Update on Bloomington's Stance on Question 3
Just posted this update to Nextdoor!
Update to What Bloomington Isn’t Telling You About City Question 3
This is a follow up post to the one I did early in September titled, “What Bloomington Isn’t Telling You About City Question 3.” In that post I argued that Bloomington was hiding that they wanted to add a bike path through the Nine Mile Creek corridor from Moir Park to the Minnesota River if City Question 3 passes in November.
One of my primary pieces of evidence was that the bloomingtonforward.org webpage relegated info about bicycles to the FAQs page, and that page made it clear that adding access for bicycles was under serious consideration.
Well, now my evidence is gone. The FAQs now barely mention bikes, and The Plan page has also been changed to remove references to bikes. I have attached screen shots of the relevant sections of the original pages along with shots of current pages.
THE WEBSITE CHANGES (GENERAL)
I will detail the changes below, but in short, in the FAQs section, there used to be two questions pertaining to bikes. One, “Why are bicycle trails proposed for the Nine Mile Creek Corridor when bikes aren’t allowed there now?” has been removed entirely. The other, “What trails and bridges are proposed for the Nine Mile Creek corridor?” removes the sentence, “Both new and widened trails would safely allow bikes to access the corridor” along with other trail-related information and focuses instead on how they want to protect habitat.
WHAT THE CITY IS SAYING
After my original post, I think the City got some pushback about converting our walking trail to allow bikes. Their current position is essentially, as best as I understand it:
1) They changed the website to clarify their position on bike access.
2) If Question 3 passes, they will do more community outreach before implementing any plans.
In a recent meeting with residents (you should attend these if you care about the three ballot questions; go to https://bloomingtonforward.org/resources to see dates), Parks & Rec explained that the reason the first version of the website mentioned bikes was, and again, I hope I have this right, that they were in a hurry. Apparently, the City had to go to the State for permission to add a ballot measure to raise money. They had to provide some plans to the State. For some reason, they didn’t have much time to do it, so they put something together quickly and that is the same information that was put on the original website. (Note that this also applies to City Question 1 about replacing the current Creekside Community Center).
Make of that what you will. Personally, I think that it would have been more clarifying to add a question like, “Are you adding a bicycle trail?” rather than eliminating references to it, because that just looks like more obfuscation.
GIVE US THE MONEY AND THEN WE’LL TELL YOU HOW WE’LL SPEND IT
The City didn’t feel it was prudent to spend the tens of thousands of dollars to do the reviews and research to determine what exactly should be done along Nine Mile Creek (or to the Creekside Community Center) unless they knew they would get the funding to move ahead with their plans. The City admits that this “give us the money first” approach is hard for people to swallow.
For those of us who do not want our trail modified for bikes, it means trusting that the community engagement and review process would go our way if Question 3 passes. But of course we have no way of knowing what will happen. And, FYI, seniors who use Creekside now are of a similar mind. The plans the City has been putting forward for Question 1 don’t seem to leave room for some of the current facilities at Creekside, such as the billiards room, the lapidary, the boutique, and the wood shop, and this has them worried.
In the end, once the City has the money, they can do what they want with it. We don’t know what the community engagement will reveal. A majority might appear to be pro-bike-trail or anti-bike-trail, but that really depends on who participates and how organized they are, and doesn’t necessarily reflect a true majority. And nothing says the City has to do what the majority want. And we don’t know what other interested parties Parks & Rec has to contend with, who may carry more weight than we do.
VOTE NO ON 3, IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE
As much as I hate to take money away from habitat restoration and accessibility, the fact remains that if Question 3 passes, we might lose our quiet walking trail to some kind of shared bike/walking path. As I discussed in my original post, that would mean taking down many trees with the attendant loss of shade canopy, cutting into hillsides and adding retaining walls, and potentially straightening some of the trail curves. The trail would not be the same at all. In addition, dogs and children might need to be kept on short leash, elderly people might feel less safe with bikes whizzing by, dogs who chase bicycles might not be able to be walked on the trail, and more.
WHAT CAN YOU DO IF YOU DON’T WANT BIKES ON THE NINE MILE CREEK WALKING TRAIL BETWEEN MOIR AND THE MINNESOTA RIVER
• Vote No on 3.
•. Sign the petition at https://tinyurl.com/4mkrzds6 which will go to the City if Question 3 passes (note: for Bloomington residents only).
•. Write to Parks & Rec: https://www.bloomingtonforward.org/connect
•. Write to your City Councilperson: https://www.bloomingtonmn.gov/cc/city-councilmembers-and-district-maps
THE WEBSITE CHANGES (DETAIL)
The original FAQs sections mentioning bikes (as of early September, emphasis mine):
Q: What trails and bridges are proposed for the Nine Mile Creek corridor?
A: An accessible trail connection would extend from Moir Park to the lower trails. Both new and widened trails would safely allow bikes to access the corridor. New bridges would improve the health of Nine Mile Creek and enhance pedestrian safety. And a new boardwalk would provide a new trail connection from Moir and Central Parks to the Minnesota River bottom trails, a connection that doesn’t exist today. This improvement would also create a connection to the planned Minnesota State Trail and Minnesota-Nokomis Regional Trail.
Q: Why are bicycle trails proposed for the Nine Mile Creek Corridor when bikes aren’t allowed there now?
A: Trail improvements to provide bicycle access in the Nine Mile Creek was a recommendation in the Park Master Plan completed in 2021. The two-year planning process included significant community engagement. In a scientific survey in 2019, residents identified natural resources and trails/mobility as the highest priorities for the corridor.
If this project is approved by voters, any changes to the Nine Mile Creek Corridor would be focused on protecting and restoring nature. Safety and environmental sustainability would also be key components. Bike access would only be allowed with measures to protect the corridor.
The new FAQs section regarding bikes (as of mid-late September, emphasis mine. Note that the previous two questions were replaced by this one):
Q: What trails and bridges are proposed for the Nine Mile Creek corridor?
A: The proposed investments for Nine Mile Creek Corridor will focus primarily on preservation and habitat restoration. Improving access is also a goal, but new trail projects, including those for bikes, would have to go through a rigorous review process to make sure the corridor is protected. This review process would include input from Bloomington residents as well as wildlife and habitat experts.
If the Nine Mile Creek investment plan is approved, the City would explore various concepts to improve access, including a trail connection from Moir Park to the lower trails as well as new bridges. But such ideas are preliminary and would require extensive review and community input before moving forward.
THE ORIGINAL NEXTDOOR POST ON THIS TOPIC
You can read the original post at https://tinyurl.com/3h9y5f2c