Here are a few points of consideration...

1) The land we are talking about is privately owned - so it's not appropriate for us to be talking about "privatizing" the property - it is private.

2) The city does own street easements throughout Park Point - many times these easements are referred to as "paper streets" or "street ends." The City holds these easements and thus has the right to make public improvements in the future.

3) The public does not have access on these easements unless the public makes improvements - none of the easements in question have public improvements, this means they do not currently provide public access.

4) While the property is privately owned, the existence of an easement prohibits the property owner from building any permanent structure within the easement.

5) It is a common occurrence for private property owners to seek vacation easements from the city. Many of the easements were put in place 100 years ago with the thought of some future use. Property owners make the case that there is not a public purpose to retain the easement which restricts their use of their property - during my time in city government we have issued dozens of easement vacations for various reasons.

6) Over the course of the past 15 years, there have probably been around 6 to 8 individual applications to vacate paper streets along Park Point in order to allow the property owner to use their land to build an addition, a garage, retaining wall or the like. The vast majority of these are approved because councils want to support these property owners with their plans.

7) Given this dynamic, we have a situation in which the vacation of easements were happening in a haphazard manner, one at a time. There was little thought of having the larger picture of what is the access that the public should have to both the Lake and the Harbor.

8. The proposal developed by planning staff is a way to determine a final and permanent easement plan. The idea is that we are identifying the access the public needs and are making these easements permanent - that we can draw a very clear line that these easements will not ever be vacated because it is part of a thoughtful easement plan.  

9) Without a defined plan, there will continue to be attempts to vacate easements in the future and it is likely that a future city council will approve those vacations as they have in the past. But the vacations will be random and based upon the initiative of the property owner versus a thoughtful planning process.

10) The small area planning process is the appropriate time to bring forward these broader land use policy questions. I disagree with the criticism that this is not an appropriate time to discuss this issue - dealing with these requests in a random fashion is not the way to do it.

11) The areas being discussed right now are not areas in which people typically access the water today. They are not those well worn paths or improved street ends - these are areas that if you drove down Park Point you would assume are people's side yards - which, in fact, they are.

12) Under the planning department's proposal the public will continue to have access on both sides of the street every three blocks - in some areas the access is more frequent.

13) It is a legitimate question to ask - should city government continue to hold rights on private property which prohibit private property development rights if the city does not have a public use for that easement now or in the future? If there is a well-established public access point a block away, should the city hold an easement that limits private property rights?

So, in the end what we have before us is a legitimate public policy issue.   We have a choice - do we continue to deal with easement vacations on the initiative of property owners or do we develop a plan that outlines the public's interests in water access - and then take action to permanently improve those access point and make them permanent?  

I do think it is unfortunate when legitimate public debates become about general mis-characterizations or to attack the intentions of well-meaning staff who have invested their careers to making Duluth a better place to live.

If the planning commission and/or city council choose to vote against this proposal - that is absolutely fine and that policy decision will stand. That's what a public debate is all about. However, I do hope folks can appreciate that the issue is more complicated and nuanced than how it has been presented.  

Not having a plan has not delivered good results from a public policy perspective. We can debate what the final plan should look like, but having a plan about the future of access points is a positive discussion to have and criticizing those who offer a plan doesn't seem like a productive path forward.

Two additional points:

1) This issue has been discussed publicly within both the parks commission and the Park Point small area planning process -- a very public process. That is exactly the point, we are bringing this issue forward during a very deliberate public process in order to gain public input and debate. This issue is a public issue because city planners have brought it forward during an open and public process. So, yes, it's a little difficult to accept the idea that we are trying to hide something -- staff have intentionally engaged the public to have this very discussion.

2.  Without a comprehensive plan, then each individual property owner can make their individual pitch on the appropriateness of vacating the easement on their particular property. As a city councilor it is difficult to deny a person the right to develop their property when there is water access a block away.

It is my thought that we can develop a thoughtful plan that proactively determines what access is needed and important vs. access that is less important or not needed. With that in hand, future city councils can point to this open and public process in which it was determined (in a comprehensive way) which to vacate and which not to vacate. That will give strength to that future council to deny future vacation requests because of how that particular property fits into the broader system. Without that overall plan, it is each property owner making their case and the council trying to determine whether that specific easement is important or not (with the difficulty of trying to understand how that easement fits into the broader system -- and the difficulty of having to say no to a person that wants to invest on property that they own).

It is impossible to debate against an emotional characterization of "privatizing the commons" -- believe me, I understand the political difficulties of being on the wrong side of that sort of conversation. But I think it's appropriate to look at the details and the practical affects.

If this is purely a philosophical debate, then the pure concept of not vacating any easements is the easiest to defend. But when we look at it from a practical standpoint and really examine the particular parcels in question (which the planners have done) and balance the interests of the public with the interests of the property owners -- then I think a more nuanced discussion and solution is possible.

Suggesting a plan that goes against a compelling philosophical and emotional issue is difficult to do -- I give credit to the planners who are willing to bring this issue forward despite knowing that they would be characterized as being on the wrong side of an emotional issue.