Updated 4/29/03 Last night the Council again rejected the proposed land exchange by which would allow the proposed golf course to advance. This is good news. The need now is for a new vision for the area, one which includes real citizen input.

Two ways everyone can help in the short term:
1) donate money to the legal defense fund. (* see below)
2) keep an eye on Spirit Mountain for any signs of illegal construction.

If you would like to donate please make checks payable to Spirit Mountain Legal Defense Fund, and mail care of Nancy Nelson, 1001 North 10th Av E, Duluth MN 55805. We hope to have a tax-deductable donation option shortly, but immediate donations would be most helpful.

December 2001 - Council votes down golf course work permits

September

• The issue of the golf course, which is an inappropriate use of an old growth forest, is not addressed by the proposed land swap.
• While the DNR has said that a golfcourse may be compatible with LWCF funding, the golfcourse currently proposed is not.
• The City's historical error with the condominiums (Villas) at Spirit Mountain has nothing to do with the golfcourse and related work permits, but is being used to delay a decision on this issue.
• The exchange is a shell game, the land offered for exchange is currently forest but will only be exchanged if it can be converted into golfcourse.
• The DNR has not specified what it would consider as fair exchange for the 15 acres occupied by the villas, but it may not be on the prohibitively expensive level the developers are implying.

Here's a summary of the City Council meeting on the two issues:

9-11-01

"Thanks to everyone who attended the City Council meeting last night to either speak or listen to the discussion about Spirit Mountain.  This project has become so convoluted that it's difficult to know what has or has not occurred.

After listening to many speakers, followed by a lengthy discussion among councilors, the City Council tabled everything. The decision to approve or deny the work permit was tabled, and the resolution to approve the proposed land swap was tabled.

Although the 120-day limit for making a decision on the work permit expires tomorrow, the council's action should not mean that the work permit is approved by default.

Here's how I understand what has occurred. The law gives the developers the right to demand action on their permit application within 120 days.  The 120 days are up tomorrow, September 12.  But the developers have offered to waive their right to expect a decision by that date.  The developers' lawyer, Bill Burns, submitted a letter to the city offering to extend the deadline by 90 days.  According to city attorney, Bryan Brown, the City Council did not need to take any action in the way of accepting/declining this offer.  He believes the letter submitted by Burns is acceptable as a legal document.

At last night's meeting the council tabled the resolutions to approve/deny the work permit.  If the developers are sincere in waiving their right to a decision, and if the city attorney is correct in his interpretation that this is legal, then the work permit will NOT be approved by default.

However, Gary Eckenberg made an appropriate comment when he said: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I hope that the council (and the entire community) does not end up being the fool on this one."

Aug. 9

Item VI: The Environmental Advisory Committee Presentation and Discussion of  FN 01063 Spirit Mountain Work Permit Request by Spirit Ridge LLC to construct the 18-hole Spirit Ridge Golf Course on Spirit Mountain Recreation Area in the City of Duluth, Midway Township and the City of Proctor and Spirit Ridge Ski and Golf  Lodge on Skyline Parkway in the City of Duluth.  RE:  City Council Resolution 01-0529R, Referred back to the Planning Commission by City Council on  July 23, 2001.

The EAC will be recommending DENIAL of the work permit.  It would be great to have an audience to witness this. There are many items on the agenda before this one, so it will probably be a long meeting.

July 24

The article in today's DNT missed the intriguing details and significance of this decision.  Most councilors expected to simply table the resolution that called for approval of the work permit.  But Councilor Lynn Fena did a great job of explaining that the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) had not yet finished its review of the permit application and therefore had not made recommendations to the Planning Commission about what conditions should be added to the work permit. She said that the EAC had only prepared a list of preliminary concerns/questions about the project, and that these had been given prematurely to the Planning Commission as though they were the final recommendations. She requested that the EAC be given the opportunity to complete a thorough review of the golf course plans and complete their recommendations.  She also argued that if this isn't done, the council will not be following the procedure that they expressly asked for in resolution 495, which they approved four weeks ago.

There was a lengthy discussion of the differences between and consequences of "tabling" vs. "sending back to the administration" vs. "voting no."  The outcome of this discussion was that in order to give the EAC the opportunity to make recommendations and the Planning Commission a chance to consider those recommendations, the best action would be to send the resolution back to the administration/Planning Commission for further review.

This was a very reasonable course of action, and it was approved unanimously!

Councilor Stewart also requested that when the question returns to the City Council with conditions attached to the work permit, a committee meeting will be held to explain the work permit and its conditions, and to allow councilors the opportunity to ask questions.  Other councilors agreed with this request.

Councilor Hogg also called on City Attorney Bryan Brown to start working on the proper language for a resolution of denial for the work permit--just in case the LAWCON issue is not settled before the "drop dead" date of September 12.  The council must act on the work permit application by that date or the permit will be approved by default.

Thanks to everyone who contacted City Councilors on this issue!

July 14 2001

The Planning Commission held its meeting on Tuesday morning. Ten of thirteen PC members were present, along with Carl Seehus, Director of the Parks & Recreation Department, and three members of the Parks & Recreation Commission who were there to observe.

There was a very respectable audience turnout for a 9 a.m. meeting.  Seven people voiced their concerns about the project. The developers, their environmental consultant, and their attorney were there to answer questions.

Following the public testimony, the Planning Commission discussed the LAWCON issue, the upcoming rare plant survey, and the idea of adding conditions to the work permit.  Two PC members were very concerned about the LAWCON issue and questioned why they should approve permits before this issue is resolved.  Several other PC members made statements about how people opposed to the golf course have succeeded in shutting down all economic development in the city of Duluth. In the end, the work permit was approved, along with special use permits and variances (for wetlands impacts).  The work permit included a number of conditions, one of which is that the lease must be modified to the satisfaction of the DNR and NPS to meet the LAWCON agreements. The vote was 8-2.

