Save Rosemount - Newsletter #7 October 2007

Save Rosemount Newsletter P.O. Box 177 Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 Thou shalt not steal. Exodus 20:15 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor�s land. Exodus 20:17 On August 6 Rosemount Port Authority VOTED on ABUSE of EMINENT DOMAIN to force the sale of the Ratzlaff property and to bulldoze the Only Classic Phillips 66 Gas Station left standing in our entire area. Will the Rosemount Port Authority Use Eminent Domain To Take YOUR Home or Business next? NO public monies (TAX dollars) should be used to SUBSIDIZE a project that taxpayers don�t want COME to the Port Authority SUBSIDY HEARING On Tuesday, October 16 at 6:00 p.m. at Rosemount City Hall It�s YOUR Money Come and Fight for Where YOUR Money is Going to be Spent H A R D H E A R T S Rosemount Port Authority VOTES E M I N E N T D O M A I N THANK YOU�To all of you who gave up your evenings to attend eminent domain meetings, hearings, and the vote, and to take the time to sign your names to petitions�to save Rosemount. We thank you for your patience, for your spirit, and for all that you gave up. We thank you for being here when you were needed, and for being part of all of this. Rosemount�what a lovely space, what a lovely place we have strived to keep strongly creative, rather than an impractical city�s and developer�s scheme. We couldn�t believe the Port Authority decision, but it came as no surprise. Chair Michael Baxter, Mark DeBettignies, Bruno DiNella, Mary Riley, and Jay Tentinger did not respond to the VOICE of WE the people. Commissioner Mary Riley ventured a reason why she needed to vote for Eminent Domain that night: �And, you know, tonight, if we are gonna take the vote, I guess I can�t be in favor of giving a special exception and having the creation of another mis-truth mailing out there.� Apparently, Commissioner Riley thought that by voting for the use of Eminent Domain, the Save Rosemount Newsletters would stop reporting actions by herself and the City. For Commissioner Riley, a valid reason for voting to �take� Drs. Kurt Hansen and Patricia Walter�s property (5th Amendment Rights violated) was to stop a newsletter�s circulation�the freedom of free speech (1st Amendment Rights). The Walter-Hansens do not write the Save Rosemount Newsletter. Rosemount CITIZENS do. As is confirmed by THIS newsletter, the �mailing� WILL NOT STOP until the CITIZENS are assured that violation of 5th Amendment Rights have ceased in downtown Rosemount. COME to the Port Authority SUBSIDY HEARING YOURSELF On Tuesday, October 16 6:00 p.m., at Rosemount City Hall SAY NO TO a $500,000�half a million dollar�SUBSIDY AND SAY NO TO EMINENT DOMAIN What�s the story . . . in Rosemount? Rosemount City Hall called business owner Don Ratzlaff on Monday AFTERNOON, August 6, at 4:00 pm. to ask him the address where they could serve him with condemnation, Eminent Domain, papers. The VOTE by the Port Authority on whether or not to use Eminent Domain on that property took place AFTER 8:00 p.m. that EVENING. Why were they calling about serving papers four hours BEFORE the vote? Don Ratzlaff was told to get out...BEFORE the property owners were even served the papers. The City doesn�t even own it yet. Thou Shalt Not Lie...Beware the Bait-and-Switch! What�s the story . . . in Hastings? Will Rosemount be the same? Hastings City Council voted 5-2 to use EMINENT DOMAIN to redevelop riverfront properties. That was after Hastings residents stood up, just like we did, signing petitions and packing Hastings City Council Hearings. Yet, the City of Hastings voted against the will of the people. They did not DO what citizens demanded. Hastings waterfront business owners were forced to vacate their shops. The City of Hastings and their developer promoted their waterfront development as CONDOS, OFFICE SPACE, AND RETAIL�trying to make it LOOK attractive to citizens. Just like the City of Rosemount and their developer are doing right now. AFTER the HASTINGS redevelopment AGREEMENT had been SIGNED with the developer, and the business property �taken��the City and their developer CHANGED THE AGREEMENT to build just CONDOS! Hastings residents couldn�t understand how that ever happened. Then, with news of the condo market down, the developer refused to build his condos. That development wasn�t built because the DEVELOPER walked away, leaving condemned waterfront buildings EMPTY that used to house successful businesses. City government meddled in the free market economy and their plan fell through. Who has to suffer for the City�s mistake? Resident tax-payers and the local businesses. The City of Hastings was NOT honest with their citizens. Will rental apartments be all that downtown Rosemount gets in return for eminent domain? PROBABLY. In fact, the Port Authority is already trying to sneak it in. The Stonebridge Developer has NEVER done RETAIL before. His specialty is condos and apartments. Looking ahead�what do you think we are destined for when Wally Johnson begins building in Rosemount? On October 2, the Port Authority removed the obligation to produce even ONE new job. They VOTED that the objectives of the downtown TIF redevelopment district focus on public purposes OTHER than �Job creation��primarily �the removal of BLIGHT.