Podcast: Chamber of Commerce President David Ludescher on the Comprehensive Plan
May.31 2007 at 07:31 by Griff Wigley
Northfield Chamber of Commerce President David Ludescher was our in-studio guest this week. David’s words about the development principles (see draft 2 here - PDF) during the open mic portion of the second public meeting on the Northfield Comprehensive Plan a couple of weeks ago (right photo, click to enlarge) caught our attention and so we invited him to argue with us discuss the issues. He recently attached these comments to the public comments portion of the plan’s website (public comments are still being accepted there):
55% of the participants in the Comp Plan meeting stated that the primary objective of the Comp Plan should be directed to Northfield’s “appearance”. I would argue that a Comp Plan directed at maximizing appearances will more closely resemble a townhouse association than the utopia which is imagined. Someone told me last night that she used to belong to a townhouse association that made her take down a birdhouse because it violated the rules established to keep the townhouses looking nice.
I am almost sure that our present downtown was primarily the result of haphazard development, which was quite likely considered an eyesore by many in its own day. The east side homes, considered by many to be the ideal kind of housing development for Northfield, were quite likely, the Mayflower Hill of its day. They were large, monstrous houses compared to the shantys which were the norm. These houses probably ruined the character of Northfield of the time.
Should “appearances” dominate the planning strategy for Northfield? Would we settle for the appearance that our children are learning, instead of requiring educational product as the true test? Would we settle for the doctor making us look good on the outside while our health deteriorated? Would we buy a car that looked good if it didn’t have a working engine? Would we consider the most important quality of our friends that they look good?
We all know that a Comp Plan designed on appearances, and for appearance’s sake will ultimately fail to achieve anything but appearances.
I say that we need to strive for more lasting, and intrinsically valuable goals for the future of our town. Let’s take a serious and honest look at what Northfield needs to do in the coming decades to continue to be a self-sustaining community. Granted, people will be attracted to Northfield if it looks wonderful, has great public amenities, and offers a small town character. But, it will not be a diverse cross-section of people. It will be people who want to belong to a very large townhouse association in which the price of admission is high taxes and excessive regulation. — David Ludescher
Click play to listen. 34 minutes. (Corrected audio as of 1:45 PM)
Our show, Locally Grown, airs on Tuesdays at 4:30 PM, KRLX, 88.1 FM. You can also subscribe to the podcast feed, or subscribe with iTunes. We seek your comments and suggestions. Attach a comment to this blog post or use the Contact Us page to send us email. See the show archives for audio of other episodes.
Posted in Businesses, Government, Podcasts
Jerry Bilek May 31, 2007 12:21 pm
this sounds like last week’s podcast.
#1
Griff Wigley May 31, 2007 1:23 pm
Ack! You’re right, Jerry… Curt alerted me, too. My bad. Fix on the way.
#2
Griff Wigley May 31, 2007 1:47 pm
Fixed as of 1:45 PM today. Podcast episode RSS deleted and reissued. Apologies to all who were forced to listen to us 3 again from last week.
#3
Jerry Bilek June 1, 2007 3:46 pm
I hope you all wore protective gear. Are these the views of David or the Chamber?
Where to start? I would hope the Chamber would not advocate that code violations should be ignored. Maybe we put up some Hoovervilles, that would be cheap. Free Market.
David said prices are higher in Northfield? What prices? real estate, rentals, groceries, clothing, gas?
Safety tip for Tracy. If you use the word “we,” duck immediately after saying it or you may have your head taken off.
David,
You said you moved here by choice, you liked what you saw, the beautiful historic town on the river. Now your willing to throw it out the window in favor of freedom of choice.
I was hoping to join the chamber this year. If these are the views of the chamber, no thanks.
#4
David Ludescher June 1, 2007 6:24 pm
Thanks to the hosts for having me on the air. I appreciated the opportunity to use some of my hosts’ time to explain an alternative position to the development principles being proposed.
The Northfield AREA Chamber of Commerce’s position is reflected in its mission statement - to be a leader in creating a healthy business environment. Even though the views expressed on air where my own opinions, the Chamber is quite concerned that the development principles will negatively impact a need that both the Chamber and the EDA (Economic Development Authority) have identified, namely, the development of usable land for commercial and industrial development. Without an expansion in these vital areas, we are likely to see either stagnation of public services, or substantially increased taxes on residential properties to pay for these services.
The views which I expressed at the Comprehensive Plan meeting were a better reflection of the difficulties that I and the Chamber board sees with implementation of these principles without additional thought and input.
For example, what would have been the result of the new hospital if it had been forced to develop on the west side rather than expanding? The conclusion of the hospital board, a public body, was that the long term future of the hospital would be in serious jeopardy. They concluded that the end result would have been that we wouldn’t have had a hospital for Northfield.
What would happen if we were to try to remove the trailer parks? Where would those people, many of them immigrants, go? Build them affordable housing? With whose money?
Recently, the Extension Service came to Northfield to speak on Northfield’s retail environment. The NDDC, Chamber, EDA, and Mayor were all there. We heard that Northfield presently has retail sales equal to 49% of what could be expected for a town our size. That means that Northfielders spend more dollars outside of Northfield than inside. If tourism is considered, Northfielders may be spending 2 or 3 dollars outside of Northfield for every dollar they spend here. Furthermore, that 49% has been dropping. Can “we” develop a Comprehensive Plan that addresses this concern, especially for the downtown retailers,
What those figures say to me is that Northfield is turning into a bedroom community. Do we want to encourage and design a “special” bedroom community or do we want to encourage and design a total community? The total community has to balance visual, intellectual, and spiritual attractiveness with the utilitarian realities of price, value, and practicality.
In fairness to the Planning Commission, they have not been presented with any alternatives. (However, neither has it asked.) The Chamber has begun to prepare some alternatives. We would then hope to coordinate our efforts with the other business groups, including the EDA, NDDC, and NEC to present, what we view, is a more balanced, i.e. comprehensive plan, for Northfield’s future.
When all is said and done, the Chamber hopes that everyone in Northfield can say that “we” have a comprehensive plan that serves the common good, and not just a particular, albeit articulate and well-meaning, fraction of the community.
It has been said that some things are proposed for belief, some things for hope, and some things for action. The Planning Commission presently has a Plan for Hope. Now, we need to take it and make it a comprehensive plan for action. The Chamber stands ready to do its part.
#5
Peter Waskiw June 1, 2007 9:28 pm
Developing principles is important components in any decision making system, especially in City government where competing objectives face one another. The principles guide the decision makers in making sound decisions even though there can be disagreement.
