Special meeting of the Board of Supervisors – 20 Sep 2010

Bridgewater Township Supervisors

will hold a

SPECIAL JOINT MEETING

with Dundas City Council

on

Monday, September 20, 2010

7:15 P.M.AGENDA: Annexation Agreement (PDF)

at

Bridgewater Town Hall
500 Railway Street South
Dundas, MN

A quorum of the Bridgewater Planning Commission may be present.

References

Suggested reading:

Advertisements

One Comment

  1. Posted September 16, 2010 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    [from a blog I wrote in Jan, 2009] At a meeting at Bridgwater Twp (very early in 2009) (board of supervisors working session) we heard from several concerned neighbors. We also listed a whole white board of concerns. Some of those concerns

    * protecting Spring Brook Creek – identified in 2006 as an impaired waterway, and an important hatchery for trout.

    * protecting neighbors from noise and light pollution.

    * keeping access (improved over the current, in fact) to the river.

    In addition, there is a real question of the viability of the proposed use in the current market, and the issue of how to pay for the necessary infrastructure.

    Two years ago (2007) I would have said that cities are not required to ask if a business plan makes sense, that it is sufficient to provide a good environment and let businesses take the risks. But a new term has entered our lexicon — “too big to fail”. It is clear that in the modern relationship between large business and government (size is relative) we can no longer let businesses make their decisions as if we thought only they would lose if their business failed. But the overdesigned developments we see in our area are more than just incomplete dreams, they are also possible nightmares, as the money and the market dries up leaving incomplete chunks of partially developed real-estate. If business is going to come begging for our (government) handouts, then perhaps we have the right to help them make good business decisions. Of course, that sounds like mercantilism, and THAT’s another problem.

    (then)

    A couple of questions came to mind. IF we are going to bow to the “too big to fail” mantra, then we should start NOW to decide whether it makes sound, bottom line, sense for Northfield to invite in another 475 acres of industrial. We need to know

    * Are we shooting ourselves in the foot: How much un-rented office space is there in Northfield-Dundas already? Is this going to become a blighted unfinished industrial park? Are we asking existing capacity to subsidize the very competition that will destroy them (think Target and the downtown).
    * Are we shooting the taxpayers in the foot: How much capacity does the current infrastructure have available to allocate to a new office and industrial park? What is the projected use of those resources?

    ** Safety center: Emergency services and the problem the rail line already represents for supporting new expansion south of 19 and west of the blocking rail line? What is the current response time to StOlaf? Do we already have a problem? Would going north to get across the railroad, then south to get to Armstrong be unsupportable? Malt-O-Meal is almost as far and we have not worried about it (at least not publicly).
    ** Utilities: Sewer treatment, water and electricity/gas. Offices and industrial (at least transmodal sites and warehouses) are usually low consumers of water and sewer. Electricity is magic, we don’t even ASK where it is coming from. And gas, well we don’t have to worry about transiting the Ukraine like Europe does (how’s this for a catchy EDA phrase? “Move to Northfield, where your natural gas does not transit from unstable powers through former satellites!”)

    * Protecting our legacy: How much leverage do we have to ensure that the creek is protected? Do we have a temperature-turbidity-phosphorous inventory and can we ensure that the new development will maintain or improve on that situation?


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

%d bloggers like this: