This is a citizen blog. Visit http://eurekatownship-mn.us/ to sign up for the Township newsletter.

Friday, September 22, 2017

IS IT REALLY THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND...?


Not if one has been paying attention. "Paying attention" means to ALL the data, not just what one wants to hear.

At the last Town Board meeting, Allen Novacek had placed himself on the agenda as wanting to address the "Airport Issue." During the course of his presentation to the Board, Mr. Novacek stated that in order to be able to access the sewer interceptor to serve the airport Eureka would need to put 1,000 acres into commercial/industrial land.


Sorry, wrong. The Metropolitan Council would require that Eureka set aside 1,000 acres for (much) higher-density housing and other uses as well, not just commercial/industrial before it would even consider allowing access to the interceptor.  Such a proposal would require expensive planning and engineering work up front. And that does not mean that the Council would even accept this proposal after Eureka spent all the money since it sees Eureka as ag until 2040.



Mr. Novacek went on to say that making the northern portion of the Township commercial/industrial would provide a "buffer" to Lakeville.


Sorry, wrong. All indications from both the Commercial/Industrial Study and the recent Boundary Protection Study (which includes sound advice from other townships that have been in similar situations) are that putting such a use along our northern border would serve as an enticement for Lakeville to want to annex more of Eureka land, not to discourage it. (Uses such as churches along the border would be a deterrent because of the non-tax status.)



Another point made by Mr. Novacek was that "it has been said" that an area with fewer than 5,000 people is "too small" for commercial/industrial uses.


Sorry, wrong. No one has ever said this that I know of. What has been said in reference to  a population of 5,000 is that 5,000 is probably the minimum size to make incorporation as a city financially feasible. Since the County has different expectations of cities for road expenses than it does of townships, the resulting increase in taxes with fewer people would not be welcome. (I believe Sherri Buss, from TKDA, has told us during one meeting with her of one instance whereby an Local Government Unit (LGU) of fewer than 5,000 people did incorporate, but they agreed ahead of time that they were willing to pay the higher taxes. From what I have heard at Eureka meetings of all sorts over many years leads me to think that the Eureka citizenry would object to that.



Eureka could have "rural commercial/industrial" (no city sewer and water), but that, as often stated, (Are you listening?) would attract "lesser" uses such as truck depots, contractors' yards, outdoor storage, and the like. Such uses would take up land and provide lower revenue than some seem to envision. When the time came for the Township to move ahead with uses that require city sewer and water, these rural uses would be unlikely to want to move further out for "better" (read higher tax revenue) uses to move in as they would have had a pretty good deal on land prices and location. Roseville has had a similar experience with truck depots.



Further, townships that have had rural commercial/industrial uses have often experienced problems with them to the point that most of their complaints are centered around these uses. For example, such townships have experienced an approved use selling and a new use taking over. However, the new use does not recognize or perhaps has been misinformed about what its limits are in what it is allowed to do and proceeds to do what it defends as "financial business common sense." Problem is, what it is doing is not permitted, and such a use may create many more negative impacts to surrounding property, such as noise, pollution, etc.. than the first use did.

In such a case a township can find itself in a situation whereby legal action may be necessary to right things. Does that sound familiar ?????

My next blog will continue with information from the last Board meeting on this topic, including what a "couple of other people" who also do not seem to be listening said. (Otherwise, this post would get rather long.) Until later...





No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.