I see Mayor Rossbach has been busy on his blog this weekend, serving up Maplewood news. Check out his posts on skywarn spotter training, the Extreme Green Makeover, and the impending demise of NEST (North East Suburban Transit).

Labels: environment, public safety

Posted by John Nephew at 3/07/2010 09:09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

The Maplewood City Council gets a lot of ink in this week's Maplewood Review. You can read the articles online about Julie Wasiluk's temporary council appointment, the passing of the sign ordinance (minus two sections for further study and discussion), and the final passage of the amended recreational fire ordinance.

Labels: council politics, environment, media

Posted by John Nephew at 2/06/2010 12:03:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

This coming Monday, the city council workshop will include the presentation of the report of the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission (note: link is a 6.5 MB, 40-page PDF with numerous images, which will take a while to download if you a slower internet connection).

Labels: environment, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 1/27/2010 04:09:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Remember all the controversy about wood smoke? Remember how, right before the election, a few pamphleteers and cable access TV shows purported to have uncovered a secret agenda on the part of mayoral candidate Will Rossbach to ban recreational fires, fireplaces, wood stoves, etc.?

Last night we passed the second reading of the amended recreational fire ordinance. It becomes law as soon as it's published in the official newspaper. Contrary to all the election-season bleatings of Maplewood's conspiracy mongers, we didn't ban wood fires. In fact, most members of the city council told you all along, if you asked, that no ban was ever being considered.

But from the outset of the wood smoke task force, some people (including certain now-former councilmembers) have worked hard to fan the flames of fear with rumors that a ban on wood burning was imminent. Denials could only be seen as proof of the sinister scheme underway, to their way of thinking.

Now that the ordinance has actually passed (and there is no ban, in case that was unclear), the naked dishonesty and cynicism of these conspiracy mongers should be plain to all.

What we actually did do:

• Changed the ordinance to conform to state law (which supercedes our ordinances anyway) where they were in conflict. Examples: Our old ordinance permitted coal as fuel for recreational fires, which Minnesota law prohibits; our ordinance allowed fires 20 feet from a structure, while the state requires a minimum of 25.
• Extended the permitted hours for recreational fires, formerly from 2 PM to 11 PM, now from 10 AM to 11 PM.
• Added a "good neighbor" clause that states "Recreational fires should not be lit or maintained if the smoke therefrom unreasonably causes discomfort or a negative impact to neighboring properties."
• Added a wind restriction to allow recreational fires only when the wind is less than 15 mph.
  

And after all that controversy and character bashing, after turning a minor ordinance update into a political football, how many of those "concerned" people actually showed up last night to comment on the final passage of the ordinance? Zero.

Labels: council politics, environment, public safety

Posted by John Nephew at 1/26/2010 05:01:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

This week's Maplewood Review reported on the passage of the second reading of Maplewood's revised Wetland Ordinance.

Labels: environment, media

Posted by John Nephew at 1/10/2010 09:19:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Here are some of the comments I received in response to my entry linking to the Maplewood Review article about urban chickens last week.

Comment #1:

How would property values be affected?

What about the extreme cold on the chickens we have here in winter?

What is the benefit vs. cost of this idea? Could we instead support local farm raised natural/organic chickens? Also, it seems like it benefits most people with a larger size property who are able to abide by possible rules about footage between coops and neighboring houses, etc. Is this fair to those who don't own enough property but want chickens? What is the economic benefit?...

Interesting idea, maybe a good one if enough and the right restrictions guidelines and enforcement are put in place...or maybe not.

I do have to say though that a barking neighbor dog and piles of dog crap like we find so often on sidewalks and streets around here are much worse than a well-cared for chicken coop might be.

Comment #2:

I would love to have a couple of chickens as pets and for eggs, I have always wanted to do this.

Comment #3:

[We] both support the practice of having controlled chickens in the city. They are a good source of eggs and meat. The manure needs to be addressed in some way. It does make very good fertilizer.

We were listening to a rooster this fall from somewhere in our neighborhood. We think....

