A month or so ago I posted on Facebook out of frustration with both the lack of development at the Allianz Field superblock site, and in particular with the ever-present trash and weeds and fenced-off plots of land that are no better than the old Bus Barn site from a decade ago. I was frustrated that the City of St. Paul, especially the PED department, has neglected to either communicate about the progress (or lack thereof) with the site, that they’ve seemingly put no pressure on Bill McGuire to clean it up, and that they reneged on their promise several years ago to not allow the fences to stay there forever. I was also frustrated that Dr. McGuire had not followed through on his promise to me at lunch a few months ago to clean up the trash and weeds. Regarding development, while frustrated that McGuire has told us for years that it’s right around the corner, I recognized that there are limits to what we as private citizens can do, and I accepted that the pandemic, costs of construction, rent control, and a host of other factors complicated the prospects of us achieving the full dream master plan laid out by McGuire in 2016.

All that said, a master plan does exist, and over $20 million of taxpayer money is invested in infrastructure in this site. It is clear from conversations I’ve had with public officials and McGuire himself that what he is now proposing behind closed doors is a revised plan to the site that would result in far less development than was initially hoped for. It is also clear to me and should be to the public that negotiations behind closed doors revolve at least partially around whether development can proceed without any Planning Commission approval, given the new plans will look significantly different from the original master plan. Having served on Mayor Coleman’s Community Advisory Committee for the Superblock site in 2015–16, I am communicating this information now because since that time, there has been such poor communication between Minnesota United, RK Midway (the owner of the mostly empty land there), the City of St. Paul, our local council members and district councils. In defense of Ward 1 and the district councils, they appear to have been given very little concrete information about how PED is operating behind the scenes, but I still believe that the lack of transparency comes at a cost to trust in local government, public accountability, and the hope that public engagement and bodies like Community Advisory Committees have any real worth — rather than being entirely for show.

Which brings us to where we stand today. With no public notice that I’m aware of, Parks and Recreation will vote tomorrow, July 13, on whether to support a resolution to create public park land that will be maintained privately on that site. On the face of it, any publicly accessible green space on the site is a good thing, especially if Parks and Rec does not have to maintain it. The problem with how this is proceeding is how it’s occurring, especially given that once enshrined, this land will likely never be able to be developed and thus become part of the tax rolls and generate public dollars, which in theory is why our city officials so joyously celebrated the stadium development in the first place — despite little to no evidence historically that stadiums generate any meaningful economic development. As best I can tell, one of the two park spaces that Parks and Rec staff is recommending the department support will be a “sculpture garden” that will be located at Snelling and University — not where green space was proposed in the master plan farther east near McDonald’s currently stands — which would be the prime tax-generating parcel of land. It is also likely to include a massive multi-million dollar sculpture of a Loon that Dr. McGuire had already commissioned prior to receiving any approval for his revised plans. Furthermore, it has recently come to my attention that McGuire is working with — likely employing — Mike Hahm, the former Director of Parks and Rec and the husband of City Council President Amy Brendmoen to help make his desired development happen. These lobbying/consulting links between developers and city officials at the very least suggest how the complexities of big-money development can interfere with public trust, given that the recently retired Mr. Hahm is now using his influence on behalf of Dr. McGuire’s desired outcome.

Why does this matter? Shouldn’t we all want something, anything more than empty blacktops and trash and weeds at one of St. Paul’s most visible and well-traveled locations? Of course. But if we dive into the staff report by Parks and Rec staff that ultimately recommends approval for this park land dedication — a report that surely only a handful of citizens, if any, have actually reviewed — under the section “How has the community been engaged?” the staff report responds, “During the master planning of the full site which produced the 2016 plan, the community was engaged. The proposed parkland concepts draw on the themes identified during that engagement.” I could be wrong, but I would be shocked if Parks and Rec staff reviewed the Committee Advisory Committee’s final report, which I’ll address below. But even if they did, I can assure you that there was never an enormous Loon sculpture proposed back in 2016 at the corner of Snelling and University. I can also assure you that no one from Minnesota United, RK Midway or the City of St. Paul has done any outreach or engagement with the CAC members or the general public about this site in over 5 years. And now prior to this imminent vote, being spearheaded by the former Parks Director now working for Dr. McGuire, Parks and Rec has not done any significant engagement with community members from Union Park or Hamline-Midway. If you have time in the next day, though, you can provide public comment.

