Monday night's special meeting about the proposed CoPar settlement went late into the night, and the end result was tabling action until next week. While that may seem like a lot of sound and fury that signified nothing in the end, I think we may actually be on the verge of a breakthrough. For one thing, this may have been the first time the developer could directly witness the council discussing the settlement-related issues and identifying our individual concerns, without having it mediated by city staff and attorneys on both sides.

As I wrote in this blog two months ago, my chief concern in a settlement outcome has been to open the door for public ownership of land south of Fish Creek. When I wrote at that time, I posed it specifically in terms of a referendum, but I have become increasingly optimistic that there are other potential funding sources to explore as well. A letter delivered to us Monday evening from the Friends of the Mississippi River amplifies my optimism, as they offer their "assistance as a partner with the City and area stakeholders in helping to protect the land around Fish Creek as a natural and open space."

Some on the council may be cool to the idea of a bonding referendum. As a result, they may be reluctant to state unequivocal support for the conservation goal, out of a fear that it could imply their endorsement of city borrowing and spending. I can see how a politician might not want to face a choice between support of the environment and opposition to taxes. On the bright side, at least there seems to be acceptance of the conservation idea if money comes from somewhere else.

Labels: environment, process

Posted by John Nephew at 5/08/2008 01:09:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

The past week has been very busy, so I'm late in writing this, but I wanted to say that I thought there was a lot to like about last Monday's council meeting (April 28). In particular the wetland ordinance discussion at the end seemed to me to be a good example of the way that, as a council and a community, we should operate.

At issue were changes to the wetland ordinance, which I have discussed previously. The agenda item was the second reading of the proposed changes; if we had approved it, they would have become law as soon as they were published in the official newspaper.

A number of residents came forward with concerns. On the whole, my sense was that the residents supported the intent and general thrust of the changes and placed a high value on water quality and wetland preservation, but they were calling the council's attention to specific issues that concerned them in terms of the impact and possible unintended consequences in their own neighborhoods. They brought the issues forward in a manner that was reasoned, respectful and constructive, and all of us -- the council, the city staff, the chair of the Environmental & Natural Resources Commission -- listened and discussed their points.

In the end, the council decided (with what looked to me like the agreement of city staff and the commission chair) to table the second reading, and refer the ordinance back to the Environmental Commission for another look in light of the concerns that had been raised (and, I hope, with the continued involvement of the residents who brought those concerns to us).

I am hopeful that this is a sign of things to come, in terms of how the council and the city can work together in a positive way.

Labels: environment, process

Posted by John Nephew at 5/03/2008 05:53:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

A major item on the agenda for Monday's regular council meeting is the first reading of a revision of Maplewood's wetland ordinance, something our Environmental & Natural Resources Commission has been working on for quite some time. In case you'd rather not download the entire (20+ MB) packet for the whole meeting, there is a page on the city website just devoted to the proposed changes to the wetland ordinance. There you can find maps of the city's wetlands, and a helpful redlined version of the proposed ordinance (indicating what is the same and what is changed from current city law).

From reading the proposed ordinance, I gather that there are really two major aspects to the changes. The first is a reclassification of Maplewood wetlands, to bring our city's nomenclature in line with the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District's. This standardization would have several benefits, including cost savings for city staff time. (If we piggyback on RWMWD's classifications, then we don't have to go out and classify all the wetlands ourselves according to our own separate system; we can use the work that the Watershed District has already done.) The ordinance also would create an "A+" classification, for the special wetlands that are already at the highest rating from the Watershed District, but are so valued that they need additional protection (larger protective buffers). The city has not yet identified which specific wetlands meet this standard, but it's believed that many of them already are on public land (for example, wetlands within the Priory neighborhood preserve).

You can also read a newsbrief about the wetland ordinance on the Maplewood Review website.

Like our community as a whole, I believe our city council has a strong shared interest in protecting our environment. Updating our wetland ordinance is one of the ways we can come together to do that.