Comment #4:

I would like to stress my opposition to the idea. First of all we do not live in a rural area. I am all for having gardens but raising chickens is whole different story. If chickens were allowed then one could argue a few pigs should be OK. The story stated they could sell eggs to the local stores- Maybe they could but one must ask how many chickens would someone have to have to make it worthwhile. I would be very upset if the council ever decided to change the law to allow raising chickens once again and if I ever had to look out my window and saw chickens running around a backyard. We are a frist tier metro area not a rural area for many decades.

In addition to the e-mail, I also received comment in person from a couple who strongly oppose chickens in the city.

Labels: environment

Posted by John Nephew at 1/09/2010 08:56:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Last week's Maplewood Review included an article about urban chickens and Maplewood. I saw a discussion of the topic an an Environmental & Natural Resources Commission meeting earlier this year, and a resident recently brought up the topic in visitior presentations at a council meeting.

Do you have thoughts about whether residents should be allowed to raise chickens in Maplewood, and under what conditions? Drop me a line at my city e-mail and let me know what you think.

Labels: environment, media

Posted by John Nephew at 12/31/2009 09:55:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

The Fish Creek Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission currently has a survey on the city's website, seeking public input about the greenway, how it's used now by residents, how it might be used in the future, and how people feel about things like spending money on conservation. If you are a resident of Maplewood or even a neighboring community, I'd strongly encourage you to fill out the survey. Even if you don't know how to get to Fish Creek, your input can still help (and there's even a "not sure where it is" option to answer the question, "How often do you visit Fish Creek or the Ramsey County Fish Creek open space?")

Please take a couple of minutes to fill out the survey today.

Labels: environment, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 11/30/2009 10:37:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

This week's Maplewood Review includes an article about the first reading (or I suppose I should say, the latest first reading, given how many times this item has come back before the city council for additional discussion and revision) of our updated wetland ordinance. The article also describes Erik Hjelle's outburst that occurred during the wetland discussion.

After this agenda item, the council took a break, during which Mr. Hjelle gathered up his things and left city hall and the remainder of the meeting.

Labels: environment, media

Posted by John Nephew at 11/20/2009 02:06:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Have you heard that nonsense about Maplewood wanting to ban wood fires?

If so, you've encountered the disinformation campaign spearheaded by the supporters of Mayor Diana Longrie and others opposed to Will Rossbach. As has been the case in so many past elections, these people can get into office only by spreading lies and distortions, and by tearing down their opponents. This year it's wood smoke; two years ago it was the bogus claim, promoted by the team of DelRay Rokke and Rebecca Cave, that there were plans to sell city parks and open space to developers. Four years ago there were baseless claims about closing fire stations. No doubt we'll see last minute efforts to exploit every one of these lies again. Even if their tactics don't win new supporters, their fundamental strategy is to turn people off and suppress voting. If turnout is low enough, the thinking goes, their devoted core of supporters will be a majority on election day.

Sometimes they spread their messages through anonymous flyers (like the scare tactic pieces the mayor's husband was caught distributing earlier this year, or the bigoted ones that have more recently appeared). Sometimes they use websites (such as the one that often features Erik Hjelle's bile, and has a domain name registered to council candidate Dave Hafner), cable access TV shows, and photocopied "newspapers" that loudly proclaim independence and non-partisanship while blatantly promoting their candidates.

It's instructive to actually watch the meetings of the wood smoke task force. From the outset, Rossbach made it clear that a ban was not an option. The point was to find ways to improve the ordinance, in ways that both pro- and anti-burning residents could support.

It quickly became clear that a number of people on the task force (among them two people who would be candidates in the primary, Delray Rokke and John Wykoff) were not motivated to find consensus or improve the city code. Their agenda was to make the whole affair into a distorted political issue that could be used against Rossbach in the upcoming campaign. Obstruction and misinformation were the order of the day. Members of this faction would spend a large percentage of the meeting arguing loudly over whether or not to approve the agenda, or disputing the minutes of the previous meeting. Every meeting, with a new audience of angry residents turned out by a new batch of misleading anonymous flyers, they would declare that the true, secret purpose of the task force was to ban wood fires, and would attempt to argue with this straw man in an effort to keep anything from actually being done.

At one meeting, while Dave Hafner yelled at task force members from the audience, John Wykoff even began shouting, "Don't vote for Will Rossbach!"