The Parks & Recreation Commission met on Wednesday evening. They had actually approved the work permit for the golf course at their June meeting, but in response to the public outcry over the lack of a "public hearing" at that meeting, they decided to go through the process again. This time they did a good job with the public hearing.

About ten citizens spoke about their concerns with the golf course project. The developers were allowed time for "rebuttal."  After a fairly lengthy discussion, the Parks & Recreation Commission again approved the work permit, but included the same conditions that the Planning Commission recommended. The vote was 6-2.

Perhaps you saw Mayor Doty on the Channel 3 news Wednesday night expressing his anger at the CAVE people (citizens against virtually everything).  He accused golf course opponents of grasping at straws and said he suspects that next we'll be saying there are tent caterpillars in the trees and that we don't want to harm the caterpillars. He also accused Wayne Sames from the DNR of overstepping his authority just because he "doesn't like Spirit Mountain."

It seems that we are building up to a showdown between the city administration and the DNR/NPS. The city commissions are approving permits for the project while the DNR is saying that the lease is already in violation of the LAWCON grant agreements and must be changed.

Thanks to everyone who is paying attention to this issue. Stay tuned for the next installment...

June 2001

Please attend these two public hearings listed on the home page.

April 2001

Currently:

At the April 2 meeting the Councillors received a review of the issues surrounding the proposed golf course. Nancy Nelson wrote this summary:

The most significant information came when Wayne Sames, from the MN DNR, told the City Council, the Spirit Mountain Authority, and city attorneys Alison Lutterman and Bob Asleson--in no uncertain terms--that the city screwed up in leasing Spirit Mountain land to a private developer.

In the 1970s, the City of Duluth accepted over 1 million dollars in state and federal funds to develop the recreation area. At that time the city agreed to abide by the restrictions that came with the money. Those restrictions include maintaining the land forever for public outdoor recreation. Although the proposed golf course might be acceptable under the rules, Sames had many questions concerning the lease between the Spirit Mountain Authority and the developer. For starters, he said it should have been reviewed by his office before it was signed. The lease also should have included all kinds of language about the fact that the land is public and all facilities must be public.

Our city attorneys babbled incoherently about why none of this is true. But one of the most satisfying moments of the evening came when Sames told the attorneys "That's a good theory, but it's incorrect."

The outcome of the discussion was that the DNR and the federal government will be reviewing the lease and the plans for the golf course/hotel to determine whether changes need to be made or whether the project will be a "conversion" of the public land to private land. If that is the case, the city will be required to replace the land with other land--not already owned by the city--of equal monetary and recreational value.

This was followed by a discussion of the cultural and historical significance of the Spirit Mountain hillside. Jim Jones of the Indian Affairs Council and local anthropologist/historian Betty Dahl presented a great deal of information about historic uses of the area and pointed out that the city may be violating its own Heritage Preservation ordinance by ignoring the cultural significance of the site. Betty Dahl reminded everyone that the city's Heritage Preservation Commission has existed for 10 years and has looked only at old houses and bones.

Finally, Carol Reschke from the County Biological Survey summarized her work at the Spirit Mountain forest. She explained how her old-growth survey was conducted and what she found, which was a significant stand of old-growth forest with trees that are at least 160 years old. Councilors asked lots of questions.

I thought one of the most sobering moments was when she explained that historical records about the big forest fire of 1918 indicate that people formed a line along Midway Road to fight the fire. They succeeded in holding back the fire at that line, so the forest at Spirit Mountain and Magney-Snively parks was saved from the fire.

And now many people in this city can't wait to send the bulldozers in to destroy that forest for a stupid golf course. (Of course, Carol didn't say that last sentence--that's my addition.)

This was the first meeting at which Carol has been given the time to actually explain her findings. At the Planning Commission's hearings on the EAW, she was given 5 minutes to speak and no one asked her any questions.

This was a great meeting, and Councilor Greg Gilbert deserves the major credit for it. This was the first public meeting about Spirit Mountain where people with objective information were given the opportunity to present their facts and answer thoughtful questions. After listening to this 4+ hours of open discussion (except for the time the attorneys spent trying to convince the councilors that they can't do anything about anything), I felt as though I've been living in a repressive country for the past decade. At no other meeting about Spirit Mountain have public officials encouraged people to openly share information that might lead to the conclusion that a golf course is not the appropriate way to use the public land at Spirit Mountain.

Please send Councilor Gilbert your thanks!

The first meeting - resolutions

You can read the full text of the resolutions by following the links to the council page (click the resolution number).

01-0175R - RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE SPIRIT MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE; REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEFORE WORK PERMITS ARE ISSUED.

01-0176R - RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE SPIRIT MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE; REQUESTING SPIRIT MOUNTAIN TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS AGAINST THE DEVELOPER.

01-0177R - RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE SPIRIT MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE; REQUESTING SPIRIT MOUNTAIN RECREATION AUTHORITY TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE GOLF COURSE PROJECT CONSTITUTES A CONVERSION TO PRIVATE USE UNDER THE FEDERAL LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965.

Early 2001.

See the background information and lawsuit pages.

The plaintiffs have decided not to appeal the judge's decision allowing the golf course to proceed, primarily for financial reasons.

That's about where it stands now (Jan. 2001), it can't hurt to let your councillors know how you feel, and / or write to the paper.