HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 01-13 When idealism is revisited THE REVIEW •
JT/hen idealism is revisited
My column last week on the fate of the Ostergren farm,2005L ,
Edgerton rd.,perhaps unintentionally left some readers with the theCC�IGGiG' /3 Ifo
impression that the Maplewood Park and Recreation Com-
mission had turned down the St. Jerome's Church proposal to iii�.am a ewood
have the farm occupied by a Vietnamese family. A.•
The Ostergren farm has been purchased by the city in the .to mouth
belief that it has some historical community value. In deciding
how the city should use this property it had the proposal from the
church as well as two newlyweds,Robert and Amy Parker. The II 4 by Scott Carlson
Commission was not favorably disposed to the Parker proposal.
But according to former commissioner Lowell Nesbitt,who
called me last week, the Park and Recreation Commission in If the city were to rent the property to the church for the
effect was supporting the church proposal by recommending that Vietnamese family I wouldn't expect that would be done to make
the property be rented to Gerald Cole and his wife and Glenn a profit.
Cook and his wife for a six month period. Instead,by renting the home to the Vietnamese Maplewood
The Coles and Cooks are members of St. Jerome's Church would be acting,and motivated,in a humanitarian manner.Why
and as such are considered sponsors of the Vietnamese family, such good will can't be tax-free is something I can't understand.
Nesbitt informed me.
Nesbitt's call proved very valuable since I tried to contact
Community Services Director Eric Blank the Monday preceding
last week's newspaper publication day. But a request to return
my phone call before the press deadline evidently did not occur.
My call to Blank was to find out who the Cooks and Coles were.
Still,information from the city staff report indicates that the
Park Commissioners had discussed legal and monetary
problems in the rental of the property. And the magnitude of
these problems was further expanded at a Dec. 18 discussion of
the city council.
My column was not an attempt to discredit the Park Com-
mission(in fact it was probably more critical of the city council)
but to point out the seemingly unnecessary barriers thrown up to
make the fruition of the church proposal impossible.
With an anticipated monthly cost of$300 to house the family
at the farm the church has been all but discouraged in its efforts.
The council and the city staff have indicated that utilities plus
taxes would have to be paid.
It seems to me kind of silly that the city would be taxed for
using its own property as it sees fit. One might argue that
Maplewood City Hall is a home for a number of employees
throughout the work day but the city is not required to pay taxes
on its own building.