Developers will chase the short-term dollar. In Ramsey, if Ramsey offers profitable short-term dollars, and elsewhere if the crabgrass is greener on the other side of the fence.
So how should that affect our comprehensive plan? I went to Coborns Friday, heading west on Hwy. 116 past Ramsey Blvd., making the first left on the road that intersects Sunwood east of City Hall. Driving through the open spaces there with a view of City Hall as I approached Sunwood, it struck me that there were not earthquakes or volcanic eruptions because the project was stalled and soured.
Whether mortgage money in the future or construction loans in the future will be as available for shared-wall ventures is uncertain. But should we care?
Ramsey traditionally has been single family, large lot, well and septic system growth. And many find their homes in that context comfortable.
Why bow to dense growth? Who needs it?
If Ramsey does not try something stupid with the Town Center site but instead does a wait-and-see standstill for five years, will that be a problem?
Not to me.
Doing that would fit my view of smart - when saying "smart growth."
Restraint has always seemed better than irrational exuberance.
So who or what will fuel compromise in the comprehensive plan this time? Not a runaway mortgage lending market. That seems certain. The days have changed for that segment, or it appears so now.
My guess, the "property rights" rhetoric and northend landholders seeing how the land was cashed out at Town Center and envisioning easy millions for themselves, if that happens, could be a force. My impression, so far however, is that is not happening. I think the reality is generally recognized - that in northern Ramsey 2-1/2 acre would sell, but higher land yields from dense development there is not a realistic expectation. And high-end housing expectations, under the BIG power line, seems to me to be unrealistic and I expect those owning land there might share the view that if they are to cash out their land it will require realistic expectations and not dreaming and "Gee, I wish ...". The BIG powerline is not moving. It is there so deal with it, seems to be recognized by most in Ramsey.
The landholders in northern Ramsey were constrained to four-in-forty sit-and-wait regardless of whether they wanted to sit on green acre taxed land to wait and see.
Now I do not see any groundswell toward unrealistic expectations there. But I have heard it noted on QCTV that 2-1/2 acre growth for now is still off the table, while John Peterson got his sewer and water and lot density to the cornfield by Trott Brook along Hwy 5, and the opinion has been expressed that not all animals on Animal Farm appear equal.
So is sit and wait, north of Trott Brook the answer - sit and see if the hyped high density bubble bursting was big and permanent, or a burp? Will plannerspeak, retain its bias toward "density is good?" Even if the market decides it is not? Or will the market change the rhetoric? If the developers see shared-wall become less friendly an option for them; will the Metropolitan Council planner-staff hold their course or miraculously change tune as developers chase the market (if it leads away from high density)?
In effect, is it true the development interests control Met. Council? Do developers lead, or follow? They bow to the lending market, they have to, but if loan money dries up for owner-occupied shared-wall, and rental shared-wall becomes viable, will the Met Council position then be against owner-occupied housing, to keep a pro-density bias? How will the dynamics play out if lending shifts? Do the bankers ultimately call all the shots?
It has been alleged that developer expectations motivate Met Council. It has been denied.
Met Council then is not Met Council now. That makes it harder to say who's calling the shots.
All that is part of the story, but isn't a big aspect of the entire comprehensive plan imposition - we have to do it - we have no choice to simply say, "Ramsey declines" - isn't that developer driven?
And isn't that so, since the "plan" stands for "this is the set of criteria for which cities have to say yes to any developer who puts his project into what the plan allows," while the reality has been every proposal has been, recently at least, a PUD where, surprisingly, an effort is made to gain a density greater than the plan specifies for the land where it is situated - for the neighborhood?
I may be the only one seeing it that way. But the "plan" is a "have to say yes" collar a city is compelled by Met Council to put upon itself; and many established residents who really like "the neighborhood" as it is where they live in Ramsey, might prefer a base plan as a have-to-say-no measure, where neighbors to a planned change also can have an additional voice to say no to a particular development proposal disruptive to the neighborhood.
But that could stifle growth.
And isn't growth inevitable?
Some say so, but I don't believe it. Death is inevitable. Growth is "inevitable" if you are facing some agency with extended jurisdiction which stands on your throat and says, "Comply," as was done to poor Lake Elmo.
But at least they had the backbone to stand up and say they did not like it. I was saddened to see Lake Elmo lose in court. Local control seems fine to developers when land and development interests own control, but then when Lake Elmo sentiments arise, they get slammed to the wall in court, in costly litigation.
SO -- the ultimate question -- who owns/runs Met Council? There councilmembers are appointed and not elected. Always remember that. It is not democratic choice or representation at the board level there.
Has the developer fox gained control of that henhouse, as has been alleged, and in favor of keeping the positions appointed and not elected? I would feel that way if I were making tons of money from development. Wouldn't you? Why mess with elections?
This I know: Every apartment I've lived in there has always been noise through the walls, floor and ceiling, from adjacent unit(s). That is the one certainty I have about shared-wall, from personal experience. I did not like it.