� For what PUBLIC PURPOSE? There is NO Blight! Jamie Verbrugge recommended that the Job and Wage Goals be waived as part of the business subsidy because the project is largely RESIDENTIAL HOUSING and the nature of the project is redevelopment and BLIGHT REMOVAL. Therefore, Job Creation is not necessarily an applicable goal for this project. During last year�s election, Mayor Droste stated �increasing jobs� was a focus of his. NOT ANY MORE. A truly BLIGHT-designated area is defined as conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency and crime, and detrimental to public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. In a City-requested Engineer�s Study on the Ratzlaff property, this was the BLIGHT found: The small office door doesn�t swing correctly. It swings in, not out. City�s solution: tear the building down. Owners solution: change the hinges. Air Exchange is not adequate for a public building. City�s solution: tear the building down. Owners solution: install an exhaust fan. Unlike many NEW buildings, the Ratzlaff Building was built to last. It stands on solid footings and could be renovated and built on to, just as other businesses have done in similar circumstances. Blight is a condition that DOES NOT exist on the Ratzlaff property. There is NO Blight on Core Block East. Why is the new ELK RIVER redevelopment working? Wally Johnson, Stonebridge Developer, says that Rosemount�s prospective downtown redevelopment can be compared to the success of Elk River because Rosemount�s downtown is similar to that one. No it�s not. The RIVERFRONT is the draw in Elk River. Rosemount�s downtown has NO riverfront. A massive rental apartment building SANDWICHED between Highway 3 and the Railroad tracks will NOT create a draw. Why has the LANESBORO, MN development been the fairest of them all? Lanesboro is THE development that worked. Lanesboro is a community that is cited nationwide for saving their existing buildings. As a result of careful planning, they have a very viable economic downtown. Lanesboro is a shining example of the success of �The Main Street Program,� a program sponsored by the Federal government to help SAVE downtowns. This is the type of downtown Rosemount citizens have been begging for from City Hall. And, it is possible. Lanesboro, with a population of less than 1,000, is known as �The Magical Hamlet,� a thriving community that is the destination for hundreds of thousands of visitors. It was in the mid-1870�s that Lanesboro�s downtown commercial district was built. By the 1970�s, most of the historic buildings were in disrepair and storefronts were boarded up. A group of CITIZENS formed a volunteer task force for cultural and commercial revitalization. A collaborative plan was created by private individuals, local nonprofit organizations, and...the City government�all working TOGETHER. The focus was to bring back main street via natural resources, the arts, and historic preservation. About 30% of Lanesboro�s population�250 volunteers�gave their time and expertise to this revitalization. Compare this to the 13 people hand-picked by Rosemount�s City Council to be on the Rosemount taskforce. The City of Rosemount had a prerequisite that a BUSINESS OWNER could ONLY be on the committee IF they PAID to belong to the Chamber of Commerce. Fluegel�s applied and were rejected because they did not have Chamber�s standing. The National Register of Historic Places listed Lanesboro�s entire downtown district in their Register in 1985. The Lanesboro Art Council restored the old movie theater, which now hosts thousands of visitors each year. Historic buildings, lovingly restored, now contain lodging houses and award-winning gourmet restaurants. A bike and recreation trail was built, with 40 miles of paved trail attracting visitors to Lanesboro every season. Rosemount Parks Department is currently working on a regional trail system which will give Rosemount�s downtown a similar DRAW when completed. Notice how long it took Lanesboro to complete revitalization. This type of success story does not occur over-night. Remember, Kurt Hansen, whose property was condemned by the Rosemount Port Authority at the August 6 eminent domain vote? He has been preaching this very same �patience and planning� model for months. City Hall, LISTEN UP, please. Lanesboro was reborn. Businesses long gone have returned, supplying essential needs to both residents and visitors. 50 NEW businesses opened, with a 200% increase in number of JOBS downtown. Lanesboro was a 1998 Great American Main Street Award Winner. Rosemount�s cultural RENAISSANCE awaits... What should we do? Instead of sending out the Port Authority to photograph cookie-cutter behemoth redevelopment projects in the burbs, the City might charter a fleet of buses to take all interested residents to Lanesboro to see HOW existing buildings can be renovated. NOT to copy them, but to learn HOW to renovate to fit OUR town and OUR needs and objectives. Rosemount Residents are ready and waiting to BE PART of their city�s redevelopment. Any CHANGE in Rosemount�s business community needs to come from the bottom, up. NOT from the TOP, down. Resident Voices Amy L. Bell, Rosemount As a resident of Rosemount for over 20 years, I have come to love the charm and sense of small town here. My desire for a few more conveniences closer to home has been filled with the businesses that have come in. A small retail clothing store and caf� would enhance the area if anything. Apple Valley is a very short distance to purchase additional items needed that Rosemount may not offer. We have already made a VERY poor choice years ago with the way too contemporary Celts, McDivot's, and Morning Glory