Perhaps, view the principles as a ruder guiding a ship. The ruder doesn’t get the ship to its destination, nor drive the sails nor man the ropes, but simply steers the boat. The ruder is an unseen object in the water but when ignored and not used makes the journey…well, pointless with no direction.
The current Comprehensive plan did develop principles. Where these principles ever used in making decisions when competing objectives emerged in discussions? Where they used to create a situation where the questions were asked, what principle do we have to guide our decision? What is it that we want to achieve? I know of very few “planning” decisions where the current principles where used to either base a decision or allow decision makers to refocus the discussion. Basically, principles assist to address the essentials that DEFINE Northfield. They let decision makers and those that guide them measure the discussion and alternately their votes.
Plans can not cover ever element of development or planning, nor should they, however principles can. Principles can be referenced throughout the plan and be supported by polices that ‘flesh out’ the framework. In a way principles are quasi performance objectives that allow the issue to be ‘measured’ against the performance of the outcome…whatever it is. For example, I have pasted below sections from the existing Comprehensive Plan that address very important elements such as “Identity”, “Businesses Compatibility”, “Transportation Patterns”
Identity:- Existing principle: “Northfield should project a clear community identity reflecting its history, landmarks, natural resources, and distinctive sense of place.
How have we used this existing principle in making decisions? If you answered, I don’t know then, perhaps, Northfield as either ignored the use of principles in the past in making decision or fails to understand how to use them. Will developing new ones bring about a change of heart?
Businesses Compatibility:- Existing principle: “Northfield should provide an attractive environment for businesses compatible with the community to succeed.”
How have we used this one? Which businesses have located to Northfield that supports this performance outcome? If all Economic development is healthy, then, any development is “compatible”! However, if you define “compatible” with the word “community” then perhaps we define the Northfield community as being different to say some other communities. Again, how has this principle been understood or even implemented in assisting decision makers? If your answer is don’t know or not sure, then perhaps creating a new principle will not help.
What about “Transportation Patterns”? Existing principle: “Northfield’s transportation system should support a traditional community development pattern.
Here we have the words “system” with “traditional” with “pattern”. Has decisions regarding transportation patterns or systems reflected this principle? Current debate over existing transportation networks reflects a lack of thinking behind this principle.
David’s comments above regarding principles stated that “development principles (draft 2) will negatively impact a need that both the Chamber and the EDA (Economic Development Authority) have identified, namely, the development of usable land for commercial and industrial development.” Perhaps you’re right David. But I would argue that the real risk is that the new principles will not be implemented at all, even in their limited form. The missing element is not so much having the right principles, but actually using them to guide decisions in the face of competing objectives. After all, Northfield decisions makers need to base their decisions on something that the resident believes to be the best outcome for the entire community.
#6
Ross Currier June 2, 2007 10:28 am
David:
Thank you so much for appearing on our show. And thank you for spending so much time at the Second Public Meeting talking with me about your concerns and sharing those concerns with the assembled group.
First, I’ve got some shocking news for you. “Your” HRA (Housing and Redevelopment Authority) has not only moved beyond the planning stage for “removing the trailer parks” but has already set aside funds for this project. I think that you and I would agree that very few of the current residents will likely be able to afford to remain living there after this redevelopment.
Second, you are spot-on correct that Northfield’s Retail Pull Factor has been steadily dropping. And I totally agree with you that we should be concerned about it. However, I will note that Northfield’s decline is mirrored by comparable communities. Our near proximity to the Metro Area is a real challenge. Nevertheless, public and private entities could be doing more to address this issue.
Finally, I think we would agree that Northfield must put “business-friendliness” at the top of its priorities. Whether out of concern for “tax base” or desire for long-term economic “sustainability”, it is one of the most important things that we can work on together. I think you, and the Chamber, have made important progress toward this goal by expanding the focus of your lobbying campaign beyond the Planning Commission to include the EDA. I hope that you will also include the HRA, the City Council and the State Legislature too. Who knows, we may even get some ideas at the NDDC’s Forum (http://nddc.org/weblog/post/702/) on Tuesday.
Thanks again for raising this important topic,
Ross
#7
Anne Bretts June 2, 2007 8:39 pm
I guess the question I have is about what all these principles really mean. They sound like a bunch of variations on how much we like apple pie, without a single recipe indicating how that pie might be made. And I know we’re talking guiding principles here, but can you guide a ship with the only principles being that we’d like to get from New York to London in a nicely designed boat and not drown?
I understand the frustration of the Chamber and others. I don’t agree with total construction anarchy, but vague principles leave too much open to interpretation by the Planning Commission. Phrases such as “protecting the character of the community” could be used to support a total residential construction moratorium, and if that’s the goal it should be stated. Some want that now. If it’s a majority, the rest of us should know.
So what is desirable growth, or is there any? Given the population and surrounding market area, what kind of retail can and should the community reasonably draw? For example, Chipotle might come in, but we are 30,000 people and a mall short of drawing an Olive Garden. (I’m not saying chain restaurants are the answer, just giving an example of different traffic counts needed for different businesses.) Who are the targets for the NDDC and EDA recruiting efforts? What list of targets was used to determine the retail at The Crossing was a viable development? What was the project so prized if the demand wasn’t there, while successful projects on Highway 3 are criticized?
The overarching mystery is why we are re-inventing the wheel. Have we looked a what communities are the closest match to what Northfield could be, and how they got there? It’s nice to think Northfield is “unique” but there are lots of similar towns facing similar issues. What makes one work while another struggles?
It just seems that testing a variety of apple pies and tweaking the recipes to get the right result for Northfield would be more efficient (and satisfying) than just sitting here with a pile of apples, flour, shortening and sugar and starting from scratch.
#8
David Ludescher June 3, 2007 7:27 am
I have heard at least 4 good thoughts to carry back to the Chamber, (and the City?) for the Comp Plan process:
1. Focus on the positives of what has been developed. There are strong sentiments for creating a town that is “special”.
2. The process will be wasted if the Plan does not actually guide decisions. The Plan has to be a rudder for the City. What systems are in place to make sure it is used?
3. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Let’s take a look at other communities and their plans to see what they did, and how the plans were implemented.
4. The Chamber’s “lobbying” campaign should include a broad cross-section of Northfield government and the people.
Thanks to all.
#9
Tracy Davis June 3, 2007 6:46 pm
I have to chime in and plead with everyone to PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT GUIDING PRINCIPLES ARE ONLY THE FIRST STEP. If we stop there, we’ve failed. Personally, I have absolutely no interest in serving on a body that would only concern itself with vague principles; we have plenty of those already.
