[Winona Online Democracy]
I just want to express my appreciation for Keith
Nelson's input into this discussion. Taking the time
to provide detailed reasoning and examples from the
City perspective is helpful.
Below I think he states two basic things I know I felt
were at the core of the Winona Township matter and are
at the core of this one. The developer wants to make
as much money as possible. Who can blame him. The
City wants to collect as much tax money as possible.
Who can blame them. This is a partnership that is
win-win for the two partners. And, with the power the
City apparently has in the area of annexation, it's a
slam dunk. That power seems akin, for us non-legal
experts, to eminent domain. So the only way for the
outcome to be altered would seem to be that the
consequence for either or both partners would not be
quite so sweet. The consequence for the developer
would relate to profit. The consequence to the City
would be financial or political. Financial for the
City only seems to relate to the potential increase in
taxable property since the cost aspect is shifted to
the public via taxes and fees and the the developer.
So, the only remaining cost to the City is political.
If the elected City Council and Mayor believe the
people who vote for them either support this or don't
care, it will happen. The expressed opinions of the
citizens who vote for their positions are the
important ones. That is how our democratic process
works.
Craig Brooks
--- Keith Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Winona Online Democracy]
>
> A simple question for an emotional issue:
>
> Why do you think it is necessary for the City to
> show the township a need for annexation? The
> financial risk of land development is primarily on
> the landowner. The landowner will have to show the
> need to their bank. That information is between the
> bank and the landowner.
>
> The financial risk to the City is the cost of
> bringing water and sewer service to the site. The
> City Council is answerable to City residents for
> that risk. That risk should not be the concern of
> non residents.
>
> Most water and sewer projects are a risk at some
> level. Proper engineering requires us to oversize
> for possible growth. Will the predicted growth
> always happen? Perhaps not, but it is always better
> than building a utility system too small and then
> having to rebuild. In the case of running water and
> sewer to the Phillips property, preliminary
> information shows that it may be a very good
> investment, over some unknown length of time. Our
> financial auditors tell the City Council and staff
> to look for good investments. We're recommended to
> spend money on projects that will bring a good
> return for the residents of the City. Sometimes
> that return is financial sometimes social. A sales
> tax to dredge the lake and create a
> commercial/industrial area was a good risk that will
> bring a great financial return to the City and it's
> residents.
>
> The issues in this discussion isn't really "need"
> but rather "change." Change is always hard,
> particularly if it is someone else causing it and
> not yourself.
>
> Keith Nelson
>
=====
<(©¿©)>
Craig
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
All messages must be signed by the senders actual name.
No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list.
To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit
http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
Any problems or suggestions can be directed to
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at
http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