Labels: environment

Posted by John Nephew at 3/23/2008 11:44:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

The Star Tribune has an interesting article today about a proposed ballot referendum in Eagan. That city has been embroiled in a lawsuit with a developer who wants to turn a former golf course into a housing development. The city had rejected their plans, which resulted in a lawsuit, that still grinds on in its fourth year. The referendum seems to be offering residents a third possible outcome, in addition to the previous options of giving in to the developer's wishes or rolling the dice in court.

Labels: environment, finance

Posted by John Nephew at 3/20/2008 10:21:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

[This is an e-mail I sent yesterday to a mailing list of commissioners, activists, and other interested citizens. Councilmember Hjelle had previously sent a message laden with inaccuracies to this list, and several of the recipients had forwarded it to me. I thought it would be good to post my message here as well, for anyone interested to see.]

Folks,

Apparently some false information is being spread around by Councilmember Hjelle.

Among other tall tales, Mr. Hjelle wrote, “The sad reality is that our new council majority has no interest in addressing the concerns of the Moratorium and the area impacted by the COPAR development. That is why the issue is efectively [sic] dead, and why the moratorium is being allowed to simply end.”

The moratorium is ending because the city council lacks legal authority to extend it further. I brought this up at the January 28th council meeting, specifically because I was concerned about development occurring between the expiration of the moratorium and the adoption of any action based on the study findings.

In case anyone needs proof, I went back to the DVD of this meeting, excerpted the relevant portion of the discussion, and put it on YouTube:


You can see me ask, and Mr. Ahl and Mr. Kantrud answer quite clearly that we have extended the moratorium as far as the law allows. You can also see on the video that Mr. Hjelle was present to receive the same information. You'd have to ask him why he would lie to you all about this.

In terms of my interest in addressing the concerns of the moratorium area, I hope it's obvious that Mr. Hjelle does not speak for me and fails to accurately depict my views.

As I learned about the issues in the moratorium study area, I became interested in ways to preserve ecologically sensitive land there, and I came to appreciate how highly valued the land is in the eyes of the members of the original open space task force as well as south leg neighbors. I also am aware of the issues of property rights, ongoing litigation, and the complexities of land use planning. Finally, I worry that the solution some favor – of keeping 2-acre minimum lots – is no solution at all for the long term, even if it is something the city could maintain. Do we really want all those septic systems uphill from Fish Creek?

The only way to really preserve the ecological value of the land around Fish Creek is public ownership. This is not something the city could pay for out of petty cash, especially with the financial situation we've inherited. The original open space referendum money, of course, was long ago spent on other land. This means that the city would have to issue bonds. A referendum would be required and a majority of voters would have to support the borrowing.

I am asking city staff for information on the process by which such a referendum could be accomplished. In the meantime, interested folks can get a start by reading a section of the Handbook for Minnesota Cities, Chapter 24: Debt and Borrowing (look at “Voter Approval” on pages 7-8 of this document).

If certain members of the council are interested in actually doing something for Fish Creek, rather than just trying to exploit it as a political wedge as they did last year, then we might get the votes in the council necessary to authorize a bond question on the ballot.

Then it's up to the citizens. The League of Minnesota Cities warns, “City officials should be careful not to endorse or campaign in favor of the bond election. Any published materials should be confined to factual statements about the project to be financed. Campaigning should be left to citizen’s groups.” (This comes from an Attorney General's opinion.) Fortunately, we may already have such a citizen's group in the form of the Fish Creek Initiative.

While bonding to buy more open space may be a tough sell with the electorate, especially in this economic downturn, we do live in a community that puts a very high value on our environment, our parks, and our neighborhood preserves. A ballot question would give citizens and activists who want to protect Fish Creek and its environs the chance to take their case directly to the voters, to persuade them that this is an investment that is worth making for Maplewood's future.

Sincerely,

John Nephew, Councilmember

Labels: environment, finance, process, video

Posted by John Nephew at 3/02/2008 11:00:00 AM | Permalink | Comments