The whole impetus behind the comp plan revision is to change our land use ordinances to make them current, clear, and cohesive. If done properly this will promote economic growth in Northfield, rather than hinder it. But the ordinances shouldn’t just come out of nowhere; they need to be tied to underlying goals and objectives, which in turn must relate to a community vision, which is the part we’re working on now.
Maybe a better way to put it is to think of this first “visioning”/draft principles part as the view from 30,000 feet. Then we zoom in a little closer to making goals and objectives, finally bringing us down to ground level with the ordinances.
#10
Tracy Davis June 3, 2007 6:47 pm
Or to continue Anne’s analogy, the ordinances would be the recipe for that tasty apple pie.
#11
Tracy Davis June 3, 2007 7:00 pm
I also don’t think we need to reinvent the wheel. Even though Northfield doesn’t have many (any?) close analogues in terms of college communities in a traditionally agricultural area within 45 miles of a major metropolitan center, much work has been done with “smart codes” or “form-based codes” in other communities which enables us to see how they work, and what the economic downsides are or could be.
#12
Anne Bretts June 3, 2007 8:06 pm
I understand what guiding principles are. I’ve watched dozens of communities similar to Northfield go through the same process. And in the end everyone pretty much agrees they like apple pie (to continue the analogy). I just don’t see why it takes so many months and so much money to order dessert.
As for similiar towns, here’s a list of 10 small college towns I found in about a minute on http://www.epodunk.com/top10/colleges/index.html
TOP-RANKED COLLEGE TOWNS
BY COMMUNITY SIZE
BIG CITIES
1 Boston-Cambridge, MA
2 Minneapolis, MN
3 Denver, CO
4 Columbus, OH
5 Seattle, WA
6 Atlanta, GA
7 Austin, TX
8 Washington, DC
9 Cincinnati, OH
10 Saint Louis, MO
MEDIUM-SIZED CITIES
1 Columbia, SC
2 Tallahassee, FL
3 Madison, WI
4 Urbana-Champaign, IL
5 Ann Arbor, MI
6 Berkeley, CA
7 Athens, GA
8 Fort Collins, CO
9 New Haven, CT
10 Provo, UT
SMALL CITIES
1 Charlottesville, VA
2 Bozeman, MT
3 Hays, KS
4 Boulder, CO
5 Missoula, MT
6 Manhattan, KS
7 Burlington, VT
8 Bismarck, ND
9 Iowa City, IA
10 Chapel Hill, NC
TOWNS
1 Hanover, NH
2 Princeton, NJ
3 Brookings, SD
4 Middlebury, VT
5 Durango, CO
6 Bronxville, NY
7 Menomonie, WI
8 Oneonta, NY
9 Rolla, MO
10 Conway, SC
I grew up near Valparaiso, Indiana, a really good match for Northfield when it started growing 15 years ago. Now it’s much bigger and more developed, a result of the unending growth of the Chicago market.
Vincennes, Indiana, is another similar town, although a bit more rural.
There are several others in Wisconsin.
And I think that there needs to be an effort to do a survey or other method to reach out and really get a handle on public opinion. The self-selection of community meetings, where people with strong anti-growth agendas have an incentive to attend, can intimidate others from speaking or even attending. This can result in a product that becomes a reflection of the loudest voices rather than the majority.
Sure, people have a responsibility to speak, but the pattern of public meetings is that the people with an agenda and an incentive to push a point of view tend to make the effort to show up, while people who are happy with the development and growth don’t. It happens with all kinds of issues, not just growth.
#13
Bill Ostrem June 3, 2007 11:14 pm
First I’ll use this conversation to reply to Mr. Ludescher regarding the comments he made at the second public meeting on the comprehensive plan revision. I apologize for not yet listening to the podcast.
Mr. Ludescher, I agree that Northfield needs to keep a vital business community, and I am not opposed to new development entirely. I’m not even absolutely opposed to new development on the edge of town. However, I’m concerned about the comment you made that implementing the new planning principles would make living in Northfield much more expensive. You said that only “the elite” would be able to live here.
How do you know this? What is your reasoning?
Also, you seemed to dismiss all the principles as misguided, and this concerns me very much, because I see them as just where communities need to go. Which principles do you agree with, if any?
I’d like to propose that a “green” development plan of the kind we seem to be moving towards - one that, for example, would promote higher-density development and more traditional, less automobile-dependent communities - is not incompatible with economic development. Let’s not get lost in “either/or” thinking when “both/and” thinking might be possible.
My last comment is more for the entire community: I’m concerned that people in the comp plan revision process will downplay the comments and concerns of the majority of the people who turned out for the public meetings. These people cared and turned out, and let’s not forget what they said.
#14
Anne Bretts June 4, 2007 12:00 am
Hello, Bill,
I live out in one of the new developments near the soccer fields. We have bike trails and a mix of high and lower density housing at various price points. We are within walking distance of schools and parks and we have small back yards that open onto a common area with a drainage system that has created nice habitat for birds and other animals. We are adjacent to existing homes and neighborhoods. But to think there are enough people here to support a self-contained business district within walking distance is misguided. Yet people refer to this area as sprawl.
The only good news about having more than 400 empty housing units on the market is that it sounds like there’s time to get the details worked out on a new plan and ordinances. I’d like the people who want to limit development to provide some real constructive evaluation of what works and what doesn’t and what needs to be changed. That’s not a challenge. I’d really like to have a discussion on what this recipe needs to be.
Personally, I believe there should be reasonable limits on growth. I believe requiring signficantly more landscaping and tree planting in new areas would go a long way to making them “assimilate” better. The small, ticky-tacky boxes made after World War II look downright cute with hostas and lilacs and shade trees framing them. And I am old enough to remember how bare those kinds of developments looked when they were built.
I realize people who came to the planning meetings deserve to have their say, but they don’t represent the majority, they represent 250 people in a town of 18,000 or so. It’s hard to believe that, I know. But it’s hard to stand up to a crowd. God knows I’m not a wallflower, but I wouldn’t have gone to that meeting. And I receive e-mails from people all the time saying they agree with me in these forumns but can’t summon the nerve to make a comment themselves. I don’t say I speak for the majority by any means. I speak for myself, just as the people at the meeting spoke only for themselves.
I look forward to the Chamber officials and business leaders and environmentalists and bicyclists coming together to find some common ground. This is not a win/lose debate, but a conversation among friends and neighbors.