And to be clear, the reason I’m speaking out now and not allowing the media, Ward 1, Ward 4 or our district councils to provide updates on what’s happening is because this vote tomorrow is essentially happening behind closed doors and with little to no public notice. We can’t wait for updates that have not been forthcoming for several years. We can only guess what decisions are being made by PED, the Mayor’s office and others without any public input or communication. So while I may not have the entire story or I may have gotten some things wrong, I welcome official corrections and I’ll happily engage in public debate and dialogue with all those who wish to weigh in. And I’ll admit where I’ve erred. If nothing else, I hope this will prompt further dialogue.

I’ll end with summarizing my general frustrations with how our City government operates, having observed and been a part of the work on this development project for the past 7 years. (I’d add that my public criticism of the City’s handling of the decision making process to demolish the Hamline-Midway Library came about in large part because City officials have claimed erroneously for years that they did meaningful outreach to the community about whether to demolish or renovate the building — when it’s been clear, as I’ve documented extensively, that they had their minds made up from day 1 they wanted a new building and found ways to create a false narrative that public input actually mattered. I remain steadfast that the best outcome has always been to preserve the current building and build a new library elsewhere, but to me the most offensive part about public officials’ actions was how they bamboozled the community into believing they cared what all community members had to say.) A quick read of the 2016 final report conducted by the Community Advisory Committee includes comments by the committee that include things like, “we were continually frustrated by the slow pace at which information was forthcoming. This information gap made it seem as though SMCAC and the master plan designers, including the shopping center owner, were involved in separate processes…We expressed frustration and questioned whether the comments and concerns that were conveyed to the designers were even considered by them.” Or this: “The SMCAC believes that there was not enough public engagement and that engagement should have happened earlier in the process. Individuals and groups should have been consulted well before lines were drawn on paper when they would have had a real chance to influence the lines.” And one last comment, among many, all on page 2 of the 42-page document: “There seem to be more questions than answers and not enough time to thoughtfully and thoroughly consider and answer the questions. The details regarding implementation of the master plan have been lacking.” In sum, the engagement now being referenced in public documents was done 6–7 years ago, and was shoddy at best back then. People should read the CAC document, because it’s detailed, comprehensive and incredibly well thought-out. More importantly, city officials should read the document. But instead it just gathers dust, while McGuire and Director Goodman at PED and others make unknown decisions behind closed doors.

And here we stand today, having heard next to nothing from McGuire and RK Midway for years, but worse next to nothing from the City of St. Paul, who once upon a time thought it important enough to convene several months of meetings with dozens of smart, thoughtful, passionate volunteers who were led to believe that community input mattered — all at an untold cost to us as taxpayers. There will be this initial decision about park land, and then future decisions — that may or may not be taken up by the Planning Commission, and may or may not involve any public input or even notification — that will likely happen at a rapid pace in the months to come. I’m hopeful that Ward 1, which has been very receptive and communicative with me in recent months, and Ward 4 and UPDC and HMC will be communicating as best they can about what they know and what they’re told. I’m less hopeful about McGuire and RK Midway and PED, based on recent experience. It becomes hard to have much faith in Dr. McGuire, who has untold amounts of money to spend on design plans and hiring consultants like Mike Hahm and massive sculptures that he himself selected and will watch over us for decades to come, but cannot commit to daily trash clean up on the site — despite his professed commitment to caring so much about (re)vitalizing our neighborhood. (To that end, a quick note that one of the CAC comments regarding neighborhood impact was: “Success is having the soccer team and shopping center owners responsive to neighborhood issues related to events and site operations. Designate a neighborhood liaison, a point of contact for neighborhood concerns and complaints. A fund to address these neighborhood issues could be set up by the soccer team and the shopping center.” Of course none of this happened.)

Maybe the vast majority of community members will be perfectly happy with however this development pans out. Maybe they’ll be livid. But we likely won’t know until it’s too late as long as citizens are always in reactive mode. And city officials should stop professing to care about community input and wasting our time and taxpayer dollars when their outreach efforts, when they exist, are all for show. We at least would not continue to get played for fools.