Is it any wonder that some members of the task force stopped showing up? You can understand the frustration of the people who were there in good faith, on both sides of the issue, while this group hijacked each meeting with their malicious political agenda. The same strategy these people use in city elections — drive away enough reasonable people so that your partisans constitute a majority of those who remain — ultimately enabled them to vote against any changes whatsoever, even to update the city code to match the current state fire code (which supercedes city code anyhow).

For certain people, and the candidates they support (whether it's Rebecca Cave falsely taking credit for moving visitor presentations to the start of council meetings, Dave Hafner declaring at the LWV Forum that there should be no time limits on abusive visitor presentations, or Diana Longrie taking pride in how she mismanages our meetings), this is what they mean by "citizen participation." It means turning city meetings into a cesspool of personal attacks, defamation, and invective. It means driving away reasonable, normal people, and leaving most of the "citizen" voices in the room to be those of the malicious, the obsessed, the dishonest, and the delusional, the failed candidates and the out-of-town agitators who just come for the face time on camera — and then declaring that their voices must be heeded, because "they are the citizens!" and "the citizens are the city!"

A few candidates — such as Jim Llanas, Kathleen Juenemann, and Will Rossbach — think that being a leader means also representing the people who are not in the room. Speaking for the people who elected you because they trust your judgement, and, having jobs and families and lives to live, they have better things to do than be there themselves all the time. Representing the needs of the whole community, not just the loud and obsessive few.

When you vote next week, ask yourself which candidates will be representing you next year, whether or not you're there in the room when they make decisions.

Labels: campaign 2009, environment

Posted by John Nephew at 10/29/2009 05:16:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Tomorrow is Maplewood's Fall Clean-Up Day, taking place at Gethsemane Lutheran Church, 2410 Stillwater Road. Besides accepting many other types of waste, the city will be collecting bicycles in any condition for recycling by Re-Cycle. Donations for the Second Harvest Food Bank will also be accepted.

For more information, see the flyer on the city website. (Printed copies of the flyer have been available in City Hall, too.)

Labels: environment, events, public works

Posted by John Nephew at 10/23/2009 08:12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

This week's Maplewood Review contains a couple articles about recent city council discussions.

"Maplewood working with metro cities on H1N1 plan" reports on the presentation from Fire Chief Steve Lukin about city contingency plans for pandemic flu, and how the city and the metro would deal with things like a large percentage of city personnel being away from work due to illness.

"Maplewood proceeding with wetland ordinance update" reports on the discussion at our September 28th meeting about the latest drafts of the wetlands ordinance, and the effort to come up with a final draft that will address numerous resident concerns.

Labels: environment, media, public safety

Posted by John Nephew at 10/10/2009 11:07:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

In the Star Tribune earlier this week, there's an article about trash hauling. It reports that, according to a recent study by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, residents of cities with consumers choosing their own hauler pay on average 50% more than those with organized collection.

Our city council hasn't talked much about trash hauling, but it's a subject that the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission has investigated and discussed recently. In addition, the City of St. Paul is currently evaluating their open trash collection system. Proponents of organized collection cite the noise of multiple trucks, the extra fuel consumption, and the increased wear on city streets (meaning they have to be repaired and replaced sooner, at taxpayer expense). Opponents have usually argued that competition means lower prices, an assumption that the MPCA now calls into question. The fall-back argument of organized hauling opponents, according to the Star Tribune article, is that "They say the most valuable service isn't always the least expensive, and that competition fosters innovation and more environmentally sound practices."

City Manager Antonen brought this article to the attention of the City Council today, in his weekly "FYI." One council member was offended even to have the subject brought up: Erik Hjelle dashed off an immediate reply to the FYI, and copied the rest of the council, by telling Mr. Antonen, "...you really are a collectivist/socialist..." I guess that tells us how he would vote if organized collection came before the Council.

What might be more useful to know -- given Hjelle's lame-duck status -- is where the candidates for council and mayor stand on the issue of trash hauling. Perhaps someone will ask the question at the upcoming LWV candidate forum?

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, environment, media

Posted by John Nephew at 10/08/2009 04:40:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

The discussion of conservation in Fish Creek goes back a long time. In the more recent past, in early 2008, I suggested the "public ownership option" -- that one way out of the CoPar situation would be for the city to acquire their land for conservation, possibly through a bonding referendum or other means (such as the bills later introduced by our area legislators).