buildings. The best has been made out of a "lemon" piece of architecture, but this was obviously a horrendously bad move on the city's part. My feeling is that I do not want to become another AV or Bville. There is no "character" to these towns. Rosemount is rich with history that should be played up and restored if possible by max. 2-story storefronts mimicking those of the past with contemporary businesses to fill them. Not the current building trends. Should we choose the eminent domain path, Farmington will be the next town to fall. Northfield chose to embrace its history, albeit more famous, and it is thriving with tourism. The picture of 4 story buildings---on Hwy 3 CANNOT happen! If this is the picture of Rosemount to come, we just said goodbye to small town and hello to vacated buildings with low income tenants and a cold desolate feel. The taller buildings need to be set back farther from any main street area to stay in proportion with the surroundings. We must not be pressured into a brainstorm plan of a developer and compromise our uniqueness. Letter Signed by Two Rosemount Residents (Names withheld) Hi. [We] are writing back to let you know that our opinions are that this is an Irish town and that we have basically lived in apartments almost all our lives and they started out good but then 1 year later they became slum lords and even with background checks came out clear and good on peoples records. Pretty much [several] complex buildings turn out to be everyone all Junkies. It�s bad enough to wait 30 minutes to cross the street. It will be even more worse with traffic to get across the streets and I have kids to help across cause I don�t drive. Plus more crime the police will have to deal with. So we would really HATE to see Rosemount have apartments here. It would look out of place and HORRIBLE to have here. I hope my opinion helps. Resident Testimony during Subsidy Hearing #1, October 2, at City Hall Simon Walter-Hansen In the selection process for a developer of Core Block East, the City�s financial adviser stated that all developers who applied were financially viable. [That included CPDC and Dr. Hansen.] Stonebridge was not in that initial selection process. Simon states that it is hard for him to look at giving a SUBSIDY to an unknown, Stonebridge, without having a financial stability statement assessed for them, as it was for ALL other developers. He finds it interesting, why now we need to SUBSIDIZE these developers, which we were told were financially stable. Rebecca Olson I work really hard. And I know a lot of people in here work really hard. I take care of sick children everyday. I don�t want my money that I work hard for to go toward your project in any way, any form, any subsidy. I cherish the work that I do. I love what I do, but I work really hard, and I don�t agree with the project, and I DON�T want my hard-earned money to go towards THIS. save.rosemount@frontiernet.net www.saverosemount.com October 11, 2007 Resident Testimony during Subsidy Hearing #1, continued Todd Benz This sounds like its turning into another taxation issue, without a lot of employment or bring business to Rosemount. Do we need more of the same? Or do we need something more different that�s really going to draw people to Rosemount? I don�t think a housing development with 13,000 or less square feet of commercial is even going to go close to affecting that goal. Truly, what is the strategic direction, what are the objectives, what are your tactics? You haven�t laid out those plans for the long term. I hear the short-term project. But, there�s really NO long-term benefit to people staying here. It�s a short-term taxation benefit, is what I�m hearing. A lot of people are going to take a lot of offence at that. How many meetings does it take for people to show up and say NO? Truly, how many meetings does it take? This project is not necessarily, at all, I don�t think, good for downtown Rosemount. What is it that we truly want to accomplish here? Who is it that we want to draw? And, for what positive reason? I think we have to think about that. The EMINENT DOMAIN issue is a HUGE issue. There�s a lot of people out there you probably haven�t heard from because they�re busy working, that REALLY take offense to this. And I know EACH of YOU would, if WE came to your particular property with an Eminent Domain proposal. You�d be fighting like crazy. I think we really need to sit down and think about what is honestly best for Rosemount. A development of housing? We�re already having issues with housing in several developments here, with foreclosures. Low cost housing isn�t necessarily the way to build Rosemount, especially if it doesn�t affect us positively. There�s going to be an outcry here. Let�s think positively for Rosemount. Let�s think strategically. Let�s think about the objectives. Let�s think about the tactics to get there...as business people. Not as politicians. This isn�t about TAXATION. This is about a BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT. The revenue generation. Job creation. The betterment of ROSEMOUNT, MN. We have this great little community, and we aren�t the STAR, necessarily, of the suburbs. But, there�s a lot of us that kind of like that. But, if we�re going to be the STAR COMMUNITY, truly let�s make it a STAR COMMUNITY. Let�s put the gold label on Rosemount for what it is that we can be, and what we do best. Because, we do a lot of things right. Let�s fix Rosemount�s mainstream. Let�s fix