Comments on: A difficult stroll around Cedar Lake

By: 熊田曜子

熊田曜子 — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:33:23 +0000

Nice site. Thank you!

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:17:56 +0000

A couple of comments:
1. Access to public land does not require the building of a trail.
2. Even though the residents do not own the lakeshore, the property IS taxed as if it were lakeshore property. Seems like that would have to change.
3. Someone has to pay for trails to be built AND maintained. The Park Board is famous for building things so they look like stars, but then not funding the maintenance (witness the canal wall).

By: ron werner

ron werner — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:22:09 +0000

Just a couple of comments. First, in relation to proerty owners knowing where their property lines are, having worked in the forestry dept. for 34 years, any time there is storm damaged tress or diseased elm trees on the park board easement, these residents call in the problem and the park board forestry dept. has to take care of the problem. In other woords, when it is to their advantage, the homeowners are quick to point out whose property it is–the park boards! Believe me, it’s not easy hauling trees out of these manicured back yards and any damage done to the turf has to be restored back to the condition it was in prior to the tree problem.
In relation to costs to put in a path and a small walking bridge to cross the channel, the park board has been pushing a project to complete the Grand Rounds–a 26 mile continuous roadway around the city. Currently, there is a gap in N.E./S.E. corrider in Mpls. The estimated cost for the project, recently quoted in a startribune article was 103 million dollars. Yet, the cost to complete a path around Cedar Lake, part of the coveted Chain of Lakes is prohibitive?
Remember, this land was acquired specifically for the public to have access to it–as per Theodore Wirth!

By: Curt

Curt — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:23:52 +0000

Seems to be two main options:
1)Mark it and remove “improvements” like fences.

…..or…..

2)Lease the land to the homeowners and use the revenue to improve other areas, such as the crumbling walls of Minnehaha Falls.

Personally, I think #2 has more value to the public, but fencing off public land for private use with no compensation to the public is just flat-out WRONG.

By: Channel Canoer

Channel Canoer — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 05:04:40 +0000

The report completely fails to mention that the retaining wall along both sides of the channel is in serious disrepair, and has been in need of major structural repairs for at least a decade. The channel, which used to be dredged regularly, hasn’t been dredged in at least 15, and more likely 20, years, and the bottom is disgusting muck. When called to the attention of the Park Board, the stock response is that there is no money in the budget to repair the channel wall or to dredge. Given the large number of paved paths in Minneapolis, the heavy canoe usage of the channel, and that there is only one channel connecting Cedar Lake and Lake of the Isles, the public’s money would be far better spent repairing and maintaining the integrity of the channel infrastructure rather than fussing about putting in more paths. Also, the adjacent landowners save the Park Board a tremendous amount of money by maintaining this land. If the Park Board decided to maintain trails on the lake or either side of the channel, it rightfully ought to undertake to maintain the land, something the Park Board has never done, and undoubtedly doesn’t have the funds to do. Finally, if this land was made more readily accessible, the Park Board would have to police it in a manner appropriate to protecting both the public and the homeowners through whose isolated backyards many strangers would be walking. Where are the budget dollars for that?

By: Richard Anderson

Richard Anderson — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:39:25 +0000

It is nice that the homeowners have tended this part of the lake shore. However they should not be allowed to build or landscape on public property. They especially should not be allowed to restrict access to public property with a fence.

I don’t know if a path around the lake in this area is something that would be desirable, but I think that option should be kept open. I think the park board should act in the public interest and assert our property rights in this area.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:57:33 +0000

Before commenting on this, it is important to see what kind of agreements these landowners have with the city. If they have an easement appurtenant, then they likely paid fair value for the use of that easement when purchasing the property.

Until you have all of the facts, chill out about this.

By: James Shiffer

James Shiffer — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:38:10 +0000

Did you get any invitations to leave?

By: Jane

Jane — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:30:57 +0000

I went to the lake over the weekend and had a nice picnic on one of the properties with some friends. It was quite lovely. We walked as far as we could. It was a nice adventure.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:20:42 +0000

1) No, adverse possession does not apply to public lands. Just ask anyone with an abandoned railbed on their property. 2) Kiss their hands for living there? Yes, it is incredibly desirable property, but that doesn’t mean the owners are doing the public a favor by “keeping watch” over the strip of public land. Cedar is the only one in the chain without a trail around the lake, and the 1933 purchase of the land was intended for that purpose. As for the lack of a bridge, um, you can build a bridge. I assume that would be part of building a trail. Signed - a class warfare enviest