My discussion of public ownership garnered immediate opposition from Dr. Julie Binko, who was then a parks commissioner and is now a city council candidate. In an e-mail sent far and wide in March 2008*, she wrote,

... I was not aware the City of Maplewood was a real estate owner or developer. It is the city's responsibility to protect the municipality from developers. Creating restrictive ordinances addressing endangered watersheds should be adequate. Place set backs or buffers to these lands and developers will not be able to go there. There is no need to cause the citizens of Maplewood to spend money and raise taxes.

In other words, rather than support a plan whereby the city could choose to purchase land for conservation and fairly compensate the land's owners, Binko advocates the creation of "restrictive ordinances" that would simply prevent private landowners from using their own land as they see fit. Then the public could get the conservation benefits for free, she argues.

I can better understand why some people have anxieties about things like the wetland ordinance, if they worry that someone with Binko's perspective might get elected to city council.

(*Binko's e-mail quoted above was CC'd to city staff, including acting city manager Chuck Ahl, and so should be available to the public via data practices request. It was sent on Sunday, March 02, 2008 at 10:03 AM.)

Labels: campaign 2009, development, environment

Posted by John Nephew at 8/22/2009 08:31:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

City council candidate Elizabeth Sletten is a regular at city council meetings, offering her opinions on a variety of subjects. One of her issues is her belief that composting is a major health threat. She brought her concerns to the city council at our meeting of March 10, 2008, when the city was considering a conditional use permit for Xcel Energy.

Every year, the power company trims tree branches that are too near their power lines. Among other things, the permit allows them to store the trimmed branches and brush by their County Road D substation. Several times a year the brush is chipped on site, and then hauled away. Ms. Sletten believes that this collecting of branches and brush, and its chipping, presents a major health risk for the community.

Sletten provided the council with a large packet of information prior to the meeting. It seemed to be an impressive assembly of scientific research to buttress her claims, unless you actually read the documents, and saw that their key conclusions were essentially the opposite of what she claimed they were.

This video includes two excerpts from the long discussion:


In spite of Ms. Sletten's dire warnings about the public health consequences of allowing wood chipping in Maplewood, the council voted unanimously to approve Xcel's conditional use permit.

Labels: campaign 2009, environment, video

Posted by John Nephew at 7/29/2009 08:01:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Yesterday morning Peter Fischer, Dewey Konewko, and I testified in favor of H.F. 2055 at the legislature. Audio of the entire meeting is available on the House web site, but it's a huge file, so I excerpted just the twenty minutes that was spent with our testimony and then follow-up questions and discussions of the committee.



I felt like it was a positive reception on the whole. The bill was “laid over for possible inclusion,” which I guess means it's moving forward and at this point still has a shot at getting Maplewood a share of the Legacy Amendment sales tax revenues that are dedicated for conservation.

Labels: environment, finance, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 4/01/2009 11:39:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Tomorrow one of the Fish Creek bills gets it first committee hearing. The bill, HF 2055, will be heard most likely sometime between 9:30 and 10:00 AM by the Environment and Natural Resources Finance Division. I've been told that it should take less than 10 minutes.

Labels: environment, finance

Posted by John Nephew at 3/30/2009 01:12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Last night at our regular council meeting we talked about progress in the legislature on funding for land acquisition in the Fish Creek corridor. This afternoon the city council (and other interested parties) received an e-mail from Senator Wiger, who wrote:

Hi Everyone,

I wanted to let you know that I enjoyed the conversation the City Council had about Fish Creek during its meeting last night. I was able to watch the show on TV after getting home.

As you know, Rep. Slawik, Rep. Lillie and I have been working on legislation to purchase land along Fish Creek so that it can be preserved for future generations. We have introduced two bills that request funding in the amount of $2.4 million to purchase the land. One of the bills (SF 1821/HF 2055) requests funding from the Parks and Trails fund, while the other bill (SF 1822/HF 2054) requests funding from the Outdoor Heritage Fund. Since we received some mixed feedback on which funding route to pursue, and since the proposal could potentially be funded through either route, we introduced both proposals in the hopes that one will be considered for funding.

I will be sure to keep you updated on the status of this legislation in the Senate.

