[Winona Online Democracy]
I fail to see how allowing someone who had a legitimate interest to
speak at a regular meeting is a relevant to the issue that you had
brought up of the City of Winona not allowing persons from outside the
city limits to have a role in committees. These are completely
different circumstances.
I would further add that I agree with the context the messages of
Terry, Janice and Linda; however, I believe in disagreement of Linda
and Janice that there is no way to draw the line for participation in
committees that would satisfy everyone. I have laid a map of the county
down on the floor and have looked at it periodically over the last
three days and observed many competing interests to those of Winona.
The issue of working together has been addressed, but the aspect of
competing interests has not. While we all benefit from each other,
there are other competing aspects, ie Minneapolis benefits from Saint
Paul whereas they also compete with each other for economic development
among other things and that is why these two have different
representatives just like Winona should have its interests considered
first with its own representatives on its committees.
Terry and I have addressed the issue of reciprocity, however, those
advocating opening Winona's committees up have not admitted to being
open to the same. This is critical as this is also a source of
"distrust, division, and suspicion."
Business interests were brought up several times as a reason for
opening up committees. I disagree. Business interests have the Chamber
of Commerce among others as a means to advocate and Winona is not that
large of a city where a business leader, not to mention anyone else,
would not be easily able to contact the entire city council to advocate
a cause.
The bottom line is any wall to participation, even from outside the
city, is self-imposed because while committees may not be open there
are other ways of participating.
//..\\
David Dittmann
Caveat Emptor.
On Aug 13, 2005, at 19:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Winona Online Democracy]
Thank you Mr. Finn for asking your questions in an undemanding
fashion. While I don't have the documents in front of me, I will try
and answer your questions as accurately as memory allows.
The petitioner wanted to build a house on 4 acres adjacent to their
aging parents home so that they could be available to attend some of
the needs that can come with aging. The parcel has no public road
frontage as required by the ordinance but is within a few hundred feet
of a public road and an easement/access by means of a cartway to the
parcel does exist. Mrs. Miller owns a nearby parcel of 150 acres
which is accessed by the same easement/cartway. She must pass by the
existing home (there is currently one home and would be two had the
variance been granted) on the cartway to access her 150 acres which
currently contains a newer retreat/cabin.
The board recommended that the petitioner could approach a
neighboring land owner and attempt to buy enough land to meet the
size/width standard of a township road, improve it to township
standards, and then offer to dedicate it to the township as a public
road. This is not an uncommon or unlawful practice. The same
solution was offered to Mrs. Miller has she had in the past requested
a permit to build a home on her land. The same public road standard
had prevented her from doing so. It seems that lots of people want to
live in beautiful Wilson Township because of the esthetics rural
Wilson living has to offer ;>) I think the board provided a
potential solution that both property owners could benefit from.
The conflict you speak of relates to a Miller's owned parcel existing
on the Homer side of Pleasant Valley/County Road 17 and was not an
issue in this variance petiton.
Mike Kirschmann
----- Original Message ----- From: "John N. Finn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Winona] community/city
[Winona Online Democracy]
I know this is besides the point you were making. But now I'm curious
about
what the variance mentioned in your example would have been for, what
Mrs.
Miller's concerns were, and what the townships residents' interests
were. As
you are probably aware, during the annexation process our Mayor was
said by
some to have had a conflict of interest due to owning land in the
area.
John N. Finn
[Winona Online Democracy]
Terri, Janice, and Linda,
I appreciate the healthy exchange of ideas regarding "community".
Their are some recent local examples of what I think we might all
agree are good examples of the greater community working together
and "outsiders" being invited in, regardless of turf wars;
While our county government has no authority in the decision making
processes that take place within the municipalities (or their
committees/boards) located within Winona County, our county
commissioners recently invited all city governments within the
county to participate in the county wide EDA, even though most of
the municipalities have their own EDA's. Judy Bodway, Winona's
Economic Development Director and head of the Port Authority
(Winona's EDA) was given a seat on the board as an advisor. This is
an example of "community".
If news reports (and my memory) are correct, some members of the
GRSF participate on a city board/committee, even though they are not
resident/registered voters. There is also at least one other city
board that has a non-city resident on it even though it is against
the city's own ordinance. These types of contradictions create
distrust, division, and suspicion.
A little closer to home for me, at a very recent Wilson Township
Variance Hearing, the First Lady of Winona was guest in attendance.
A township resident/registered voter was requesting a variance from
the township zoning ordinance, as is their right. Mrs. Miller,
while not a resident/registered voter of the township, is a
neighboring property owner of the variance requestor, and was
invited to and did attend the hearing. During the Public Hearing
portion of the meeting Mrs. Miller was given the floor and spoke of
her concerns regarding the variance request. The Variance Board
listened closely and tried to address and answer her questions.
They had merit but were not conclusive enough to deny the variance.
However, because of her concerns, the board recommended that the
petitioner withdraw their request until certain of her concerns were
addressed and the petitioner graciously agreed to do so.
Considering recent Wilson/Winona history it would have been easy
for the board to place the township residents' interests ahead of
Mrs. Miller's and go ahead and grant the variance. The board did
not.
I was proud and pleased in how that board responded. I thought it
was a moment when we all recognized what was best for the greater
community.
Inclusion creates community, trust, and harmony. Exclusion creates
division, suspicion, and strife.
Mike
Kirschmann
_______________________________________________
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
