"A Place With a Good Image" is one of the 2001 Ramsey Comp Plan Guiding Principles that citizens of Ramsey have been encouraged to consider as sound and worth keeping.
I think about that, and the community that in my mind has the best image is Lake Elmo.
They stood up to the Metropolitan Council and said, "NO. Not us."
They said no to the homoginizing blender. Sure, the planners got them in Court; but they had the integrity to say NO.
Ramsey could start from there. Where forces compel Ramsey to end is indeterminate, but saying no to the Metropolitan Council and their crabgrass contingent of driving allies, those happy with that body's rationing of buildable land and its ratcheting up of per lot costs to where the pay-off is apparently in overbuilding 3+ bedrooms per new single family home and dense shared-wall, but nothing in between like nice quiet private smaller homes on lots of an acre or acre and a half with easily maintained and reliable well and septic tank systems - detatched enough from nearness to the neighbors to make better neighborhood relations; that is one fine place where Ramsey might start.
Doing that, having the spine to face off against Met Council - I can think of no better image to have for a north suburban town facing growth pressures from outside and from landowners inside wanting to cash out big in the same ways as the Kuraks and Gun Club contingent have jiggered the machine to serve themselves.
Is there a better image? Would you perfer the image of a town run by those in it who gain council seats for family, and then take their profits? Is that admirable, to be viewable that way from the outside? Or by those growing up here?
