[Mpls] Park Board Ancient History Request

[Annie Young]

Notice the Names of Parks associated with First Park Board members. And it 
was all men until Maude Armatage came along.  Naming parks after 
Commisioner's was very common for many, many years. Thus the Leonard Neiman 
Sports Complex - Yes, he was a Board Commissioner and once the President of 
the Board.
Annie Young
citywide Park Commissioner
seeking re-election in ' 05


At 08:34 PM 10/3/05 -0500, Shawne FitzGerald wrote:

>In 1883, the Board of Trade was revived with George A. Pillsbury as 
>president and Col. William S. King as secretary.  With the support of 
>Charles  A. Nimocks, manager of the Minneapolis Journal, they  persuaded 
>the legislature was to "the park act," enabling legislation for an 
>independent park board in Minneapolis.  A major reason for organization of 
>the board was rapid inflation in property prices and a desire to continue 
>and expand the park system that began with donations and 
>zoning.  Opposition to the independent board came from the City Council 
>and the Knights of Labor and others.
>A referendum was required - the issue passed 5,327 to 3,922 on 3 April 
>1883.  On 27 April 1883, the City Council transferred ownership of 
>existing parks to the new park board.
>The first park board was appointed - a joint committee from the Board of 
>Trade, the Chamber of Commerce and City Council.  Board members were 
>Charles Loring, Dorilus Morrison, John S. Pillsbury, Henry T. Welles, O.C. 
>Merriman, John C. Oswald, William Eastman, George Brackett, Judson A. 
>Cross, Daniel Basset, A.C. Austin and Andrew C. Haugan.  Welles and 
>Merriman declined and Eugene W. Wilson and Samuel H. Chute replaced them.
>
>Information from Rev. Marian Daniel Shutter's History of Minneapolis 
>Gateway to the Northwest, 1923.  It appears that the first election for 
>park board commissioners was a year after the referendum passed so in 1884.
>
>Shawne FitzGerald
>Powderhorn
>
>Steve Cross wrote:
>
>>I think that it's a safe bet that for most city governments the "Park & 
>>Recreation" function is an integral part of city government.  I'm curious 
>>when and how the separate status occurred in Minneapolis.
>>I've heard (uninformed) speculation that it's been that way in 
>>Minneapolis since forever and the reason was corruption in city 
>>government that make any current accusations look like child's play.
>>So its separateness was intended to try to remove it from city government 
>>corruption in the now distant past.  Would someone who knows for sure 
>>provide an explanation?
>>
>>Steve Cross
>>Prospect Park
>
>REMINDERS:
>1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at 
>http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, 
>contact the list manager at mplslist at tcq.net before continuing it on the list.
>
>2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
>For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
>For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
>________________________________
>
>Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn 
>E-Democracy
>Post messages to: mailto:mpls at mnforum.org
>Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls