Mayor Tom and I had sharp words at the Aug. 22 session. Over sewer-and-water. The mayor would not respond forthrightly to the contention that the present status quo, by ordinance, could be changed "at the drop of a hat" by the council, any council, new faces and agendas, and that the existing base of citizens who moved here to be left alone and not be overtaxed or specially assessed for the purpose of advancing somebody's agenda to maximally cash out raw land acreage with subsidies, need better, sounder, and less ephemeral protections. He disagreed, but kept trying to evade giving an explanation why "Trust me" is supposed to be adequate for us.
Haplessly, these are the same people who ARE NOT showing up in adequate numbers to protect or assert their interests, as an established bloc or group entitled to fair and lasting protection from forced assessments or forced hook-ups --- with the protection to be in the charter and in the Comprehensive plan, which are harder to tamper with in the future - via "pulling out the rug" by future councils.
The mayor did his vexing usual non-response. Off point. Repeatedly. Ducking the question and then when pointedly reasked, going into his verbal diarhea mode.
He just kept going on and on and would not shut up.
Minnesota nice, it is nice, but sometimes that kind of thing needs confrontation so it will have to be suffered less in the future. I'd had it with the BS, and said so.
Elvig showed up at the "2-1/2 acre" discussion corner, and Breanne Dalnes, who writes quicker than I do did poster-board scribing. David at least gave concise and cogent answers. Refreshingly so, even when he and I disagree. And the mayor, I have seen him being dead-direct and brilliantly concise and cogent, and I have seen that on enough occasions to know he well could do that all the time, but it appears to not be his modus operandi or game play.
What that discussion group showed, is that the North-end property holders, the acreage holders, see an opportunity to cash out that may or may not be real, but it seems desired.
Their saying, there and then, that density transition is good and fair is - good and fair.
The worry is when the land's being cashed out, top-dollar might trump good and fair.
But a consensus that at least 2-1/2 acre development should be allowed north of Trout Brook was clear. Some wanted more density as the base Comp Plan provision. Nobody liked 4-in-40. If Ms. Dalnes scribing does not reflect that she was too busy writing to be fully listening. I expect she got a good cross section of commentary, but it will not reflect a consensus because a consensus was, unfortunately, lacking.
2-1/2 acre development seems a fair Comprehensive Plan status there, north of Trott Brook. It allows a present cash-out, where there presently is not sewer-water allowing a more profitable density. And more profitable densities should have to be justified, via PUD applications if the density is wanted by the developer.
The rationale is clear: Homes on 2-1/2 acres will be up-scale, or at least can be, to attract wealthier entrepreneurial types who might found Ramsey businesses and create Ramsey jobs.
The quarter-acre "Petersonian density" is far, far less likely to do that.
And high end properties add more to taxbase and actual revenues than they cost - and every new housing unit has an added cost to offset and often exceed its tax benefit, we must not ignore or deny that fact - so that 2-1/2 acre units are the most desirable. PUD procedures - the Planned Unit Development appraoch - exists for any landholder thinking that uniqueness of a property would be cause to seek higher density development. But, of course, PUD is intended to be the EXCEPTION and not the rule.
I do credit the mayor on one direct answer. He does not like 2-1/2 acre development. He tersely and directly said so, "... because it is bad development."
I understand there is thinking that way, and that he could, and should say more in defense of that position. Tersely and cogently, as he can do when he wants to show how he really is quite a bright person who can be terse and direct and to the point.
I like the potential of 2-1/2 acres. I like it a lot. The housing resulting from it is desirable. I look at Tiger Meadows at Tiger Road along Hwy 83, Armstrong, north of Trott Brook. It worked well there, and there is Greg Bauer's Trapper's Ridge platted at 2-1/2 acres, although not being built out at present. Those knowing what they want, have gotten their 2-1/2 acre approvals before the past switch-over to a moritorium on 2-1/2 acres plus "ghost-platting with density and a community septic tank for now" experiment was tried and abandoned as an ill-thought-out slap-dash failure.
My understanding is James Norman was the major proponent of that failed experiment and approach, as he was with Port Authority mischief, and since the beginning of this year he no longer is a decision-making factor. May it rest in peace, while true cluster development, not that false ghost-platting perversion of the concept, finds a place in the Comprehensive planning and in the city's code. But either do it right, and completely, and cogently, or not at all. Half-baked is not good for cakes or ordinances.
If Ramsey were to dump the 2-1/2 acre option it would create a situation where Burns Township can preempt that housing niche, to the north of Trott Brook (and to the north of Ramsey). They can do the cherry picking while Ramsey wrestles with density, traffic, crowding, and properties costing more in services than they add to tax revenue.
The concern for keeping high-end housing diversity, and for protecting effectively the integrity of existing neighborhoods, is especially proper in light of the boom in shared-wall housing in the past 4 years in Ramsey, together with a parallel Ramsey boom in the quarter-acre high density detached single family sector.
The City's permitting-&-expansion during the peak and tail-end of the mortgage bubble was far too deep into these two niches. Now with a slump, there will be some kind of a rebound - with the timing and direction being uncertain. But the signs are that shared-wall will not sell that well so that the crabgrass will grow and propser in other segments - while 2-1/2 acre is best for the tax picture that we, the existing residents of Ramsey, see for the future.
Why not give us a break? The existing, voting residents. Put 2-1/2 acre in the comp plan as the normal zoning for north of Trott Brook, not any more 4-in-40, not moritoriums or forced "clustering," which if done right is a desirable thing to add to the mix but not something to aim at as the norm. 2-1/2 should be the norm. With that, there can always be the occasional, exceptional, PUD for something at a greater density. Since every property, in some way is unique, there will not be a lack of PUD proposals. Current practice shows that to be the case and there is no cause to expect a massive change. But turning down the PUD efforts when not in the City's best interest - that would be a welcome change. But that is implementation, by staff, per the policy direction and decisions of council; and not anything to be given too much attention when it is writing of the Comp Plan that is the focus for now.