(Finally, sorry for including the long list above. I meant to paste just the small towns list.)
#15
David Ludescher June 4, 2007 8:50 am
To respond to some of the earlier questions: in discussing the Development Principles with the other Chamber board members, the consensus was that the principles did not speak to the Chamber’s mission - the promotion of a healthy business environment.
One of the major challenges for Northfield in developing business principles is that some of our largest businesses and Northfield’s most attractive features are directly related to non-property tax paying entities.
The Development Principles are a good start in describing what people (at that meeting) would want if they didn’t have to pay for it. But, as an earlier writer noted, of what value are development principles if they don’t actually guide the process of development?
If, in situations where the development is by a public entity, such as the hospital or the school, and we are unable to implement these design principles because of cost or impracticality do we really want to make these principles the basis for decision-making?
By my remarks at the Comp Plan meeting, it was my hope that an alternative voice could be heard before it was too late. To the credit of those in charge, not only has the Chamber’s voice been heard, but the Chamber has been directly and indirectly challenged to be more than just a critic. We accept the challenge. As another letter writer noted, we don’t have to reinvent the recipe. We only need to make sure that we have all of the ingredients. The Chamber, together with the other business organizations - the NDDC, NEC, and EDA - need to present a common theme of how businesses work for the common good of Northfield.
#16
Peter Waskiw June 4, 2007 6:54 pm
Anne
I think you are over reacting to Bill’s point. I’m afraid your fear mongering. However, let’s move on. To follow you recipe analogy, taste really has nothing to do with it. I don’t think people are dictating “taste”. People will always choose what they want. If grocery stores in Northfield are too expensive people will drive to Faribault…a fact! Not because of taste but because of something else more important, financial considerations. Taste is only as good as one can afford. Economic Planning 101… You only have so much money in your wallet each week after the bills are paid.
So how does this relate to principles, if we ignore a starting point and we don’t know what to achieve…it pretty clear what will happen.
But I believe from my own experience, that planning is about determining a future state and how to get their. It’s about developing a strategy for the vision and seeking the means to achieve it. Because of the political process we have, there is an expectation that decision makers, disillusioned or not, are expected to make the best decision in the face of competing objectives, knowing all the issues and weighting up the options. Does this happen…..not always. Planners have the responsibility, if they live up to there code of ethics, to create a situation for decision makers to make the best decision.
While we are at the ‘visioning’ stage of the process for the comprehensive plan, this debate about “principles” is important in two ways. First, understanding what a planning principle really is. Second, understand how to build upon a principle with objectives, strategies, measures, codes and ordinances. It is a multi layered process with a built in integrity if used properly. A process that requires constant maintenance, navigating, forecasting and sheer luck. It IS hard work to achieve a desire outcome based upon environmental, economic, social, transportation, cultural, infrastructure, and heritage objectives that everyone agrees upon.
For example, let’s take it a step further, what about this desire outcome (or planning principle if you like)
Economic Sustainability:
A prosperous, productive and broad economy which reinforces the City strengths in educational facilities, commercial and business services, rural activities, health facilities, transportation infrastructure, while diversifying this base consistent with the City’s Character and it’s resources.
Now, if the above sounds OK, what type of measures would need to be implemented to achieve Economic Sustainability?
What about:
1. Supporting development which adds to the economic benefits available through the education area and particularly to the Colleges.
2. Supporting development that recognizes the contribution of natural resources, amenity and lifestyle values to the City’s economy and does not impact upon these values.
One very simple desire outcome or planning principle, with two very different but simple measures related to Economic Sustainability based on known measurable resources, Education and Natural Resources.
It’s one thing to know you have something, but it’s an entirely different thing to value it.
#17
Betsey Buckheit June 4, 2007 7:32 pm
This discussion hovers over a couple of topics.
1. Vague principles/decision-driving regulations: The 2001 Comp Plan had the principles, but no revision to zoning and subdivision regulations took place. The parts of town generally considered “sprawlish” such as Anne’s soccer field neighborhood were planned and implemented under the 2001 Plan which embraced traditional neighborhood design. What the city couldn’t accomplish at that time, although the Planning Commission discussed it, were such things as integrating multi-family and single family within blocks (rather than pockets of each type), increasing density, encouraging a variety of lot sizes, and considering the topography of the land before the planning was done. The city was tied to its subdivision requirements which set minimum lot sizes and low density rules, but no mechanisms for encouraging or requiring other configurations. So the land use regulations are crucial, but…
2. Business friendliness or not: I hope the planning commission will untangle the several issues here. There is procedural friendliness: are the land use regulations easy to understand, implement and do they help businesses meet the city’s development goals by streamlining the time and effort needed for approval of projects? There is the “where can businesses locate and grow?” question which the city needs to answer by designating places for commercial development (which may or may not be “mixed” with residential uses) which are also have well-planned transportation connections. There is also the design friendliness question: how much regulation of the looks of commercial buildings is desirable? It’s possible to ban “franchise architecture” or impose design guidelines of varying strictness - what level of regulation is business friendly?
3. Chamber lobbying: The information I always wanted when I was on the Planning Commission was “what is the economic impact?” and we rarely it. How much would a large residential subdivision increase the tax base and how much would it cost the city in terms of increased services? What is the burden to businesses of design regulations? How much risk do businesses take when asking for zoning approvals (and how much can they stand)? What’s the difference in cost between redevelopment and new development? Help the City make smart choices by providing information about the business community and where their interaction with city regulations can be improved.
Sorry for the long post, but I’ve been reading all your comments and thinking for a while.
#18
Anne Bretts June 4, 2007 11:01 pm
Thanks, Betsey, that’s the first time anyone has been able to tell me exactly what it is they don’t like about my neighborhood. We are not so far apart, after all. Although I like the design we have, I think we could have a good discussion and reach some agreement on solutions.
Peter, I’m sorry if you felt I was over-reacting. I’ve been attending meetings like these for years. I don’t think I’m fear-mongering, just pointing out the need to seek out all voices and encourage them to speak, and to remember that a lot of people at a meeting isn’t the same as a majority of the community. That’s just a fact.
As to my point about being uncomfortable, just using the word sprawl to describe my neighborhood sounds negative and critical and makes me feel there’s no point in entering the discussion. Living here is a choice, maybe one you wouldn’t make, and maybe one the city can’t support in the future. But it’s one that a lot of us enjoy.
I thought about the use of the word “ticky tacky boxes” for that very reason, even though that was the pejorative name used for houses that used to be considered small and cheap but seem to be accceptable now.
