|click image to enlarge and read|
The "mature neighborhoods" I live in and know of seem to already have well formulated views of the city's level of intrusion we want.
Ask former council member Margaret Connolly, and former council member Terry Hendriksen, each of whom lives in a mature neighborhood, because I only speak for myself and family, on 154th Lane NW, between Sunfish Lake Blvd and Ramsey Blvd.
1. Do not under any circumstances impose sewer/water on us. We have fine wells and fine septic systems, in working order, paid for, and we are happy with them. Also, don't tap our wells dry by excessive municipal well pumping from the shared aquifer. Respect the water scarcity problem, respect the aquifer, and respect the wetlands through which ground water percolates to lower aquifer levels.
2. Spend less on town center so taxes are lower. Especially so, consultants.
3. Maintain the roads. Police the neighborhoods since we are paying for it.
4. Make the developers pay the costs of their development, don't socialize such private costs, especially not upon residents of "mature neighborhoods."
5. Tell Met Council to cease meddling. Good luck on that one.
6. Otherwise, leave us alone. Go away. We are happy with the council and officials at a distance, out of our faces.
7. Re this "authorization to host these meeting(s) during the winter months" text thing? Hiding it during winter would minimize attendance vs sessions later in the spring of next year. Why think people in "mature neighborhoods" would want to venture out of a warm and comfortable home setting in the winter to attend city hall gab sessions? Again speaking only for myself, our street is inadequately plowed in the winter and ices up for months, so why risk it? The risk-benefit expectation of roundtabling suggests staying home until the road ice melts, and gab-fest scheduling should accommodate this taxpayer concern.
Anyone living in a "mature neighborhood" who does not feel this way, please add a comment.
Checking the full agenda, for topic 5.1 there were about 15 pages of comp plan tedium for it; but for this Roundtable braincramp there were no supporting pages. No reference back to where the idea for it arose, prior thinking, etc. It looks like make-work and lacking in any sound purpose. Given that appearance, is there any nefarious intent, some throwing of a bag of snakes on the table? I truly think those in existing neighborhoods most strongly want to be left alone, left unthreatened in their lifestyles, and this roundtable stuff looks to be the opposite. Hopefully folks in the mature neighborhoods vote in new council faces, and this Roundtable busines gets either shelved, or explained in detail and in a way to disarm suspicion. And scheduled for decent weather times.
First off, whose idea is this? Did the thing originate with Met Council, with a staff person, with a council member; and in any such instance, who?
I recall before Nelson left, the City had a roundtable she chaired on how we can make Ramsey more attractive to developers. I worry this latest thing will be, how "mature neighborhoods" can sacrifice to make Ramsey more attractive to developers. If not aimed that way, there are some who might love to co-opt something else into how can we altogether now help landholders cash out and become rich. My hope is they carry their own water in seeing opportunity to cash out and become rich. Without "mature neighborhoods" carrying their water for them. (They can carry their own sewer pipe too.)