A democracy is run by those who show up.  This is a truism that has been valid for centuries.  It applies to all levels of government, even a township. Time for more of us to pay attention, please.

Sorry, there is much to catch up on I think you will want to know, but I have a life outside Township actions, too.  😆

The current Board is on an accelerating pace with little time being allowed for research on complex choices, shortened by relying on shallow opinions pushed forward. Early evidence of this began last spring when policy changes cut off any comments from experienced residents familiar with past history based on legal advice at the time. Instead we watch discussions thrash around, encouraged by some members of Board (and PC) obviously doing little advance reading on some subjects. Board Chair even made a comment recently chastising other members about need for meeting preparation.

Did you know the Deputy Clerk asked for a change in procedure that adds another month to the process of doing a lot split and housing right transfer over a minor administrative task that is easily managed without the delay? How come no one understood this and it was referred to attorney? It was in Ordinance and procedure because I cleared it years ago and wrote the text. But knowledge of history no longer relevant so don't dare ask or allow comment. Easily explained, too.

Did you know that at the hearing about the Ag Tourism text amendment, about 10 people expressed concern that the overly simplistic language was a wide open door to virtually anything. This because it was a lazy cut-and-paste of a Minnesota statute intended to allow municipalities and counties with full-time experienced zoning staff to do serious planning.  After hearing the concerns and constructive comments, the applicant, Mrs. Parranto herself asked that the well-considered draft ordinance presented about 10 years ago (that included her husband on the task force) be given consideration for added protections from things like amusement parks. But the Planning Commission and the two Board members in attendence conveniently left this point out and the Board comment was made it would be a bait-and-switch tactic not to be considered.  When the applicant herself added recommendation for broader consideration after hearing others? 

We all said at the time, we had nothing but praise for what the Parranto's had accomplished that was good for Eureka families and surrounding communities. That was never the issue, only the simplistic wide-open nature of the original draft text.  The Board changed a few words but the key phrases that left the door wide open were left intact.

State legislatures around the country are dominated by cities and high-population counties, not low population townships.  Merely copying broad state language is not appropriate for townships with differing goals, such as preserving ag land and peaceful country living for families. This Board seems to think easy way is to hide behind broad State language.  Sorry, I think current attorney contributes to this, as did previous attorney who added ordinance language that directly contradicted a key County requirement. This is one of many Ordinance problems I have advised about and offered to draft simple, corrective language for PC and Board consideration. Free help on complex issues is not wanted. 

Now another cut-and-paste of extensive state language is being put forth as a broad ordinance regarding cannabis businesses, with extensive definitions. Gee, we haven't even figured out where we may want commercial zoning yet. 

Did you know that there was just a long-term study published a few weeks ago about the harm being found in young children born of cannabis users, including reduced learning ability and more aggressive behavior?  The peer-reviewed study, published in JAMA Pediatrics on Oct. 28, investigated how cannabis use among pregnant women affected children. Maybe that alone should be reason to slow down on quick copy-cat actions. 

Did you know hearing on this cannibis amendment is already scheduled for Dec. 9 at 7pm?

The Board also wants to look at major zoning changes to allow commercial, light industrial, and higher density development.  OK, a new fresh look may be appropriate. Did you know that the two prior studies on the subject were branded as head-in-the-sand do-nothing efforts?  Many people attending open houses those times expressed strong opposition, but that seems of no interest to this Board.

 But don't look at those studies to see why.  TKDA, a national consulting firm in infrastructure engineering and development planning aided the efforts.  Now it has been said a TKDA person is supposed to have made a private comment of surprise that nothing was done with the second study.  I don't know if true or not.  I do know that the only criterion expressed at the Board meeting talking about a consultant was simply that it not be TKDA. No other consideration? 

The initial map proposing commercial zoning looks like a pin-the-tail-on-the-Township effort.  Do you know if your land or your next door neighbor's land is proposed - for what? Will it affect your property value, traffic congestion, or noise or air pollution?  It included clear examples of spot zoning individual properties, which is illegal in Minnesota, by the way.

How about a novel concept of not changing underlying zoning but then allowing a property owner to unilaterally choose to go commercial?  That of course is no zoning at all. It's anarchy. Zoning was specifically created decades ago to prevent property conversion with out public leadership, impact, and planning consideration.  But one or our "leaders" actually suggested this and there was no push-back.

Did you know an Open House is already planned for Dec. 17 to get your input? Have you started thinking about it yet or looked into potential adverse effects? Oh, that's right, Board decided you don't need even a postcard notice because you all have the opportunity to be on email list or read the minutes on the town website at least a couple times every month to learn what is happening, or depend on word of mouth. Right, I don't do that regularly, either.

 It is to run from 5:30 to 7:30pm the 17th, with consultant supposed to make a presentation up front, then break out to discussion groups milling around.  Better get there at 5:30 if you want overview, unless you're still working or commuting or getting dinner ready for the kids.....

There was talk of buffered levels of zoning to transition from light industrial down to ag, but the draft map did none of that. The joint Board and Planning Commission meeting on this subject included one comment to just have the consultant focus on commercial only to save time so the study could be finalized in 3-4 months, which sounds like just before the Annual Meeting. Is that a coincidence?  I don't know, I only have questions. But public not allowed to ask except 3 minutes before meeting agenda rolls out later, so you have to guess how discussion may go.

First question I have for any consultant is if they have seen actual annexation impact because of any type of zoning as a defense?  I have a hard time thinking commercial zoning next to Lakeville commercial zoning is a defense. If I were on Lakeville side, I'd say thank you for doing some of our recruiting for us. I want to hear from a consultant who has been on both sides of issue elsewhere to answer that before I blindly accept local Board or PC opinion.

The annexations that have occurred so far have been because the owner asked to be annexed.   The only exception I know was way back when (60's?) Airlake Airport expanded under MAC authority granted by State.  A municipality can take up to 120 acres per year or boundary straighten, townships can't stop it. 

So question worth asking, but defense not at all clear except if a township organized to become a municipality itself. Not a cheap move, but possible. Eureka also did a study on that just a few years ago. Any current leader look at any of that as a starting point?

By the way, changing zoning from Agriculture's 1 residence per quarter-quarter section to Rural Residential of 4 per quarter-quarter section, maybe with 10-acre lot minimum, would immediately add 102 currently buildable properties to Grandfather status, meaning to build the owner would now have to provide certified property evidence to prove it from the County's Hasting location.This adds to the current 180 in such status.  Would this affect you?  Be careful what you wish for. It is a protection but at administrative cost in time and money. And if there were 2,3, or 5 properties already in a given quarter-quarter section, how would you fairly allocate the additional housing rights?  We already have the ability to transfer or even sell housing rights, with about 400 still available. Small market because some who have them are saving for family members. Is that bad?

Those who fail to learn from history...  Sorry, guess that is out of date now. Please show up to help defend your values.