St Croix River about to lose another access.

you are quite right Catfish….. and perhaps my statement COULD be taken as throwing in the towel… however it was not meant to be a surrender… but instead just trying to focus on the most important tactics…. however.. who says we cant call and complain even if we are NOT residents? pressure is pressure… as long as these people KNOW they are under a microscope they are going to be more concious of what they do…..

Catfish……….just a thought before we go condemning all the rich monkeybutts of the world. Ummm…….I think the best way to fight money is with money. As an entrepreneuring enthusiast, I find the biggest difference between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy is that there is a difference in mentality and effort. I’ve read books upon books and seen system upon system. None of them guaranteed to make anyone rich but most do model exactly what the rich are doing. But getting one of us middle class yucksters to believe wealth can be obtained is almost as difficult asking them to give up their first born child! We’re so molded into trading time for money and instant gratification that we close most of the doors begging to be opened! Understand that most start to finish results in areas of great wealth and business take 5 to 10 years to even begin turning profits worth living off of. So, why don’t a few of us who’d really like to make a difference team up and BUY a big chunk of the St. Croix and have it turned back into a public park and access? Sure, there’s millions involved in the thought but it’s not that stupid. One, we’d do it for the cause, not the money. PLUS, the money used to pull this off, if pipelined through a true business system, will continue to generate more income anyway and quickly replace that which was “donated”.

You can either fight the rich, or buy the rich. Those who love money will be bought out everytime. Those who want to make a difference in this life will use their money to preserve things………..like a public access on the St. Croix.

Any warriors out there?

stillkid2,
It would appear from your post that the sheephead are starting to ferment.
Jack

I now understand what the still in stillakid2 refers to!
Jack

Yep, too many grown ups turn into given ups………

anything else?

Yo River Eyes! I only meant to point out that the access in question is in Lakeland Shores and not Lakeland. Just wanted to make sure people direct their concerns to the proper municipality. And no, just because you don’t live in Lakeland Shores doesn’t mean you don’t have a voice in how the St. Croix River NATIONAL Scenic Riverway is managed. By all means, speak up on this matter no matter where you live!

Say nothing of the hic ups.
Jack

Not, being a ice fisherman, I haven’t checked the forum for quite some time. Now that I have, I see I almost missed the whole Lakeland Shores public access discussion. Kundo’s to you Jon for being a watchdog on this issue & bringing pressure & the public eye on the city council. A question though, just where is Lakeland Shores? Just North of I-94 & South of Bayport? Or Just South of I 94? I grew up in St. Croix Beach, south of Lakeland & have family & freinds in that area still. If I can pindown Lakeland Shores & where this land actually is, maybe I can alert someone there who is a resident. I agree, lets keep public land, especially, St. Croix River access, public.

Jan

My apologies for doing some house cleaning and trimming off a few “dead” posts from this thread after it went a bit awry. Looks like you guys had a good discussion going here and one that had at it’s core only the best of intentions. I did my best to cut back to the point where the discussion took that hard left turn… carry on.

For all those participating, keep in mind the tens of thousands of visitors we have to FTR each week. Stop to consider the impression your posts might make on a first time visitor. Or on a child. Does that little “who’s gonna notice” swear word you slipped into your post really matter? Only if you care about how people perceive you as a person, you as a visitor to this site and you as an ambassador to the sport of fishing.

Please, everyone, take the time to remember what makes this place so special. We’ve worked hard to build it to where we have it…. sadly, losing it is far easier.

There. That was me giving my speach. I do have one thing more to add. A list of “who’s watching.” Below, you’ll find the list that itemizes where our visitors to FTR come from around the world… we’ve had at least one visit from a person living in these counties in the last 30 days.

This list always reminds me to watch my P’s and Q’s…!.

