It’s baaaaack … the wooded-lot controversy strikes again

The wooded, city-owned lot along North Harmon Drive that sat unnoticed and unmolested for about 80 years will be back in the news again next week. The City Council put a surplus designation on the lot a while ago, in preparation to trade the lot for a building near the new soccer complex. The trade got voted down, but the surplus designation remains. Now the question is what to do with the wooded lot.

The issue is on the City Council agenda for Monday. The council plans to have a discussion followed by consideration of four options: sell the property, revoke the surplus designation, take some other action to preserve the property in its present condition, or any other action deemed appropriate by the City Council. The activists who are trying to save the trees have told me they plan to pack the Council Chambers with people.

In addition to our Tuesday coverage of the council meeting in print and online, we’ll have a live Webcast of the meeting here and at Committee meetings will begin at 6:40 p.m. Monday, followed by the City Council meeting at 7:30 p.m.

View City/Thomsen land swap in a larger map

12 thoughts on “It’s baaaaack … the wooded-lot controversy strikes again

  1. City has no business owning, maintaining and messing with all this property. Sell it to the neighbors and they can do with it as they will.

  2. Whatever happens, about 3-4 trees NEED to be removed from the corner of N harmon & National Guard rd. Harmon intersects at an angle and with the trees there, MOST people just keep pulling out. This needs to be resolved soon before an accident happens.

  3. the lake was developed in l928- and before housing came most of the land was owned by the city- the early fathers thought this lake area would be a great park- they even brought in from Minneapolis the parks dept guy to advise them on developing the lake property into a park concept- housing came later- so the city owning the land where the trees stand pre-dates all the arguments. They never wanted the lake to be a housing development under private ownership.

  4. maybe this can translate into a few new candidates to step forward to shake up the council? Some of these guys ran unopposed- why?- and that mayor we have is not too friendly when it comes to public input??? We will see how he behaves tonite in public- some of us are tired of the good old boys club downtown.!!!!!!!!!

  5. If the city sells the land that they say cost so much to maintain are they going to let one of their workers go??? How much is it going to cost the taxpayers to maintain Scott Houwman’s waterfall??? Do the mayor and his son pay the city to store their boat docks and lifts on the public beach????? Seems to me if you are the mayor or a member of the city council you are treated differently.

  6. Scott doesnt own the waterfall. He made the offer and the golf board and council accepted. The purpose is for beauty and to clean the citys portion of the pond which, if you remember, used to have an awful smell and was not attractive. The city has recieved most of the improvement with little to no expense. It is for all to enjoy and is a benefit to all. Be nice if more people would put their money where their complaints are.

  7. This is not a “Save the environment issue.” This debate is about a bunch of cry baby neighbors who live on North Harmon Drive that are either too cheap to buy this land or who aren’t as smart as Jerry Thompson, who tried to acquire it in the first place. Jelously is an ugly thing, huh?

    This area of land would look far better then it does today if it had several higher end houses built on it. That would generate more taxes also. A win-win for Mitchell!

    No intelligent women would walk on a nature trail through the center of this treed area anyway, for fear of being raped. Get real! This is no place for a large, strange park.

    Council members such as Jeri Beck should be recognized for doing what is right and not following a bunch of higher income, cry babies, who never cared about this area until Jerry Thompson had a great idea.

    Sell this land to the neighbors or whoever else is the highest bidder. The land is useless to everybody now the way it is. A controversy over this? People in other communities and in other parts of the country who know about this have to think that we are all a bunch of hicks for having such a stupid issue come to light and be debated in public.

    The majority of Mitchell residents could care less about this treed area. It does nothing for the community as a whole.

  8. Dear Come On – you are a rude person – it does not pay to point your finger and blame others. How does this resolve the issue. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Also, how can you speak for the majority of Mitchell residents. Most of who are too busy to care until they see the trees being torn down and it is too late.

  9. Nice talk, Come On. Disagreements are permitted, but to be so harsh is not necessary. Good manners are always in good taste.

Comments are closed.