In order to "save" the plan we had to destroy the plan.
Jim Taylor
Published December 12, 2005
In order to "save" the plan we had to destroy the plan.
Recently the City of Eagan decided to accept a "contingent" settlement agreement in order to settle a lawsuit between the City and a developer who wants to destroy the city's Comprehensive Plan. What's both scary and sad is that the City accepted this agreement using flawed logic. According to the Eagan City Council in order to save the plan from change they had to change it. Put another way: in order to save the plan it has to be
destroyed. Sorry guys, but I don't follow you here.
What's further troubling is the demonstrated arrogance or perhaps lack of intestinal fortitude (guts) of the City Council. A comprehensive plan and the entire planning process is designed to develop a long-term strategic
vision for the entire area. It's such an important tool that there are safeguards and procedures in place to ensure an effective plan. All those citizens and governments who came before the current City administration
have already decided how best to develop the city for the long-term. Since Eagan is nearly built out, we're at the end of the "long term".
The entire current infrastructure in Eagan was developed relying on the comprehensive plan and plan process. The roads, the sewer, the schools, etc., all were designed within an organized and consistent Comprehensive
Plan and plan process. I just can't imagine that when they allowed the UPS distribution center near the golf course, the industrial park to the North, the private grade school across the street to be built or designed Lexington and Yankee Doodle that they planned for another 3000 car trips per day let alone another 1500 or so residences. The infrastructure cannot safely andreasonably accommodate this. That's why the comprehensive plan is guided as it currently is - open space.
Apparently our current City Council is either frightened to the point they are making bad decisions or they think they're smarter than all those who designed the plan that came before them. If the City were not arrogant or
scared they would have allowed the process to work and the issue to be reviewed during the "normal plan review process" scheduled to start in 2006. I guess they are just too darn smart for the rest of us (or again, is it fear?).
The City is again showing its arrogance and disregard for its citizens in another way by launching a sneak attack. In an attack reminiscent of Pearl Harbor, the City is trying to sneak this whole issue "under the radar
screen" by rushing it through the Planning Commission meeting held December 27th. You can bet this was a contrived date to not only do it quickly but also during a time when most citizens are busy preparing or celebrating the holidays.
When we asked the City to move the hearing from the December meeting to the February meeting they replied that they had agreed, in the mystical and omni-important "contingent" settlement agreement, to process the developer's amendment request in a timely manner. We understand the agreement says "timely". However, it did not, as we recall, have a deadline or otherwise define "timely". We are sure it certainly did not define timely as "blinding speed" (note the use of the word blinding).
We want to remind the City not to confuse "timely" with "precipitous" which is defined as "undue haste". The current schedule is too hasty. By law, the City has up to 120 days to accept or deny an amendment application. The 120 days is, therefore, considered timely. Otherwise why would they have the 120 day deadline? The amendment request was submitted November 28th. Thus the City could reasonably have the hearing in February and still have time for the Council to review it in March - all while still being timely.
Last time we checked the Council was elected to serve the citizens and not developers. By rushing this amendment application through well before the 120 day deadline (and against the wishes of many citizens) it appears as though there is a double standard: one for developers and one for the citizens. I'm assuming that they have not changed the due process provision of the Minnesota Constitution. Therefore we still retain the same rights as Mr. Wensmann, the developer. (Unless elimination of the due process provision was also part of the "contingent settlement agreement". So much was in secret I guess I shouldn't assume!)
The citizens need time to study the proposal and have requested that the comprehensive amendment issue be heard at the regularly scheduled February Planning Commission hearing. Given that the issue has been in litigation for nearly two years surely using the full 120 days cannot hurt nor would it violate the "timely" stipulation of the City's agreement with Mr. Wensmann. Conversely, maintaining the current schedule is reckless, impetuous and would be an acknowledgement that the City really could care less about what the public thinks. It might even give the impression that the City cares more about what Judge Sutherland, Ray Rahn, Terry Wensmann, and George Hoff think than what its constituents think.
If the City really wants to be the Grinch that steals Christmas as well as democracy, so be it. If you do please at least give us specific reasons as to why the City will not move the issue to the February hearing. The Mayor, Peggy, Mike, Meg, and Cyndee owe us this explanation. After all, we helped elect them in to office.
A final note to the Mayor and City Council: I'll bet you did not realize how high the cost of the settlement would be. Look what it's costing: Democracy, the Comprehensive Plan, the integrity of the entire planning process, the faith of your constituents in representative government, your political futures, and your administration's legacy. I'm glad George Hoff and Mike Doherty are not my campaign managers!
Thanks,
Jim Taylor