9 .ca (Canada)

10. .pl (Poland)

12. .arpa (Arpanet)

13. .uk (United Kingdom)

14. .nl (Netherlands)

15. .it (Italy)

16. .nz (New Zealand)

17. .be (Belgium)

18. .au (Australia)

19. .jp (Japan)

20. .es (Spain)

21. .mx (Mexico)

22. .br (Brazil)

23. .se (Sweden)

24. .sg (Singapore)

25. .dk (Denmark)

26. .fr (France)

27. .no (Norway)

28. .tw (Taiwan)

29. .ru (Russia)

30. .de (Germany)

31. .hr (Croatia)

32. .ch (Switzerland)

33. .ro (Romania)

34. .my (Malaysia)

35. .fi (Finland)

36. .hk (Hong Kong)

37. .gr (Greece)

38. .at (Austria)

39. .cr (Costa Rica)

40. .gt (Guatemala)

41. .ar (Argentina)

42. .pt (Portugal)

43. .za (South Africa)

44. .pk (Pakistan)

45. .md (Moldova)

46. .ee (Estonia)

47. .in (India)

48. .bz (Belize)

49. .ae (United Arab Emirates)

50. .id (Indonesia)

51. .biz (Businesses)

52. .hu (Hungary)

53. .cd (Democratic Republic of the Congo)

54. .kr (South Korea)

55. .cz (Czech Republic)

56. .ke (Kenya)

57. .cu (Cuba)

58. .lt (Lithuania)

59. .ve (Venezuela)

60. .mu (Mauritius)

61. .ua (Ukraine)

62. .il (Israel)

63. .ph (Philippines)

64. .ie (Ireland)

65. .vi (Virgin Islands (USA)

66. .yu (Yugoslavia)

67. .aw (Aruba)

68. .th (Thailand)

69. .bm (Bermuda)

70. .sa (Saudi Arabia)

71. .do (Dominican Republic)

72. .bj (Benin)

73. .pe (Peru)

74. .bg (Bulgaria)

75. .ky (Cayman Islands)

76. .si (Slovenia)

78. .nu (Niue)

79. .mt (Malta)

80. .co (Colombia)

81. .eg (Egypt)

82. .sc (Seychelles)

83. .cy (Cyprus)

84. .lb (Lebanon)

85. .tr (Turkey)

Well said James. Message me and let me know how the show is going and if you seen Mike Huppert there yet?

Show? What show? Ha! Just kidding. I’m not scheduled to be there until tomorrow mid-day.

And to think I was just concerned about my mom watching!

James, as always……………thanks! We’re lucky to have someone who cares as much as you do!

Ken

Good one James,,,LOL LOL

I don’t see IOWA on the list!!!! LOL

Good one Bro.
You got to get a picture up there.
Hey! James maybe you can cut,copy,post chappy from that picture that was posted last weekend.
he’s on the left side.
thanks
Iowa! HAHAHAHAHH

I wonder how many of these visits are some of our military sons and daughters keeping in touch with thier home fishing.
Perhaps you could open a discussion area where they could ask questions or just ask how the fishing is in a particular place.
Just a thought.

The fair market value for the property must/should be paid if it is to be vacated into private hands. The city/county wants tax revenue and does not want the liability of the unmaintained access. The counselmen should resign first.

I read last week they gave the land to the council member!

Bummer,

Ferny.

Scoundrels… <Note double Flames.

