Update: Ballfields and a gravel pit to replace forest in Savage?
June 26th, 2007 7:07 pm by DJ DanielsonApparently, I wasn’t the only one concerned when the Savage City Council via consensus decided to continue with plans to raze a rare Maple Basswood forest.
A letter to the editor from Christina Henning in the Prior Lake American shows perplexion as well:
Let me get this straight:
First, the Met Council, the Minnesota DNR, a local expert and an Environmental Assessment study together point out that a rare forested area known as SS-9 exists in south Savage and that it should be protected at all costs.
Second, the decision is made to build a new high school that will be filled to capacity within two years on land adjacent to SS-9.
Third, supposedly to everyone’s surprise, Prior Lake Aggregates decides its use of the gravel pit on the exact opposite side of SS-9 is at the end of its life, so it decides to develop the land for housing.
Lastly, the Savage City Council meets to discuss the demise of SS-9 and collectively pretend that they had no idea SS-9 was going to be bulldozed right from the start.
Hasn’t anyone any sense on our [Savage] City Council these days? Is there no one who has enough decency to stand up to big-money developers?
Apparently the high school kids will get a front-row seat in higher learning when the chain saws and bulldozers move in and the wildlife moves out.
Today’s lesson in suburban values?
It’s all nice and chummy to talk about protecting the environment for the future, but as benevolent Savage Mayor Tom Brennan says, “People want to see and use their natural resources.”
I’d like to thank the mayor for thinking and speaking for me, by the way. Never mind the ludicrous, idealistic folly inherent in the notion that a rare, forested wild land carries value.
Bring on the bulldozers! There’s money in that there forest!
Now that’s ethical leadership in action.
Comments to the original story on the Savage Pacer website show more citizens less than gung-ho about the proposal:
I personally will not be voting for any member that chooses development over preserving this resource. When the school site was developed, the adjacent woodland was described as a resource that would be used by the school to teach the importance of preserving our natural resources and the forest would prove to be a valuable teaching tool. The school district understood that this land would not be developed. If the school district needs more fields, let them build a second high school. The last thing that we need is another mega high school more devoted to athletics than education.
One council member stated if he was still in high school he would jump off the steep embankment needed to preserve the forest. Lets just hope that our children have a lot more common sense then him. If there are any water tower garfetti cases open from forty years ago, I think we have a suspect.
Terry O’Connell
<blockquote>
Indeed, the concern over jumping off the steep embankment seems far fetched, but you never know with those rascals in high school.
In my opinion, this is another statement from our politicians that do not have a clue what is best for its inhabitants. What can change in six short years. If a forest area is rated excellent, why change that? There was a reason it was preserved during previous development, keep the same.
Another one shows Mayor Brennan’s disconnect with the folks:
As Mayor Tom Brennan said “no one can feel it, use it” Does that mean we can destroy it with a clear conscience? No! The next time your at the Minnesota Zoo look for the sign at the beginning of one of their exhibits that says we are destroying 27,000 species of animals and plants a year! Why should we let this go on in our neck of the woods? Scientists say “this can never be recreated”, Christians would say “We can’t continue to destroy the beauty of God’s creation!” Parents would say “What kind of world will our children have if we continue like this?”
It has been amazing to see Savage grow from a town barely on most maps to a town developed to the stage it currently is. Let’s hope the council takes a step back on this issue.
January 20th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I am not a bit surprised. My neighborhood petitioned to the Savage City Council for an EAW which was denied as not being mandatory. If the citizens knew how big the project actually was, how could the city be so out of touch that they didn’t know (or care…) After getting a lawyer to fight this, the developer admitted the full scope of the project and it IS now mandatory. This same wetlands went from 43 acres in 1988 and according to the EAW is now only 12. No one seems to be able to tell us what happened to the wetlands.