By Sean P. Connaughty
As the chair of Friends of Lake Hiawatha I must point out the inaccurate statements in regards to Lake Hiawatha specifically in the article “They Are Coming for the Parks: Open letter to LiUNA” in the Minneapolis Times published 10/31/2025. The statements about the lake and the plan I think have been informed by commonly spread misconceptions about the lake and the Hiawatha Plan:
“Environmentalists want to save the lake and restore it to its natural wetland habitat, which means demolishing the golf course. Those more concerned with racial equity want to preserve the 18-hole golf course.”
Response: first, it is incorrect to say that “environmentalists” want to demolish the golf course. Advocates for the lake (who are also deeply invested in social equity) have agreed to, support and worked tirelessly to urge the passage of the compromise plan which maintains, preserves and celebrates the historic golf course and would of necessity reduce the course to 9 holes. These measures are necessary to make the course flood resilient, end the pollution from golf course pumping and finally treat polluted and trash laden stormwater. These measures are part of the MPRB plan and would significantly reduce pollution in Lake Hiawatha which is simultaneously Minneapolis’ most polluted and most biodiverse lake.
It is also inaccurate to say that stakeholders who are more concerned about social equity want to keep 18 holes. At the time the plan was voted upon and passed by the Park Board a large multiracial coalition of community members and community leaders urged the commissioners at public meetings to pass the plan which they did pass by a 6-3 margin.
The coalition of folks advocating for the passage of the plan included many prominent Black and Indigenous leaders from the local community and government. I would recommend you dig into the MPRB video archives and watch the public testimony from respected community leaders and elders.
Lastly it is also false to say that “neither the environmentalists nor equity-promoters support” the plan. First off I reject the characterization that lake advocates aren’t concerned with or deeply involved in equity work. Finally, lake advocates, stewards and water protectors continue to advocate for the implementation of the restoration plan for Lake Hiawatha. There is also broad support for the plan in the community and in fact many neighbors express frustration at the slow pace of implementation of the plan. As pollution at the lake worsens and health risks to visitors and wildlife residents increase from exposure to bacteria and toxic algae in this long neglected but treasured lake.
As the author of the article to which this one responds (“They are coming for the parks…”), I want to express appreciation to Sean Connaughty for sharing more detail about the Hiawatha plan, and especially about the coalition and engagement of those who helped develop it and advocated for its passage. I confess that I did not know about the Friends of Lake Hiawatha, and I’m very impressed with the commitments expressed in it (https://www.friendsoflakehiawatha.org/)
You did, however, prove the point I was trying to make. My larger point was that many of the unions’ candidates for Park Board Commissioner evince little awareness of the parks and how the MPRB works, and have little to offer the parks. I used Lake Hiawatha as an example to demonstrate the weakness of the union-pushed District 5 challenger, Kay Moran, compared to the strengths of the incumbent, Steffanie Musich.
A lot is revealed in this StarTribune Guide to Park Board candidates (link below) I suggest comparing Moran and Musich answers to their questions.
When the Strib asks why the candidate is running, Moran says, “Community voices have often been left out of decision-making regarding our parks and deserve to be heard.”
When the Strib asks what the candidate believes is the MPRB largest challenge, Moran says, “The biggest challenge to our parks is a lack of community input” and “…it is critical that parks reflect the desires and vision of our community.”
When the Strib notes that the parks serve many stakeholders, with different perspectives, and asks how the candidate will balance the interests of those who disagree, Moran says: “Community voices must be centered as we make decisions that impact them most directly. I am committed to several avenues for community engagement and discussions, ensuring that decisions are made and informed by residents, not for them… Ultimately, the will of community is the voice I will center in any decisions our body must make.”
Moran repeatedly uses the word ‘community’, but she never refers to your organization, or the community input that contributed to the development of the Lake Hiawatha Master Plan, or the neighbors frustrated by its slow implementation.
Lake Hiawatha and its adjacent golf course and park are smack in the middle of District 5.
By contrast, see how the District 5 incumbent Steffanie Musich answers the same questions.
Musich says she is running for re-election because she has “… the experience, curiosity, and collaborative spirit to keep delivering results … Over the past three terms, I’ve helped bring in new funding (so we’re not just relying on property taxes), improved water quality in our lakes and creeks, expanded access to youth programs, and made our green spaces more biodiverse and welcoming. I’ve mentored new commissioners, built strong partnerships, and worked hard to make sure our parks reflect the needs of our city.”
To the question about the MPRB’s greatest challenge, Musich says that it’s our heavy reliance on property taxes, and then continues by listing the ways in which she has worked to diversify revenue (carbon credit program to fund forestry work, a stormwater fee, an endowment with the Mpls Parks Foundation). She says that they modified the youth fee structure to a “pay what you can” model … Moran says that all youth programming should be free.
When the Strib asks about diverse stakeholders, Musich immediately goes to the example of the Hiawatha Golf Course: “I prioritize listening to diverse perspectives and finding solutions that reflect a balance of needs. A clear example is the Hiawatha Golf Course compromise, which honors history, preserves golf, and allows partial wetland restoration—demonstrating how no one side got everything, but all were heard.”
I find the differences instructive; I hope others do as well. And you kind of proved my point, so thanks for that too. And thanks for educating me and other readers about Friends of Lake Hiawatha, and the efforts of the diverse coalition that helped to develop and promote the plan.
Here is the link to the Strib guide: https://www.startribune.com/a-guide-to-candidates-for-park-board-and-board-of-estimate-and-taxation/601467371?utm_source=gift
The author is inaccurate. Hiawatha GC has been in place for 90 years, yet he is blaming it for worsening pollution? The master plan does indeed demolish the golf course and then build a completely different 9 hole course. If someone tore down your childhood home and built a new home on the lot, would that mean your childhood home was not demolished? Selling this plan has been dishonest from the start. The waste trap from the storm drain into Hiawatha was touted as needing the master plan. It is now in place and could have been a standalone item all along. Pumping will also exist in the new plan – it’s on the schematics. Adding more standing water in the east side likely will raise the water table near those homes with intermittent basement water problems.