Laserfiche WebLink
William Soth, Dorsey & Whitney <br />September 9, 1988 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />BACKGROUND <br />As you may be aware, Hennepin Parks had legislation adopted as part of <br />the State's appropriations bill that gave it unlimited domain power during <br />1988 and 1985 tc undertake condemnation of selected properties i-dentified <br />on Lake Minnetonka Regional Park's plan. The City of Minnetrista <br />or.igi.nal'y felt a park at 50 acres, then one at 125 and upwards at 220 <br />would be an amenable solution for them. The Hennepin Parks, however, has <br />constantly maintained that they want a minimum of 292 acres for their park. <br />During the legislatilre hearings on the matter, the main bill, for which <br />this was initially authored, did not come out of committee on the Sc-late <br />side, but was amended on one of the last days of the session to an <br />appropriation bill. Subsequent to that, the City of Minnetrista and the <br />land owners have joined in a lawsuit against Hennepin Parks charging, as we <br />see it, two major constitutional issues: <br />1, Violation of the provision as it relates to sp cial legislation. <br />2. Violation of the "garbage" provision. <br />The land owners are currently represented by Tim Thorton of u:iggs and <br />Morgan Law Firm. <br />ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED <br />At this time, the City is contemplating whether to accept a <br />"invitation" from the City of Minnetrista to join as a party to the lawsuit <br />and contribute to the legal coats of such a suit. As an alternative <br />stratagy, the City could look to perhaps doing an amicus curiae in <br />conjuction with other municipalities that are inl_erested in such an action. <br />One of the main considerations as to the City' participation in to <br />the lawsuit would be wht:ther the City would have standing in the matter. <br />