Warm Regards,

Chuck

Here are links to the status pages of the bills that Sen. Wiger mentions: SF 1821, HF 2055; SF 1822, HF 2054.

Labels: environment, finance, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 3/24/2009 04:53:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

So, what is the wood smoke task force doing? I had some idea of what they would be talking about when we approved its formation (Erik Hjelle offered the motion to authorize the task force, I seconded it, and the council approved it unanimously at our Feb. 25, 2008 meeting). This past Wednesday, Nov. 19th, I went to observe their latest meeting.

The group represents a wide range of opinion, and was trying to establish points of consensus. There was an audience full of people turned out by the false rumors of a ban on wood fires, which the task force was quick to refute. The task force moved ahead to agree on these points:

Education: There was a consensus that the biggest problem is a matter of resident education about existing rules for wood fires, and techniques for more efficient wood burning. Residents may also not be aware of existing programs (such as tax credits) available to help offset the cost of replacing older, less-efficient wood heating appliances with newer ones. For any kind of wood burning, "less efficient" means "more smoke," because wood smoke is the product of incomplete combustion.

Ordinance Clarification: The task force seemed to agree that the current recreational fire ordinance could use clarification. An example point of confusion was the issue of lumber -- either the current ordinance bans things that perhaps should be OK to burn (say, clean and dry pieces of cedar from a demolished deck), or fails to stop the burning of hazardous things (such as treated lumber scrap).

Other Code Updates: There was some discussion about whether the council should recommend adopting EPA ratings standards as a requirement for new installations of wood furnaces. It seemed to me that this may or not be in their final recommendation.

I am grateful to all of the task force members who are willing to volunteer their time to look at these issues and help find common ground for recommendations that can improve the health and happiness of Maplewood's residents.

Labels: environment

Posted by John Nephew at 11/23/2008 11:56:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

The city has received many phone calls and e-mails in recent weeks about the wood smoke task force, and fears that there will be a ban on wood fires in Maplewood.

No law has been proposed to ban wood fires in Maplewood, recreational or otherwise. I wouldn't support such a ban, I don't believe anyone on the city council would support it, and the wood smoke task force would never propose it in the first place.

The rumor mill has been going wild on this issue, and anonymous persons have been printing and distributing misleading flyers to residents in south Maplewood. Apparently some talk radio programs have also been helping spread misinformation, and a recent newspaper letter to the editor tries to further fan the flames of panic.

Perhaps the disinformation campaign for next year's city elections is starting already.

Labels: council politics, environment

Posted by John Nephew at 11/22/2008 10:05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

The latest legislative update from Maplewood's state senator, Chuck Wiger, includes succinct and informative write-ups about the conditions of lakes in Maplewood, North Saint Paul, and Oakdale. If you're not on Sen. Wiger's mailing list, I encourage you to download the update from the senate website and take a look.

Labels: environment

Posted by John Nephew at 11/21/2008 04:06:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

The mayor's column in the November city newsletter (page 5) again promoted her proposal of conservation easements for city parks and open space. I think it's interesting to contrast her account of a Parks Commission meeting with the draft minutes.

For example, while playing up the 4-4 split vote about the Priory, she doesn't even mention that another conservation easement was discussed under the very same agenda item, for Jim's Prairie -- and that the commission unanimously agreed not to recommend that easement. That pesky fact might undermine her dishonest political argument, which has been to suggest that questioning the appropriateness of conservation easements means you must want to see our Neighborhood Preserves sold to developers. (Remember the fear-mongering in last year's election campaign?)

In reality, as the minutes make clear, there are plenty of other reasons to question conservation easements on public land, starting with the cost. The city has already sunk about $8,000 on outside consultants, plus many hours of staff time, on this idea that the mayor has been pushing for the past two years. Proceeding with the easements would mean spending another $25,000. It sounds to me like some on the Parks Commission would rather see the money spent directly on restoration and management of our open spaces, rather than funding the mayor's political gambit.

Labels: council politics, environment, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 11/19/2008 03:20:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Last week a journalism student e-mailed me with questions about the council's decision about Sterling Street, for an article she was writing for class. Following are her questions and my answers.

Q: How long have you held your position as a Council Person?

A: I was elected last fall, and sworn into office this past January.