COUNCIL VOTES TO GIVE LAND TO COLLEAGUE//OPPONENTS DECRY THE LOSS OF RIVER ACCESS
Published on 05/02/2003
Tag:
Section: LOCAL
Page: C4
Byline: BY MARY DIVINE, Pioneer Press
LAKELAND SHORES – Lakeland Shores will vacate an empty 33-foot strip of land leading to the St. Croix River and give half to City Council Member Dave Jarvis, whose home abuts the property to the north, and the other half to his father, who lives on the other side.
The City Council voted 4-0 late Thursday to give away the land; Jarvis recused himself from voting.
“This is not an easy decision,” said Council Member Joella Givens. “We are trying to weigh the benefits to the entire city.”
Givens said she studied the issue for two months and voted to vacate the land because it could not be used for swimming, fishing or boating.
“If you can’t do any of those things, it’s really not much use,” she said.
But some citizens continued to cry foul at the proposal. Although it was not a public hearing, many told council members they would prefer to see the land — located at the end of Third Street North — become public river access instead. The land was platted as a street, but was never used as such.
“It’s just crazy giving away land,” Tim Schroeder said.
“The land was given to the community, and it should stay in the community,” added Theresa Shannon, who presented a petition signed by citizens opposing the vacation of the land.
City officials argued that the land’s 16 percent grade would need to be wheelchair-accessible — an expensive option that could end up creating a 10-foot cut into the bluff and the need for 10 feet of fill in another area. Mayor Bob Harvey said it could cost from $50,000 to more than $200,000 to develop the steep terrain and meet American with Disabilities Act requirements.
“We’d have to bulldoze it and run concrete down it like Lombard Avenue,” Harvey said, referring to the famous curvy street in San Francisco.
A spokesman for Wilderness Inquiry, however, said recommended guidelines for outdoor developed areas would be much less restrictive in terms of grade.
“I really encourage you to maximize the accessibility,” said Mike Passo, associate program director of Wilderness Inquiry, a Minneapolis-based nonprofit that leads expeditions for people of all ages, abilities and backgrounds.
“If you don’t do anything, then no one will have access. Nobody with a disability will complain (about the grade).”
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources opposed the vacation of the land, arguing the property could have provided walk-in access for local residents. “It’s disappointing to lose a public access — it’s gone forever,” said Suzann Willhite, trails and waterways area supervisor for the DNR.
Proponents of vacating the land said it was not suited for a public park. Many said they were concerned about safety, sanitation, security issues and the city’s potential legal liability.
Vacating the land would return it to the tax rolls and increase the assessed values of the two adjoining parcels by $27,711, said City Attorney Tim Kelley. Dave Jarvis, who plans to build a new house next to the disputed property, said he is not legally allowed to purchase the land.
Harvey said a third option — do nothing with the land — was no longer feasible after all the publicity about the contentious issue.
“People think they can just go and use it,” he said. “Because of that, it creates a liability for us. It’s unfortunate people even brought it up. People were using it before, and it was pretty quiet, but now the cat’s out of the bag.”
After the meeting, Dave Jarvis said he was pleased with his fellow City Council members’ decision.
“I’m just glad it’s over,” said his father, Gordy Jarvis. “I really feel bad for the community that it had to come to this point.”

Mary Divine covers Washington County. She can be reached at [email protected] or (651) 228-5443.

Dang… I KNEW they were going to try and sneak it by… this is absurd!.. maybe a class action lawsuit would help them reconsider their options for NEXT time….. I cant believe they did this… time to trumpet it to as many people as we can….. lets get the bedlam organized… its time to scream…..

Not that I am for this, but there are rumors in our neighborhood about giving us the vacant land behind our lots. It is zoned commercial, but too narrow to develope. The current land owner doesnt want to continue to pay taxes-so by giving it to us, it would become our tax liability.

Different situation altogether, but I had never heard of “giving” land to neighbors. Sounded WAY fishy. Now it seems very much like a sweetheart deal w/ major conflicts of interest, but not something that is completely unheard of or without precedence.

Still a bad deal for people that enjoy using the St Croix. BTW-I will take one of those islands in the Hudson narrows. Anyone else want some land????

Right there with you Dave! What’s the development potential and handicap access to any of those? Do you suppose there’s any liability concerns? You can’t make a park or landing out of them!

Step one: Every council member voting in favor of this needs to get voted out of the council!!! Watch your next elections! We all know Jarvis is on this list. Take them right out of that organization! The DNR was willing to take on all of their objections and concerns and they bulldozed the logistics of it!!! Anyone that DUMB needn’t be in office!

Let’s just buy out Jarvis and then donate the land back to the state and see if that gets their attention!!!!

You’re right on about voting these clowns out of office. It is absurd, what they’ve done. A democracy in action will allow us to not only vote these people into office, but if we don’t agree with what they do while in office, we can vote them out. That’s the only way that democracy will work.
Steve

Dave Jarvis sent me an e-mail today responding to one I had sent earlier. Here’s what he says;

—–Original Message—–
From: Dave Jarvis [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:04 PM
To: ‘[email protected]’
Subject: RE: January 21 Partnership Team

Bruce, I received your e-mail. I am on the City of Lakeland Shores council and the Partnership Team commission. I focus much more time on family and business but I would be happy to hear of your concerns/thoughts as I am a voting member on the partnership team, riparian resident and operator of passenger vessels and two transient city docks in Hudson and Afton. I can be reached at 651-436-8883 during the day.

Thanks,

Dave Jarvis
Vice President
Afton*Hudson Cruise Lines
[email protected]
http://www.aftonhouseinn.com

Is he a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Our group the Minnesota Power Boaters Association was formed last fall to fight the current proposed restrictions on anchoring, speed limits, and new no wake zones on the St. Croix River. You can read about it here: http://www.mnpba.com. I wonder if Jarvis is for the new rules further limiting the use of the river?

Bruce Ehlers
[email protected]