Everyone else has an opinion.
My opinion is to say Bravo.
My opinion is that the mayor, Sarah Strommen, John Dehen, and David Elvig were fully correct and courageous in putting the public interest - public safety concern and the availability of funding not assured in the future - first in their view of proper priorities, in passing the City's coordinated position with Anoka County regarding the improvements to Sunfish, hard barrier and all.
I have been less than a cheerleader for Mayor Tomas Gamec and Councilmember David Elvig in the past. This time, I believe they deserve praise for not taking the easy way out, and bowing to special interest merchant pressure, something easy to have done, and instead favoring the clear public interest in safe, accident-free and adequate or above adequate roads, as Ramsey's population grows at its astounding present rate.
The growth was foreseeable, as was the need for major road improvements to meet the stress caused by that awful breakneck rate of growth. The rate of growth stinks, no doubt in my mind about that, but given that this council and earlier ones tolerated and fostered it in so many ways, letting a handful of merchants torpedo making a road safe would have been insult on top of injury.
I think Councilmembers Look and Olson were wrong, though I do not question their good intentions, only that they have their priorities wrong. I regret David Jeffrey was unable to go on record, one way or the other. Not that it would make a difference, there were four votes for the improvement - but just ---- to go on the record so we know next election what he thinks.
The error was probably in the past - a different council make-up than at present but with a few carryover members - when the land was developed beyond being a car lot as it was for years.
That was when anyone going into a profit-making intended venture, from then on, had to be aware of and have actual or implicit notice that roadway upgrading could happen.
Had they been on top of things with the landlord the presently impacted merchants could have negotiated an escape clause into their individual leases in the event road improvements cause accessibility impairment. It is not an uncommon thing for lessees to seek to achieve. The worry is foreseeable.
That said, the public interest trumps special interests. People should not be at risk of fender bender or fatal accidents, because a development was done in the past in a certain way. Change, for the better in protecting roadway and driver safety is good, not bad, and it is unfortunate that landlord and merchant tenants suffer.
But the world is not always fair. If relocation consideration is given impacted merchants, without subsidy to the landlord that took foreseeable risks in buying and/or developing the property, I would not call help to merchants an improper "subsidy" and would envision most Ramsey taxpayers probably agreeing.