Q: What is the rationale behind closing Sterling Street?

A: Sterling was under consideration as a street project this year. Residents along the road petitioned the council to ask that it be closed from Ripley to Larpenteur. The feasibility study prepared for the city considered closure of the road as one option as part of the road project. Staff ultimately had a neutral recommendation on whether to close or reconstruct it. The feasibility study said, "The low traffic volume and alternate access on the north end via Mary Joe Lane does not indicate a need of a through connection of this street for traffic flow purposes."

I did vote to close the road. Factors that were important to me were that the secluded stretch of road was an invitation for illicit activities (teen alcohol consumption, illegal dumping, etc.), and the section of road across the wetland area could not be properly engineered in terms of soil corrections. Thus it is not only expensive to reconstruct the street, but the soils would have limited the lifespan of the road, meaning a higher future cost as well for maintenance and replacement. Closing the road in my view was an opportunity to save taxpayer dollars and reduce a law enforcement and environmental nuisance.

Besides the taxpayers of the city at large (who pay most road reconstruction costs), consider too the property owners along the now-closed road section, who would have been assessed tens of thousands of dollars for the rebuilding of a road they do not use, in order to allow another neighborhood to keep a shortcut into North Saint Paul. If those property owners successfully challenged their assessments, arguing that their properties did not benefit from the improvement, it would have meant even more expense for the taxpayers.

Q: Even with a petition why were residents unable to gain a public hearing?

A: It's important to understand that a public hearing is a formal step in the process of a public works project. If the council intended to re-open the street, we would have been required by law to call a public hearing. I believe a public hearing would simply have repeated the arguments we heard during the discussion of the petition, and those arguments did not change the mind of the council.

State law has a lot of specifics governing street improvements. One aspect of the law is that to order an improvement, there has to be a supermajority of at least 4/5 of the city council (see Minnesota Statute 429.031 Subd. 1 (f)). At the February 25, 2008, council meeting, we had voted unanimously to close the street. After hearing the petition and extensive public comment at our September 22nd meeting (more than 3/4 of it asking that we not reopen the street), only one member of the council expressed an interest in calling a public hearing, and it was not clear that she actually would vote to reopen the street -- just that she was willing to continue the discussion.

When someone complains that residents did not get a public hearing, they may give the impression that they were refused the chance to present their views to the council. In fact the petition was on our agenda for 9/22. We received and considered the petition at that meeting, and took public comment from everyone who came forward to offer it that night. But since our minds were not changed, there was no point in repeating the exercise under the formality of a public hearing under M.S.429.

Q: Were the concerned residents notified ahead of time about the meeting that would discuss the official closing of Sterling Street?

A: I believe that the answer is "no," if by "concerned" you mean the residents who oppose the street closure. But this is because the residents opposing the street closure live in a different neighborhood than the one where the street project was occurring.

Residents in the immediate area of the improvements and closure were notified by all the usual means -- letters, neighborhood public meetings, etc. It was as a result of those notifications, of course, that they knew about the project and petitioned to ask that the road be closed. And public hearings, such as the one on Feb. 25th before our decision to close the street, have to be publicized as required by statute (two notices published in the newspaper). In addition, notice of the meetings and all of the related materials, including discussion of possible closure, were available to the public in advance of the meeting on the city's website.

Q: Is there evidence to back the claims of gun shots, dumping, and drug dealing along the street?

A: There seems to be widespread agreement that there is dumping. Even people who want the street reopened agreed that this was so, but they downplayed its scale or significance. There also seems to be agreement that it is a bit of a party spot; at our Feb. 25th meeting, the police chief stated that the police do see the evidence of it afterwards, even if they are not called out to respond to it when it's happening. Neighbors who live in the immediate area reported the gun shots and drug dealing. Some people who live in other neighborhoods, and want the street reopened, voiced skepticism about these claims, but it's not clear to how they would be in a better position to know what might go on there in the early hours of the morning, compared to people who actually live right by the area at issue.

Q: What is your opinion, should the street be closed or open?

A: I stand by the decision to close it.

