I attended the C/I meeting on January 3, 2019. I and one other citizen were in the "audience." The meeting date was not apparent on the Township website.
The "work group" discussed the planner proposal. There were no public copies. Butch Hansen stated at one point that, "We don't have to post any of these meetings."
This group is going to ask the Board at its meeting on Monday, January 14, to select one of the three areas they have proposed for this development/use. They see the process as taking as little as six months to a year at the most. They are pushing for action now, perhaps starting in March or even sooner. (Planner proposal goes March to March.)
They are recommending the "northern corridor," land north of 225th across the entire Township, as their first choice. They have talked of first implementing the zoning/uses on Highview, north of 225th. Spot zoning issue?
The "work group's" idea is that the Township move ahead with this change NOW. No question as to whether this is the appropriate move now or not. "It's a done deal." Putting the cart before the horse...
No information on cost to the Township.
No information on what revenue this could realistically produce. Will it cost more than it brings in? Opinions are not the way for a municipality to plan for the future.
No mention of statutory requirements when a municipality changes to C/I in an area where residential use is allowed.
No organized report to the Board summarizing the findings upon which to base this important decision--because they have not addressed facts. "This makes sense to me that the area is here." "That's only 'common sense.'" And more unsubstantiated comments that are difficult to sit and listen to.
NO OPEN HOUSE scheduled with the answers to the questions the public raised at the first one. No open house scheduled for further input from the public ahead of moving forward on this. I don't believe that the "work group" majority even believes that the public input is of any real consequence. How to explain this disregard otherwise? (The "done deal" repeatedly mentioned at its meetings and at the Open House.)
Do you have something you would like the Board to listen to on this subject? At this point, it looks like your only options are public comment (3 minutes) at the next Board meeting, putting yourself on that agenda regarding this topic, which will allow you more time. or written comments to the Board.
Why hasn't the Board discussed the idea of updating the market study from the C/I Task Force?
Why hasn't the Board discussed the idea of doing a fiscal impact study (cost/benefit analysis)?
Has the Board determined if this area is expected to be serviced by sewer and water or is it going forward no matter what?
Has the Board revisited with the Met Council on this topic? No information has been given on this at any of its meetings. Hansen has claimed he "has (or can get) a letter from the Council saying they are going to let Eureka hookup to city services." Where's the follow-up?
Does the Board acknowledge the work that must be done in Phase II before moving forward?
Does the Board truly see this as a "done deal?" The wording of motions is critical.
Has the Board read the Task Force Report?
At the end of the "work group" meeting at which the planner was there earlier, Commission Chair Ralph Fredlund asked Mark Ceminsky if he had asked her all the questions which the "work group" has been compiling over their many meetings. Ceminsky's answer was along the lines of, "Well, I didn't want to bog her down." Why wouldn't it be more reasonable and thoughtful to put all these questions to her? They plan to ask the Board to move forward and yet they haven't even addressed the questions they themselves came up with.
At the end of the "work group" meeting at which the planner was there earlier, Commission Chair Ralph Fredlund asked Mark Ceminsky if he had asked her all the questions which the "work group" has been compiling over their many meetings. Ceminsky's answer was along the lines of, "Well, I didn't want to bog her down." Why wouldn't it be more reasonable and thoughtful to put all these questions to her? They plan to ask the Board to move forward and yet they haven't even addressed the questions they themselves came up with.
As one who spent hours and hours on this subject as a Task force member with the professional planner engaged at the start, not as an after-thought, it is dismaying to listen to this group (or at least its majority) and their "discussions." They promote that Eureka should move ahead (without any factual analysis), and they do not ever question IF Eureka should do this at this time. They are very sure that Eureka should do this. Ok, that could be the case under certain conditions, but
WHERE. ARE. THE. FACTS?
WHERE. ARE. THE. FACTS?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.