This isn’t going to be resolved soon, but we’ve had an interesting discussion.
It’s an interesting discussion, and an important one.
#19
kiffi summa June 6, 2007 2:10 pm
I wonder……… How does one get the input of a citizen who has an opinion, but does not, for whatever reason, care to give that opinion in public ???????????
Hire a mind reader ? Hold a seance ? Pass out wallet cards that say “You will lose your voice if you don’t vote !”
#20
Anne Bretts June 6, 2007 2:26 pm
Kiffi, I understand your position and agree in theory. But I have watched many school districts assume that a bond issue would pass because there was no opposition at public meetings, only to be disappointed at the polls. I have seen needed parents and teachers think that the school board hasn’t listened because they have closed schools when everyone at the public hearing opposed the closing.
All I’m saying is that the people at a public meeting represent only the people at the public meeting. The people who are happy with the way Northfield is and like their neighborhoods and business options see no reason to come to meetings to fight for the status quo. In this case there is no public vote, so the most vocal group likely will get its way. Just don’t confuse that with a mandate of the majority.
#21
Tracy Davis June 6, 2007 5:32 pm
It may not be a mandate of the majority, but whatever input we receive is the best information we have about public opinion on the comp plan issues. We can’t very well note, document, and incorporate feedback we’re NOT getting.
The Planning Commission, city staff, and a very dedicated group of citizen volunteers have worked very hard to get the word out and take the word in, in as many ways as possible. Obviously not everyone’s comfortable speaking at a public meeting, but if they’re also not comfortable making a phone call (to staff, commissioners, City councilors, Community Outreach volunteers), or writing a letter, or sending an email, or leaving a comment on the NorthfieldPlan.org website, then I’m afraid we just won’t hear from them. That’s regrettable, but I’m not willing to be apologetic about making decisions based on the people we DID hear from.
As I’ve always told my kids, if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain about the government. This is even more true at the local level.
#22
David Ludescher June 6, 2007 6:43 pm
A couple of comments regarding citizen input:
First, we are not designing a Comprehensive Plan based solely upon citizen input. It is only one factor to be considered.
Second, the people who showed up are not a representative sample of people. If we governed solely by the people who showed up at public meetings and requested that their will be done, governance would dissolve into appeasement.
Third, some people and organizations, such as the Chamber, organize and have spokespersons who speak for a large number of people.
Fourth, public officials always have the responsibility to ensure that the common good is served. Even if all of my children voted for ice cream for the main dish, the answer would rightly be, “No.”.
Fifth, if public officials are aware that there are disenfranchised individuals and organizations, they have the duty to ensure that they speak the voice that is not being spoken.
Sixth, the same view spoken 20 times does not make it more powerful or reasonable than one view spoken once with clarity and vision.
I don’t think anyone could honestly say that the people speaking at the first public forum were a representative sample of the citizens. The trick now is to reach the silent voices so that the best decision can be made. We all want what is best. So, let’s take what is best from that one night and combine it with what is good and right from the silent voices to come up with the common good.
#23
Tracy Davis June 6, 2007 7:14 pm
Dave, I agree with everything you said — up until the last paragraph.
What I need to know is, how is anyone supposed to hear voices that are silent? Without their sanity being called into question, I mean?
If a person or organization claims to represent the “silent voices”, I need to be shown that their hearing is that much better than mine, and/or be convinced by quantitative evidence that the opinions the person or organization espouse aren’t simply their own.
If 1 silent voice represents 10 other silent voices, how many silent voices does 1 audible voice represent?
#24
Tracy Davis June 6, 2007 7:30 pm
Dave, the next step is that you and I need to get together to discuss “the common good” and how best to determine what that is. (I’m serious! I have a very strong visceral feeling that our positions aren’t nearly as far apart as they might appear.)
Almost every political decision can be seen as holding a place on a continuum between individual rights on one end, and the common good on the other. At a local level, it’s much easier to see how we (the people) are the government, that our input and choices make a difference. And at the local level we’re in a much better place to ensure that we balance individual rights and the common good in a respectful and responsible way.
#25
David Ludescher June 6, 2007 9:10 pm
I can think of 4 different organizational voices that had spoken previously of which no mention is made in the principles developed.
First, Mr. Waskiw spoke of the existing Comp Plan. There is no mention of that Plan -either its strengths or its weaknesses. Second, the NIC did a fairly comprehensive transportation plan recently. Third, the EDA recently adopted an Economic Development Plan. Fourth, the Chamber has passed some resolutions detailing ecomonic initiatives, and I have spoken for the Chamber.
These voices, 2 public and 2 private, don’t seem to have much representation to date.
Before we tell Mayflower Hill and trailer park residents that they represent an eyesore, and before we tell Highway 3 merchants that more of them are unwelcome, shouldn’t we at least ask for their opinion, even if they didn’t attend the meeting? Shouldn’t ask developers why people buy ticky-tacky housing, and why businesses prefer to be on a highway before we ban what the market is selling? If you want quantitative and qualitative evidence of what people want, look at what they are buying.
These people who we see everywhere, and whom we call friends, may be silent, but they are not invisible. There is a huge difference.
Ironically, the silent do not need to speak if we listen to the “invisible hand” to which Adam Smith refers. Is there anything developmental obstacle which prevents developers from developing housing and industries which mimic “old Northfield”? No. Is there a reason it is not being done now? Yes. There is not enough ecomonic incentive to support it.
That is the reality with which we have to work as we move forward. No amount of wishing, even 250 wishes, will change this reality.
#26
Tracy Davis June 6, 2007 9:42 pm
Dave, I can assure you that these voices have been heard, noted, and the definitely will be referenced heavily in the new Comp Plan. We’re just not far enough along in the public input process for that info to be showing up yet. After spending six years on the EDA, and working with the consultants through the development of the Ec. Dev. plan, I know how important the information in that plan is, and it is to be hoped that the implementation of the revised Comp Plan will make it more, not less, feasible to accomplish the goals and address the concerns raised in the Ec. Dev. Plan. I’m less sure about the NIC’s transportation plan. Part of the problem with transportation here is that decisions are so heavily dependent on bodies outside of Northfield (County, State), with different goals and priorities. But the Comp Plan chapter on transportation will draw heavily on previous work.
