impacted. The Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) was established to protect natural and historical resources, but if developers can define their project in a way that allows them to avoid looking at alternatives, the MERA will lose one of its most important tools for resource protection.

FOR is considering petitioning the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the case later this month. The states highest court only takes 10% of civil cases, and are most likely to take a case that has policy implications.

The Court of Appeals decision may be a threat to the integrity of the MERA, which could lead to serious impacts for the Mississippi River corridor and other significant Minnesota resources.

Read the Court of Appeals decision

To learn more about Friends of the Riverfront and their effort to stop the stadium visit their their web site.