My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-28-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Orono
>
City Council
>
1988
>
09-28-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2026 10:57:02 AM
Creation date
9/22/2025 11:45:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet City Council
Section
City Council
Subject
regular meeting
Document Date
9/28/1988
Retention Effective Date
9/22/2025
Retention
Permanent After File Date
Protection
Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
303
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
legislation that applies to a local government to go <br />into effect without it being adopted by the local unit <br />of government that it affects. This is the principal <br />issue that Councilmember Goetten has presented to AM M. <br />As you will note in the attached legislation that was <br />passed, the legislation itself is much broader than <br />acquisition of park land in Minnetrista. The issue then <br />becomes, if the language on its face is general enough <br />to avoid the constitional problem, whether the specific <br />intent that the Legislature is trying to achieve makes <br />it a constitional violation. <br />This general language not only would allow the <br />possiblility to argue the constitional provision but <br />also allow the right to condemn any land for "Lake <br />Minnetonka Regional Park" .',at was identified in the <br />Master Plan (Attachment D). As you will note this <br />includes the "Big Island Veterans Camp" which is <br />arguably "identified" in that document. <br />"Garbas-e" Bill - This applies to the constitional <br />provision that says each bill passed by the legislature <br />is to have a subject clearly delineated in its title and <br />that all issues within the bill are to generally apply <br />thereto. The Legislature is "notorious" for passing <br />bills that have many unrelated subjects and the passage <br />of this legislation was one of those. <br />Eminent: Domain - This is not a constitional issue as <br />such, 5ut the State prior to this legislation had <br />granted parks the ability to exercise eminent domain <br />procedures when they had the concurrence of the <br />municipality. It is speculated that Hennepin Parks <br />would not have been able to muster the legislative <br />support to amend this specific provision and that is the <br />reason for the provision that they were granted. The <br />State has granted a broad eminent domain policy to all <br />municipalities with more specific ones to various State <br />and County Agencies including the Park Reserve District. <br />On the one hand it may be difficult for a municipality <br />who has very broad e;ainent domain powers to argue <br />against. the exercise even of limited eminent domain <br />powers by another political subdivision, however, it can <br />be argued that municipalities are the local accountable <br />governmental entity in the metro area, and are the ones <br />in charge of the comprehensive land use planning and <br />therefore the other agencies should be very specifically <br />limited in their powers. (It should be noted that <br />Hennepin Parks could possibly acquire the park without <br />special legislation in conjunction with another <br />political entity, who would have the power to exercise <br />condemnation authority for parks, such as a city. They <br />together could acquire the park without special <br />legislation.) <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.