What people do isn’t necessarily indicative of what they’d want if given real choices. Developers are predetermining what the market will bear, based on their convenience, their own economies of scale, and what sold most recently in Burnsville. People buy ticky-tacky housing because they aren’t offered much else in their price range. Personally, I don’t believe Northfield would be one whit worse off, economically or otherwise, if residential developers just QUIT their rapacious spec-home stuff, and people worked directly with a contractor to build a house they really wanted within their budget. Part of what makes the pre-WWII housing interesting is that most of it wasn’t developed in pods and tracts; lots were purchased and houses were built by individuals for their own use, not by speculators trying to make a buck by selling the least for the most.
Business prefer to be on the highway for several reasons. Two of the most prominent are that More square footage is available for less than downtown; and some businesses operate on an auto-dependent model (fast-food drive-thrus, oil changes, etc.) which requires that kind of access.
In and of itself, those aren’t problems. The problem is that the highway-commercial development hasn’t been done as well as it could or should be. The reality is that everything is designed, but not everything is designed well. Good design doesn’t necessarily mean increased cost (although sometimes it does); it just requires thought and intention. I’m surprised by how many people seem to object to that idea.
To quote the introduction to the Economic Development plan,
I hope that’s at least part of what the Comp Plan will be about.
#27
Peter Waskiw June 6, 2007 10:19 pm
Tracy
Does the following Draft Development Principles, rev 2, # 3, relate to all land uses and development types (commercial, industrial, residential, service, office, mixed use, highway retail, etc)?
Perhaps for the sake of argument, how would this connect to Northfield’s Economic Development Plan, THEN connect to the Future Land Use Map designation, THEN connect to the subdivision ordinance, THEN connect to the zoning ordinance.
It states:
3. The preference for accommodating future growth is in infill locations, then redevelopment opportunities, and then on the edge of existing developed areas.
The existing pattern of development has been to grow outward into the edge of existing development or fringe areas. This pattern of development is compromising the rural character at the edges of the Community. This also creates a disconnected growth pattern that is auto-oriented, while increasing the demand for infrastructure and Community services.
• Priority areas for future development will be identified for all three areas (infill, redevelopment and greenfield).
• When new growth occurs on the edge of the Community it will be done with great care so as not to compromise the rural landscape or the small town character.
#28
Anne Bretts June 6, 2007 11:03 pm
Tracy, I really wonder what leads you to believe people don’t have choices now and need city officials to determine their options? Developers didn’t tell me where to live or what to buy. I have lived in old houses, apartments in historic buildings and I loved them. I looked at probably 30 housing units, old and new, and dozens more online, before choosing where we live — near the soccer field — for a variety of reasons.
As for this nostalgia for how things used to be built, people often built their own homes or families built a large home and then smaller ones nearby as their chldren married. The converted homes to apartments with inadequate exits and wiring. Fact is many old homes still have substandard wiring and plumbing, dangerous lead paint and pipes, are energy hogs and have polluting wood fireplaces.
Zoning laws often were developed exactly to bring some order to the chaos you see as charming diversity. Old photos show houses standing on bare lots, just as new houses do now. Again the nostalgia, and years of tree and vegetation growth often clouds the stark reality of older developments. I’m wondering what year is the cut-off, the year when everything after that became detestable sprawl. I’m not being sarcastic, I’d really like to know.
I remember the cute little Cape Cods when they were called ugly little boxes. I drive around town and see some boring old houses and some boring new ones. Everything old isn’t historic. Sometimes it’s just old.
Doing individual homes with a contractor now sounds lovely, but it would force even more residents out of the market. Just doing minor changes from the base plan can add thousands to a home’s cost.
There is quite a bit of variety in the housing on the streets surrounding us. Our short street has less exterior diversity than I would like (OK, no diversity) but we all are older couples who are traveling and hanging out with family and we aren’t that interested. The interiors are just what we want, and we don’t have to mow or shovel.
Betsey Buckheit laid out some of her issues with my neighborhood (above) and while we don’t agree, we’re not that far apart.
As for getting information about us, you can talk to Realtors about what is selling and what has sold over the past several years — both here and in comparable communities. They can tell you exactly who is buying and what they want. If there’s a burning desire for the style homes you love and a lack of inventory, they’d know it.
Finally, calling people’s homes eyesores and sprawl simply isn’t helpful in furthering an open and receptive discussion. Thanks, Betsey, for being open to other opinions.
And David is right about the city being unable to force people to buy what they don’t want. Several communities have tried the town center and urban center plans. Some have worked and others haven’t. The retail is particularly tricky and challenging.
We get the fact that you don’t want us here, really we do. Perhaps that’s why the retail sales figures show that so many people are choosing to shop elsewhere. Why would people shop where they so clearly aren’t wanted?
#29
Tracy Davis June 6, 2007 11:30 pm
What is now known as “sprawl” has been quantified and has defining characteristics (view a couple of examples here and here - selected almost at random).
Since I’m a firm believer in not reinventing the wheel, I’ll use someone else’s words:
You may quarrel with the specifics, but to quarrel with the overall idea of trying to “do growth right” seems rather self-defeating.
#30
Ross Currier June 7, 2007 7:32 am
A couple of (actually six) comments regarding citizen input:
However, personally I’d rank citizen input (at least) right up there with professional staff and hired consultants.
However, it has been a highly regarded system throughout history in communities that are called democracies.
However, it is possible that the so-called membership of such groups are mentally unengaged from some topics and the statements of the leadership have little to do with the will of the group.
However, last week there was a study that said ice cream was bad for you and this week there’s a study that says ice cream is good for you. Asking citizens for their opinion on ice cream can be a valid step in a decision-making process.
However, as business people will tell you, time is money, and public officials also have a responsibility to keep processes moving forward.
However, 20 people choosing the same candidate is 20 votes.
We have worked hard to take what is best from those that speak and made numerous attempts to hear from those that don’t speak. It time to recognize the input exercises and development principles for what they are…guideposts for the real work…and focus on what (or who) actually shapes the experiences of would-be economic developers in our community.
#31
Ross Currier June 7, 2007 8:00 am
The 4 different organizational voices that had spoken previously have been included in the work on the revision of the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances.
First, the Planning Commission spent last summer, setting aside time at the end of their every meeting, going through the existing comprehensive plan chapter by chapter, revising, clarifying, and, quite frankly, summarizing the key points. The goal was to retain the values expressed by the previous group while making it a more useful tool.
Second, the NIC did a fairly comprehensive transportation plan almost a decade ago. In my work on revising the existing chapter on transportation, my favorite topic, I heavily referenced the NIC plan, as well as two or three other plans over the past ten years that all advise the City to do the same things. Ironically, in two meetings with the Chamber on Highway 19, I distributed my summary of the these plans which included the NIC plan.
