Two Ramsey3 sessions, the Green building concept, a zero carbon load design of buildings - interesting things to consider, but -- there are problems with the delivery.
We should presume that the turnout from the first two meetings was substantially overlapping, and it was not and will not be wholly new people at subsequent sessions.
Hence, the sales pitch, density = lower carbon load costs; the auto as the biggest factor to curb; is global warming real or a fiction; and denser = more walkable, healthier, more interesting, whatever the pitch; DON'T REPEAT IT ANOTHER TIME, SINCE TWICE ALREADY WAS ONE TIME TOO MANY.
The point is, with the orientation of a majority of the counsel, with the Met Council poised to "Lake Elmo" any community that does not knuckle under to quotoa requirements [for overall density per buildable non-wetland acre, presumably, let's flesh that out at the next session, city staff can get us details]we can start with a premise, good or bad, population growth, in Ramsey during the period covered in the 2008 comprehensive plan will be a given - with the parameters disclosed and not held secret, and with current staff not apparently headed by anyone wanting to play all cards himself, close to his vest, never really laying down the hand, etc. (Whether that was the past case is irrelevant, we say for now, staff is well-motivated and acting in full good faith, we trust Pat Trudgeon, and that, along with a Met Council quota requirement, are given facts.)
Then cutting to the chase, start the sessions with the question, where should concentrated density be, how concentrated, what burdens will it put on the rest of us trafficwise under differing alternatives, where should open greenspace be preserved and in what degree to keep the "feel" of an open-space community [and we know that unless owners are to be hosed, the green-space rights will have to be purchased for fair value, per the taking clause of the Constitution]; how can we lessen traffic and water impacts [do we need a new water tratment plant, what's the cost, must we turn to river water, etc.]; and, where the last session largely should have started, how can we do something smarter than the existing awful Pulte and DR Horton stuff now on the ground at Town Center; in using the remaining space there or permitting uses; and then, if there's any incremental capital costs to be absorbed or spread from wanting "green, environmentally friendly" buildings, who pays what share of how big a total increment should be reasonably forecast.
Stow the warm and fuzzies. We want to learn facts and then be able to judge wisely, and not be given the equivalent of being sold kitchen appliances or used Toyotas by appliance salesmen or used car lot tactics.
We are not there to dink away time that could be used elsewhere. Don't sell.
Don't waste time with the first seven slides in the canned presentation.
Move to the three or four powerpoint slides giving the essence; then go from that to REAL information beyond the fluff. Otherwise the concern is people in the audience might conclude there's nothing to it but fluff, and the attendance might accordingly drop off precipitously for the final sessions.
THINK, as the Watson family was fond of posting on signs around IBM facilities in the past.
If that last session had been more about the nuts-and-bolts of how the carbon load of heating and cooling can be reduced, with an incremental cost per square foot or other version of realistic costing mentioned; insulation, photovoltaics, solar water heaters on the roof, using heat pump technology with the thermal exchange being underground where there's a heat sink at stable temperature levels -- all of that costs something not a cost if it is not there [and likely a greater cost netted out against some other heating&cooling provision options], and if the nationwide or worldwide scale of usage is to change at any but the slowest of paces for these "better" technologies, there are questions of sustainability upon scaling up.
For Ramsey, scaling up will not overload any vendor-manufacturer capacity, but if there are parallel changes over the metro area, for instance, what capacity impacts are there, and how severe a concern should they be?
Yes, staff needs to be more focused on those question details than the citizens giving them their marching orders, but --- we cannot sanely order the marching without having a good sense of what the cost-benefit balance is for the alternative marching directions and speeds we might impose.
BOTTOM LINE: THINK. DON'T WASTE THE AUDIENCE'S TIME.
