At-Large Park Board Commissioner Tom Olsen says that his number one reason for running for re-election this fall is to “Open Parkways.” This may be confusing, as the parkways are already open. What Olsen really means by “opening” parkways is to CLOSE the parkways to automobiles. He would do this by installing permanent gates on the roadways to close them to vehicle traffic whenever the Park Board wanted.
This is wrong-headed for the following reasons:
- Bikers and walkers already enjoy the parks via the extensive trail system that exists along every parkway. They gain nothing from closing the parkways to automobiles.
- The real reason that Olsen wants to close the parkways is because he sees it as a step to eliminate automobiles. He would punish those who drive by taking away access to parks.
- He wants to close the parkways on weekends and “good weather days.” Apparently people in automobiles would only have access to the parks when the weather is bad. But again, that is punishment for traveling in cars.
- The Park Board is working to complete the Grand Rounds National Scenic Byway, a 40 mile continuous parkway loop around the City. They have a $30 million plan to fill the last gap. Why put up barriers and limit access while working to improve access?
- If you are an environmentalist, you should care about how much carbon is being put into the atmosphere. Many of the parkways, like Minnehaha Parkway and the West River Road are vital links for travel around the City. Closing them would mean people would have to detour and drive much further, substantially increasing carbon emissions. It is just plain bad for the environment to close parkways.
Let me give you some history.
In 2018 a Park Board Community Advisory Committee proposed severely limiting access along a two mile section of Minnehaha Parkway. This was supported by Commissioner Olsen’s predecessor, Chris Meyers. It is a section of the Parkway I live on. These closures would have forced large detours around the closed parkway and made access impossible to some homes. I founded and co-lead a group with about 700 residents called “Preserve the Parkway.” Through our efforts, including requests for more than 500 lawn signs, we stopped them from closing the Parkway.
In 2020 during the pandemic, the Park Board closed some parkways. Preserve the Parkway did not protest because no one was travelling.
In 2021 Commissioner Meyers sought funds for gates throughout the parkway system. He stated in a Park Board meeting that this was to “close the parkways to vehicle access in the gated parkway areas for 1) events, 2) weekends, 3) holidays and 4) “emergency sunshine days” when the forecast is sunny and 70 degrees or higher.” This motion lost.
In 2022, Commissioner Olsen advocated for purchasing gates to close the parkways to automobiles. His reasoning being that it was so much fun for pedestrians and bikers to walk and ride on the road during the pandemic that he wanted similar access frequently and regularly. Preserve the Parkway was active in opposition. His effort failed.
In 2023, Commissioners Olsen and Commissioner Becky Alper proposed reallocating addition funds from parkway maintenance to “reimagine the parkways system” without cars. This motion failed. Fortunately, Commissioner Alper is not running for re-election, unlike Commissioner Olsen.
Olsen is part of a years-long effort to take away access to parks from the vast majority of us who travel by automobile. The easiest way to stop this effort is by not electing people who want to do this. This means not ranking Commissioner Olsen when you vote. It also means not ranking first-time candidates like Michael Wilson who are sympathetic to this cause. There are strong at-large candidates who do not want to close the parkways like Commissioner Meg Forney, Tim Peterson, and Matthew Dowgwillo.
Frederick Olmsted, the designer of our park system, told the Commissioners in 1896 that the parkways should be a means of commuting between neighborhoods and to the inner city and should be of such pleasing character that passage along them should be a pleasing and refreshing element of daily life. Let that sentiment be true for ALL users of the parkways not just the tiny group of people able to walk and bike to the parks.
“Frederick Olmsted, the designer of our park system, told the Commissioners in 1896 that the parkways should be a means of commuting between neighborhoods and to the inner city and should be of such pleasing character that passage along them should be a pleasing and refreshing element of daily life. Let that sentiment be true for ALL users of the parkways not just the tiny group of people able to walk and bike to the parks.”
It was 1896! He was talking about commuting on a horse-drawn carriage!
Frederick Law Olmsted did NOT design the Minneapolis Parkway system. It was Horace William Shaler Cleveland, who planned much of it and envisioned connecting Minneapolis and Saint Paul with Parkways. And yes, they were designed to accommodate bicycles, carriages, and walking. They were also meant to connect neighborhoods in all seasons and for people of all abilities. Removing driving from the Parkway system is both destructive historically and very ageist and discriminatory.
I’m not the one claiming that Olmsted designed the parkway system, I was quoting the article.
How is removing driving historically destructive when the original plan was not built for car traffic?
Precisely. When assessing candidates for Park Board (at-large or district members), voters of all political ideologies should consider a given candidate’s “pitch” and ask “What does this have to do with operating a good ‘park system’, as I, myself, understand that term?” Put aside whatever you believe about all the other issues of the day, and problems of the city, the state, the nation, and the world. Because the person who elect is only, really, going to get to have a say in HOW WE RUN OUR PARKS. I’ve been around Mpls. long enough now that I think I was actually here to witness the dawn of the era of “Viewing our parks as nature preserves, as ecological experiments, as…” I could name names, but most of the pioneers who sent us down this particular rabbit hole are gone now, so no point in beating on them. But out system is the envy of much of the nation because of people who came long before them, and it’s because those people built a system that gave us great facilities for childhood play, for youth sports, for family recreation, etc. So, don’t just read the campaign literature, websites, etc. and ask whether you agree with what’s being said. Ask instead if the agreeable things being said will make the park system better at doing what a park system is for. Me? – I have very recently become very impressed with Dowgwillo, who seems to just plain “get” what the job is supposed to be about.
The Minneapolis Park Board commissioners always come up with new things to spend money on but they need to do is to have a plan to do maintenance on the existing system that is crumbling in many places. There has been a patchwork of trail fixes around the city but there needs to be a plan to replace the whole system over the next decade if not earlier. The Minneapolis Public works has taken over en of the parkways which should have been done decades ago.
Why does there need to be the expense and pain of randomly blocking off the parkways when Minneapolis has an off road trail system? Just fix what we have.
Clarification. Per a shared services agreement, Minneapolis Public Works has been in charge of plowing and paving parkways since 2000. This current Board of Park Commissioners worked on a new agreement with the city that requires the city to address the significant backlog of deferred parkway paving.
Thank you for providing all the back story on this topic. Much attention has been on the Mpls City Council and mayoral election this fall, which is necessary, for sure, but the other races may not be getting the attention they deserve. This piece should help with that. This excerpt below I thought broke it down nicely.
“The easiest way to stop this effort is by not electing people who want to do this. This means not ranking Commissioner Olsen when you vote. It also means not ranking first-time candidates like Michael Wilson who are sympathetic to this cause. There are strong at-large candidates who do not want to close the parkways like Commissioner Meg Forney, Tim Peterson, and Matthew Dowgwillo.”
Well this informs me on who not to vote for for at-large park commissioner!