Opponents of the University of St. Thomas's new Division 1 sports arena are once again challenging the project's environmental impact, this time through a fresh legal maneuver aimed at halting construction. The city of St. Paul has issued permits for the Lee and Penny Anderson Arena, but critics argue that these approvals were made without adequate environmental scrutiny. With construction progressing rapidly, the debate over the stadium's potential effects on the Mississippi River corridor and local communities continues to intensify.

Preventing Irreversible Environmental Damage Requires Immediate Action

Challenging the Environmental Assessment Worksheet

The latest round in this ongoing legal saga involves a 68-page memorandum submitted by neighborhood homeowners and attorney Daniel Kennedy. Under the banner "Advocates for Responsible Development," they have taken issue with the city’s revised environmental assessment worksheet (EAW). This document, they claim, remains inadequate and fails to address several critical concerns. For instance, the EAW allegedly overlooks the cumulative impacts of multiple construction projects on campus, including those related to traffic congestion, parking, and greenhouse gas emissions.Critics argue that the city has not provided sufficient mitigation measures to counteract these issues. They contend that even after receiving direct guidance from the court, the city's response falls short. Specifically, the EAW does not adequately address the phased actions involved in the project or provide specific safeguards against potential environmental hazards. These shortcomings, according to the memorandum, render the EAW fundamentally flawed.

Concerns Over Long-Term Consequences

The Advocates for Responsible Development have voiced serious concerns about the long-term consequences of the stadium's construction. They highlight potential risks such as delayed emergency services, toxic fumes from the ice rink, and adverse effects on local wildlife, particularly bee colonies. The group warns that some of these impacts could be irreversible, even if the stadium is eventually demolished. For example, the destruction of bumble bee colonies and river bluff erosion may cause lasting damage to the environment.Moreover, the advocates emphasize that the rapid pace of construction exacerbates these risks. Without a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which the city deems unnecessary, there is no guarantee that all potential issues will be properly addressed. This lack of thorough review, they argue, could lead to unforeseen problems down the line, affecting both the natural landscape and the quality of life for nearby residents.

Prior Legal Actions and Court Rulings

Over the past year, the Advocates for Responsible Development have pursued multiple legal actions in an effort to block the stadium's construction. Last July, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that the city’s previous EAW lacked specific measures to address traffic congestion, parking, and greenhouse gas emissions. The court also noted that the lengthy worksheet failed to consider the cumulative impacts of other construction projects on campus.In response to this ruling, the city published an updated EAW in October, prepared by the St. Paul-based planning and engineering firm Kimley-Horn. However, this update has not satisfied the critics, who maintain that it still falls short of addressing their concerns. Additionally, in July, the Advocates requested an injunction to stop construction, but the courts denied this request. Despite these setbacks, the group remains determined to halt the project until a more rigorous environmental review is conducted.

Implications for Future Development

The outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching implications for future development projects in St. Paul and beyond. If the court grants the injunction and orders a full EIS, it could set a precedent for more stringent environmental reviews in urban areas. On the other hand, if construction proceeds as planned, it may signal a shift towards prioritizing development speed over comprehensive environmental assessments.For now, the fate of the Lee and Penny Anderson Arena remains uncertain. Unless construction is paused, the stadium could open this fall, potentially altering the landscape of the Mississippi River corridor and the surrounding neighborhoods. As stakeholders continue to weigh the benefits and risks, the community awaits further developments in this contentious case.