Third, the recently adopted Economic Development Plan was an essential document in the consultant’s overview of the community. In fact, Councilor Pokorney, in particular, has worked to try to tie the E D Plan and the Comprehensive Plan together as we move forward.
Fourth, the Chamber has passed some resolutions detailing economic initiatives which, to my knowledge, have not been forwarded to the Planning Commission. If they discuss land use or the design and implementation of ordinances, they would be of great interest.
I don’t think that we should never tell anyone that their home or business is an eyesore. I think that we should at least share the design guidelines that have created a sense of place that appears to have attracted and has continued to attract people to our community.
Even more important, when we find that practices such as building cul de sacs, bringing infrastructure to cornfields and using a zoning code that results in less dense residential and commercial development all substantially increase the tax burden on businesses, we have a responsibility to at least question those practices.
Let’s look at the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinances, the elected and appointed officials and the professional staff and find where we can make specific changes that would contribute to increasing Northfield’s business-friendliness.
#32
kiffi summa June 7, 2007 8:02 am
Strangely enough, I don’t see any diversity of comment here…where are all these people with opinions that have no place to offer their opinion (although there are at least 4 other options than public meetings).
The same people are arguing their same positions: Dave is arguing Chamber/highway, Tracy is arguing plan commission/reason, Anne is arguing her professional experience/personal choice, Peter is arguing professional standards as a planner………..
Maybe there are some people who like to speak in public/airways/publications, written or electronic, because they are participants in THE process; then there are those who are silent and may just feel things never go their way.
But I feel compelled to correct one thing Tracy said: Tracy, if you can find a rent on the highway that is less than the rents in the downtown, I’d like to know where, so I can send the next prospective tenant who gasps at the rent/taxes, in the DT, to that highway location!
Seems to me that parts of this discussion are exacerbating the old DT versus hwy.3 debate? Is that what this is about? Let’s not go there in this space. The PR says the Chamber and the DT/ NDDC are working together at this point in time. Is that so Dave, if you are speaking for the Chamber, as you say?
Bottom line: how about hearing from someone who doesn’t want to offer their opinion in public/ After all, “this” is just a little tiny “public” ??????
#33
David Ludescher June 7, 2007 8:32 am
Perhaps the Planning Commission members could explain if and how the draft principles may be altered and how those principles will be used to create the Comp Plan.
Are the principles the keystone or a cornerstone?
If the Chamber provided alterations to the document how would those be considered? Are opinions like Peter’s, Anne’s, and Kiffi’s going to be considered? Are they going to be one voice or an alternative?
I sense a certain amount of protection of the docment principles (which is understandable, but not necessarily the best course of action). For example, Peter has raised issues regarding content and understanding; Anne has raised issues of personal freedom. These are valid.
Are we wasting our time blogging or what types of actions would “move the process forward”?
#34
Betsey Buckheit June 7, 2007 10:23 am
Housing choice, housing policy & sprawl: As a personal choice, Anne’s housing choice makes sense, as do other individual choices to purchase a large Mayflower Hill home or my small Arts and Crafts bungalow or a condo at the Crossing. If you have 3 cars and a boat, you probably want more garage space than my 1 car garage can offer. Older homes have repair and maintenance issues along with their individuality; newer homes tend to be more visually uniform but have up to date kitchens. Etc.
I think we must be careful NOT to say that the people who have chosen to live in our new neighborhoods are themselves somehow flawed in thought or deed.
But as a matter of public policy (and the common good), I believe we have to ask about sustainability. Suburban style development with large lots and long setbacks, lots of paved driveway and street space, etc. consumes land and creates environmental issues that other kinds of development do not. So, when we ask what kind of development we want in Northfield, I think (based on the input we do have) we say that we would like to try to plan for growth which is more conservative - as in, conserves land, natural resources, and city fiscal resources.
Other Plans: Knowing that the city had been updating its water plan, sanitary sewer plan, etc., I asked Dan Olson for a list of less than comprehensive plans the city was writing or rewriting and he gave me this information: Transportation Plan (last done in 1998, incorporated by reference into 2001 Comp Plan) is to be started in the Fall, new Water Plan is done, Sanitary Sewer Plan is nearing completion, Stormwater Management to be done by end of summer, and a consultant has been hired to help prepare a Park Master Plan incorporating the Greenway Corridors planning. Plus the Economic Development Plan already noted.
Most of what has been discussed about the Comp Plan is the Land Use Plan; these other plans can (and should) replace relevant chapters in the Comp Plan (after careful checking to avoid conflict).
#35
Jerry Bilek June 7, 2007 1:04 pm
The book Suburban Nation addresses the sprawl issue quite well.
“Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk are at the forefront of the New Urbanism movement, and in “Suburban Nation” they assess sprawl’s costs to society, be they ecological, economic, aesthetic, or social.”
They also argue for better urban planning. Homes with porches on the front, not garages. Homes set on the front of the lot, narrower streets bring the neighbors together.
Poor urban planning has compromised our land use. In the podcast, David mentions Northfield’s lack of available land. If we plan better, we should use it more wisely.
I am optimistic that we can maintain the good qualities of Northfield especially the downtown while we foster business growth. Where I disagree with the Chamber position David presented is the call for no regulation of any kind. I believe this could be detrimental to downtown. I know many of my customers come to Northfield for the charm of downtown. They regularly ask for restaraunt recommendations that move beyond applebees. They want coffee from GBM or the Hideaway not Caribou.
#36
Griff Wigley June 7, 2007 9:41 pm
Ross, I’ve fixed the formatting on your post #32 above to make it clear which are your words and which are words of others that you’re commenting on. You’re welcome.
#37
Griff Wigley June 7, 2007 10:11 pm
Kiffi wrote:
“Strangely enough, I don’t see any diversity of comment here..”
While this is an interesting discussion and I’m pleased to see it happening, it’s really sophisticated. Y’all can speak to this issue at a high level and that’s intimidating, even though you’re nice folks and talking civil.
And if I’m intimidated, there are probably a few others who are, too.
I’d like to see a straw poll on these issues that both educates people and allows for comments. A straw poll is a lot less intimidating than speaking at a public hearing or weighing into an online conversation. And it’s less difficult than filling out open-ended comment cards because it’s more structured and educational.
#38
Peter Waskiw June 7, 2007 10:23 pm
Straw poll sounds good to me. Perhaps even a weighted set of statements distilled from the various statements.
ps..can we also get the questions answered that were asked during the above discussion? I know I had several directed towards Planning Commission members who will actually have the PRIVILEGE of speaking to them when they become approved.
