Planning Commission Issues

My industrial/Business reform request went before the Planning Commission. There was unanimous support for the idea but that is were agreement fell apart. This process is following the same pattern as my Development Impact List. The idea is great but it appears that no one wants me to get credit for it being my idea or doing the work. I had hoped the Planning Commission was not going to be ruled by petty politics but it seems to be following suit with the Council.

The other issue raised was staff time. This excuse is raised every time ordinance enforcement or reform is discussed. Planning Commission Members and City Council Members have never raised the issue when it comes to allowing developers expand the City. The idea that developers come before the residents of Isanti is asinine.

If we as a City can not spend the time correcting our current issues why would we want to compound them by further rapid residential growth.

I will continue to fight to reform Isanti regardless of what petty political obstacles are placed in my way.

Commissioner Duff raised private ownership of storm water ponding. I again stated the reason this was a bad idea as follows:

1. Residents may be able to claim greater ownership of land, they will however have no uses of this land as it is designated as a holding pond. This may give a false feeling of ownership.

2. The resident is to maintain their section of the holding pond. This is an unfunded mandate. Holding ponds gather water from a larger area than just the immediate neighborhood. The cost of its maintenance should not be on those that simple abut the pond. What do we

3. If the land is owned by the resident they will be taxed on the land. These will set-up the owner of the land paying a significantly higher tax bill with no benefit.

4. I am hard pressed to see how the City would lose liability for a structure it is mandating be built. Resident ownership may lead to having liability in case of a lawsuit.

The full discussion is at: http://georgewimmer.blogspot.com/2006/04/response-to-commissioner-duffs-letter.html