Savage Pacer - Fate of rare forest debated by City Council - Comments

This is ridiculous. "People

jenniferH — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:11:11 -0500

This is ridiculous. "People want open space, but they also want better transportation, to be safe and to have a place where there kids can play ball."
Who are these "people?" Are they unaware of the numerous other parks and ball fields the city has already provided in nearly every neighborhood in Savage and Prior Lake?
I don't need to roll around on the ground or "use" this area to appreciate it. Can't it just be left alone?
Because of the school district boundaries, my child will probably never attend Prior Lake High School, though we reside in Savage. We moved here two years ago to escape the "open spaces," to have trees and undeveloped landscape. Every city I have ever lived in has been decimated due to progress.
And is it supposed to pacify me to know that the city plans to replant trees throughout the area once they plow down 7 acres of land? It doesn't. I am allowed to enjoy random trees newly installed in city parks, brand new housing developments, and public buildings, but I am not allowed to enjoy 7 acres of thriving ecosystem?
The baseball team gets to enjoy two new ball fields and the kids learning earth sciences and biology get to study a 70 foot retaining wall and a bunch of gravel! What are the priorities here?

I can't help but be

PThomsen — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:18:13 -0500

I can't help but be suspicious of the "safety concern" Al McColl brings up in this article. Why couldn't a 70 foot drop be graded to a safe slope? They have 7 ACRES, this should easily be enough room. Am I the only one whose intelligence is offended by this 'safety' comment?

Is Prior Lake Agg. having

PThomsen — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:14:34 -0500

Is Prior Lake Agg. having undue influence with the counsel and Mayor Brennan on this issue? Prior Lake Agg. could easily stand to make a lot more money if they get us to build ball fields near their land, as they plan on selling it to home developers. Then the home developers won't feel the pressure to include their own park in their development, and thus probably save thousands. I can't help but think, when the ethical side is being so easily ignored, that foul things are going on behind the scenes.

As Mayor Tom Brennan said

PThomsen — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:08:36 -0500

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's seven wooded acres

bsorenson — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:39:02 -0500

It's seven wooded acres behind a school, why can't people stick with the original plan and use it for education? I guess a few thousand feet of chain link fence for some ballfields that get used 2 months per year are far more valuable than a small remaining oasis of nature in the sprawling pavement blob of the burbs.

I am no tree hugger, but

elkosov — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:45:21 -0500

I am no tree hugger, but this forest needs to stay.

We are developing far too much land in the south metro. It's beutiful land too.

In my opinion, this is

msadelman — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:33:42 -0500

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.

I'm furious with the

kymmer — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:44:43 -0500

I'm furious with the attitude that everything must be developed or used. We need wild places too. Everyday I watch kids hanging over the railroad bridges, but I never see anyone having a fit about that. And the idea that planting new trees could ever replace clear cutting old growth trees! Just like the new developement proposed east of Lynn...a developer buys the property as rural, and then wants it rezoned. Leave some woods for people to just enjoy.

I personally will not be

otara — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:45:32 -0500

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

I personally will not be

otara — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:45:31 -0500

Terry O'Connell

Fate of rare forest debated by City Council

Nancy Huddleston — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:41:33 -0500

By Nancy Huddleston, editor

What’s more important – a rare wooded area or making way for development?