#39
kiffi summa June 7, 2007 10:33 pm
I sincerely wish everyone would get over being “intimidated”….just us folks out there……no need for intimidation!
On a cultural note, how come in MN some folks who might be thought too overweight can wear shorts, but feel intimidated about speaking publicly? I would have thought physical confidence and vocal confidence would march along together……..
#40
Tracy Davis June 8, 2007 8:21 am
Peter, my understanding is that the draft principles are broad, sweeping generalities, and it’s too early in the process to have a definitive answer to your question.
However, I’ll take a stab at some prognostications based on the discussions that have taken place thus far. I would assume that if the City develops guidelines that express a preference for infill and redevelopment over greenfield, the *preference* might apply equally to all uses. The Planning Commission is moving toward ordinances that are form-based rather than segregated by uses, so it’s possible that the end result of our plan and ordinance changes may make your question moot. However, infill and redevelopment locations will always have a set of challenges associated with them that may make one type of development more feasible than others.
I hope that helps….some.
#41
David Ludescher June 8, 2007 8:40 am
I make my living reading, writing, and speaking. I did not want to get up at the Comp Plan meeting to speak. But, I felt that it was my duty as Chamber president to do so.
I am grateful that Locally Grown not only acknowledged that my voice was there, but welcomed a discussion on an “alternative view”. I am of the sincere conviction that the reason for the invitation was not to afford an opportunity to discredit the views, nor to engage in an academic discussion, but rather to gather additional viewpoints so that the Comp Plan can represent the best for Northfield.
I can fully understand why the vast majority of the residents do not want to participate nor speak. It would be both disingenuous and unfair to suggest that the Comp Plan should be based primarily upon public input, and to suggest that the individuals present at that meeting were representative of what the public wants.
I’m not sure how Griff’s suggestion of a straw poll would work. But, if the Planning Commission is interested in determining whether or not the people present were a representative sample of Northfield’s opinion, some additional inquiry may be appropriate.
If the Planning Commission wants a representative view of the business community, you are getting it right now. That is my duty (unfortunately). What the business community is telling the Planning Commission is that we don’t see how Northfield’s business interests figure into the Comp Plan for Northfield. Nor, do we see, as Peter pointed out, how those views will be implemented.
#42
v summa June 8, 2007 11:16 am
David… discounting all the rhetoric (yours and the rest of the LG contributors) you last wrote
“If the Planning Commission wants a representative view of the business community, you are getting it right now. That is my duty (unfortunately). What the business community is telling the Planning Commission is that we don’t see how Northfield’s business interests figure into the Comp Plan for Northfield. Nor, do we see, as Peter pointed out, how those views will be implemented.”
So I’m asking… if you’d define “business community”? I certainly do not feel represented by your remarks, I Own a keystone building in the “business Community” and have never been in a discussion with you and others where the concept you preach was the consensus you refer to as the Business community’s desire.
On the limited input you decry as fragmented and not representative of the “business community”… my read of the public comments made at the two Comp Plan meetings is that the DT and its traditions were vital to the future of the community…. both business and residential and to guarantee those traditional means are maintained in future development of the community… is a major goal of the citizen preferred Comp Plan.
Indirectly, you present your personal interests as reflecting a well discussed issue in a public forum of the “business community”. If that’s the result of a poll taken of Chamber members, then I suggest you give us demographics and dates of that discussion. If you’re representing an unknown preference of Chamber members… than it is only reasonable that you point out the numbers of and places of business of those members so that readers can sense how broad (or narrow) the Chamber membership and its point of view might be… if indeed it is a broad membership point of view you represent.
Unfortunately, for your ideals, the text of past Comp plans as well as all recent CP discussions, (1998 and 2007) is too preserve the values and the sense of place and space that has been Northfield.
While most everyone recognizes change will occur, those who stand behind the values of Northfield traditions and the text of its Comp Plan, want to insure against any violent or subversive overthrow of those values. Emotions and rhetoric both get out of balance when values are discussed. Some of those perspectives deserve a place in the government’s discussion of the community’s development. Others do not.
And while emotions from some may run high in favor of sprawl on the one hand… my sense is that when it has all been leveled into your style of taxable development… most of the people who might agree with you in principle today… will look back at the ravaged community and say: “what happened? How did the Plan commission and the City Council be so short sighted as to allow the destruction of all that Northfield once had, just so it could become “anyplace”?
MY VIEW: Some parts of the Comp Plan (like the US Constitution) should be off limits for various generations to tamper with. As the wheel goes around, it is all a certainty that if we lose what we’ve got today… someday we’ll all regret it.
The real challenge is for your “business community” to modify its goals to meet the standards set by Northfield. The challenge for the elected officials is to see the light, in spite of the dollars signs you wave… and make the adjustments as they best fit the overarching plan. The challenge for those who attend and or participate in the public discussion, is to value change, celebrate diversity and hold on to the values that make a place special
#43
David Ludescher June 8, 2007 1:01 pm
Griff is probably right in suggesting that we are nearing the end of this part of the discussion. Legitimate alternative viewpoints have been expressed. It is now the responsiblity of the Planning Commission to decide if the Development Principles will be accepted in total, internally revised, or additional comment, written or oral can be submitted.
I will clarify a valid point raised by Victor. I have been speaking in my capacity as Chamber President without specific Board approval. However, we have had a Board discussions informally clarifying that I could and should speak for the Chamber. The comments that I have made at the meeting have been endorsed by the Board, who speaks for the Chamber membership in general. The Board recognizes that individual Chamber members may have differences of opinion with the Board’s position. They are free to express those opinions to the Board, and to request that the Board change its position.
On a philosophical and personal note, I share Victor’s perspective that Constitution-like principles should prevail. The Constitution declares that we are all free. Government restrictions on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot be justified by a simple will of the majority, no matter how well intentioned. Rather, the restrictions must be deemed necessary to preserve order, without which there could be no freedom.
The Chamber’s mission is narrow - a healthy business environment. An official, even if tacit, admission by the Planning Commission that a healthy business environment is important for Northfield’s overall health would be an important step in creating a COMPRENSIVE Plan.
#44
Tracy Davis June 8, 2007 1:46 pm
Dave, I KNEW we’d agree on things eventually.
A healthy business environment is implicit in the idea of a balanced, free-standing (i.e. not “bedroom”) community; I believe that there will be some explicit statements to this effect, or references to it, in the finished version of the revised Comp Plan.
Does that satisfy the Chamber?
#45