Avoid confusion. Show up at the palatial City Hall, Alexander Ramsey Room, tonight.
The last session was the kick-off for the series of follow-up issue oriented sessions, and tonight's is on the Property Rights issue.
6:30 - 9:30 pm.
The city's website homepage has the information CORRECTLY posted for this evening's session.
The mailing sent out before the meeting, and the online posting of the Ramsey Resident notes the August 22 date (but as if it had already happened).
AGAIN - Avoid confusion - show up tonight.
*_________
With regard to the property rights issue:
Where, short of nuisance, can and should a city and its majority population set bounds upon land use decision making of an owner?
Whenever the Comprehensive Plan includes limits or restrictions, there is always a variance for a detail, or a PUD, a planned unit development, as options for owner relief from otherwise binding constraints.
Given that there always is a discretionary relief alternative, should we not restrictively (i.e., conservatively) set rules and zoning status designations in the comprehensive plan? If not, then it IS a property right to propose and have accepted a subdivision or other land use proposal conforming to what the plan and zoning and building codes say.
Hence, every allowed density or use specified in the Comprehensive plan (and zoning ordinances) represents a floor every owner stands on, with the ability to reach as high as PUD discretionary review permits - which in Ramsey, historically, has yielded the great density exceptions such as Village of Sunfish Lake, a Kurak project, on their previous Thomaswood south forty acres.
Village of Sunfish Lake shows, the Plan is NOT the final word. The Plan is the starting point, only. Influence, or quality of a proposal, can always yield exceptions that prove the rule.
What right should a land speculator, down the street, have to get sewer/water routed past your home - where you then face the threat and risk of an assessment being imposed or being forced to hook-up? What right should you have by charter and in the Comprehensive Plan, to band with neighbors also affected, and to force the question to a majority-rule vote, of the affected stakeholders?
Not enough of an express protected right, is my answer. John Peterson and friends, and a compliant council, proved that with the sewer-to-the-gun-club cram down. Those photos show something done in my neighborhood. I did not like it. I had no way to stop it. Shouldn't I and the neighbors have had that right???????
Think it over. What answer do you have?