what it is we need to fix to bring in business and people that are positively going to affect this community to the benefit of you, to the benefit of everybody sitting here. EMINENT DOMAIN. I just don�t get where we�re going with that. I really suggest you ask people in this community, what is it that we as a town the size we are can do to better ourselves, to better our community, to better the business life, the social life, the educational life, the personal life? And it isn�t building a dwelling that�s going to house 100-400 people downtown. That�s NOT the way to go. If you want to force other businesses away, DO IT. I guarantee you, no one else is going to come in. There is a reason why we have a hard time getting businesses to come in here. I think we need to think about how we can get them in. We need to develop a strategic plan. If you want me to help you do that, that�s what I do. I�d be happy to help. John Hafterson When I first read about this project, I said, �oh shucks,� they�re going to build another vacant mini-mall and they�re going to stack tax-subsidized housing on top of it? Wait a minute. Those are my taxes. When do I get to say NO? I intend to say NO. I�m going to do everything I can to make the Port Authority answer to the public on this project. Save Rosemount Committee: Cathy Herman, Tim Judy, Deb Kaczmarek, Kathy Klonecky, Dan McNulty Eminent Domain was meant for roads. NOT for Private Developers. The Dakota County District Court Proceeding (Court File No. 19-C5-07-10849) to determine whether or not to "take" Kurt Hansen and Patricia Walter�s private property to give it to the City and their developer is scheduled on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. at Dakota County Judicial Center 1560 Highway 55 Hastings, Minnesota 55033 Petitioner of Condemnation for redevelopment purposes Kurt Hansen & Patricia Walter - Don Ratzlaff as Joint Respondents The multi-page LEGAL document from which this information was taken, was SERVED to Drs. Kurt Hansen and Patricia Walter at their Rosemount home. It was found by them on Saturday afternoon, TAPED to their front door, not even in an envelope. ANYONE could read the entire document. It could have blown away in the wind. The property owners, it seems, were the last to be notified of this Hearing and its date�by papers taped to their door. What kind of respect is this? This is the way our legal system treats Rosemount residents? �Take� their private property and tell them by taping a notice on their door. Who will be next? Will it be YOU? What became of the �small town feel� of Rosemount? All in the name of an oversized rental apartment building that an out-of-town developer has to have for his own. DON RATZLAFF INVITES ROSEMOUNT To celebrate the 60 years he and his father have been in business on South Robert Trail A Fantastic Fest to Celebrate & Bid Farewell Saturday, October 13, noon to 4:00 p.m. 14630 South Robert Trail Food, Music, Sharing of Memories The Marv Nissel Polka Band Playing 12:00-2:30 THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN BUSINESS & FRIENDSHIP (Although City eviction notice was served, WE will continue fighting for your Constitutional rights, Don!) Port Authority SUBSIDY HEARING Tuesday, October 16, 6:00 p.m. at Rosemount City Hall The Port Authority will hold an additional Hearing to take PUBLIC COMMENT on whether it should award money as a BUSINESS SUBSIDY to Stonebridge Companies for the commercial portion of the Core Block East project to cover costs IN EXCESS of $100,000. The largest eligible expense to the Stonebridge Developer that qualifies for use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is UNDERGROUND PARKING. Underground parking is an eligible cost of development for which tax increment may be used. Stonebridge Developers will announce the specific dollar amount they are asking for before the Hearing. Then the Port Authority will vote on it after the Public Hearing. So far, there is NO SIGNED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DEVELOPER. Please attend the SUBSIDY HEARING to support our downtown. Everyone is encouraged to testify. Even if all do not speak at the Hearing, it is imperative to show by our presence that we oppose the City�s use of EMINENT DOMAIN and oppose the PLAN for Stonebridge�s oversized rental apartment building on Highway 3. We deserve better from our city officials. Even those of you who have not attended the meetings, PLEASE speak up now or you will never have another chance. Remember that YOU will be paying for this building for a very long time. It will be a shame for your opinion not to have been recognized. Y O U R opinion is priceless. YOUR comments should focus on THESE KEY POINTS: NO public monies (TAX dollars) should be used to SUBSIDIZE a project that taxpayers don�t want. Citizens want downtown redevelopment that RESPECTS private property rights. Stonebridge�s proposal is TOO MASSIVE for the tight Core Block East site. Citizens DO NOT want Stonebridge to be awarded a SUBSIDY in EXCESS of $100,000 for Wally Johnson�s underground parking. Wally is asking for a HALF MILLION DOLLARS MORE for this! $500,000.00! Wally Johnson, Stonebridge Developer, says that his budget will be over $100,000 for underground parking. Therefore, he is asking for a Subsidy from the City of Rosemount. How MUCH will the Subsidy be? They SAY they don�t know yet? Will the City write a blank check to Wally Johnson? THEY SAY...they�ll tell you at the Hearing. BE THERE!