Here are some links you may find useful:

2/25/08 meeting minutes (decision to close Sterling)
9/22/08 meeting minutes (receiving and discussion of petition to reopen)
Maplewood Review article

Labels: environment, process, public works

Posted by John Nephew at 10/20/2008 11:37:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

On Saturday, October 4th, Maplewood is running a "Nature in the Neighborhood" workshop, with a focus on south Maplewood. The city's press release reads:

Nature in the Neighborhood Workshop

The City of Maplewood and its partners present Nature in the Neighborhood: A Workshop and Field Trip. Join us October 4, 2008, 9:00 a.m. - 2:30 p.m., to explore natural resources in a suburban neighborhood and learn how homeowners can protect and enhance backyard habitat. Call Maplewood Nature Center (651-249-2170) to register. $10 fee, includes lunch.

The workshop will focus on a neighborhood in south Maplewood but the information will be applicable to much of the metropolitan region. It includes classroom sessions, field trip and lunch. Dr. Kim Chapman from Applied Ecological Services (AES) will present sessions on neighborhood ecology and enhancing backyard habitat. Sarah Strommen from Minnesota Land Trust will present a session on conservation easements for private landowners. On the field trip, participants will visit the “grand canyon” of Fish Creek and a tour a home on Snake Creek where the owners are enhancing backyard habitat.

This workshop is made possible by a grant from Embrace Open Space. Workshop partners include City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Applied Ecological Services, and Minnesota Land Trust.

Embrace Open Space is a collaborative that serves as a catalyst for greater citizen and elected leadership to conserve and steward natural areas and parks, lakes and rivers in the eleven-county Twin Cities area.

There is also an informational flyer that you can easily download and print out for yourself or to share with neighbors.

This workshop extends the city's efforts from earlier this year regarding Natural Greenway Corridors, which has been part of our comprehensive plan update process. At a joint commissions meeting on March 18th, we learned about the city's greenway corridors and the idea of preserving and enhancing those corridors across public and private land. This workshop and field trip takes the discussion a step further, by actually visiting properties in one of the identified greenway corridors.

Labels: environment, events

Posted by John Nephew at 9/23/2008 03:53:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

This Saturday, September 20th, the Friends of Maplewood Nature are holding their 2nd Annual Picnic & Fundraiser from 10:30 am-1:00 pm. at the Bruentrup Farm. The purpose of the event is to increase the Friends Group membership and raise funds for the new Outdoor Nature Play Area kids climbing rock.

The schedule of events includes a "Protect Your Trees from Winter Class" by a certified arborist; a picnic lunch; a silent auction; and a farm tour, including a short hike into the Open Space Prairie.

The event is free to all Friends Members. New members are welcome to join at the party; membership donations are $15 for a household. RSVPs to the nature center are encouraged (651-249-2170, or contact Oakley at Oakley.Biesanz@ci.maplewood.mn.us), and I'm sure it will help them plan the right number of picnic lunches. But if you're reading this late and don't have time to RSVP, you should just stop by the event anyway.

Labels: environment, events, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 9/18/2008 10:20:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

An article in today's Pioneer Press discusses something that the new Maplewood Green Team may look into: LED street lights. Earlier this year I read an article in the National League of Cities newspaper talking about the energy savings from these light-emitting diode fixtures, and I wondered if it was something we'd be seeing in our neck of the woods. Now Xcel Energy is trying them out in some Brooklyn Park neighborhoods. "The utility will test the lights for output and clarity and their performance in harsh weather for one year," the article states. If the test results are good, maybe we'll see more of them around the metro, including Maplewood. These lights cost more up front, but save money over time as they use 25%-50% less electricity and last 4-5 times as long as the conventional technology.

Labels: environment

Posted by John Nephew at 9/11/2008 04:21:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

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: development, 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: development, 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, media

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

Besides the Planning Commission meeting, last week I also attended the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting. One topic brought up by city staff at the meeting was news of heavy metals in the Gladstone Savanna. (Not a buried collection of Mötley Crüe albums, no, we're talking about arsenic and lead.) The city planned a public meeting to talk about the environmental consultant's findings and possible remediation plans.

Today the agenda and packet for the meeting, which will be held at 6 PM this coming Monday (March 5) in council chambers at City Hall, was posted to the city website. It includes some basic Q&A and a map of the site with the locations and results of various soil tests.

Labels: environment, events, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 3/01/2007 02:47:00 PM | Permalink