My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_0620
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_0620
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:27:29 AM
Creation date
8/19/2005 3:26:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/20/2005
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />· We would like to see Roseville allow other developers to offer alternative <br />proposal-projects that are consistent with the city's Master Plan. Save the <br />wildlife areas-the trees, the wetlands, the lands and the wildlife. Not a filtering <br />plan for Roseville. <br />· City Council should spend more time listening to the resident's wishes on all <br />matters. <br />· This definitely not good plan for the people of Roseville. We strongly oppose it. <br />· I do not think we need any more shopping places. I do not want my taxes to be <br />increased for this. <br />· Its unfortunate the people who vote our elected official in a re becoming the <br />voices you don't listen to anymore. Developers are all about $$. The <br />environment is polluted because of them. We don't need more retail!! The <br />Council isn't listening to anyone but the one developer. <br />· This prime piecc of property should not be a gift to the land barons. Must be a <br />better plan. Must be a better plan developing revenue for the CITY. <br />· Roseville is giving away with this development too much. <br />· Too many housing units. Not tax inc. financing. The tax we get now is better <br />than none, single family homes would be nice. <br />· Tax dollars should not be spent on development. <br />· I cannot believe the decisions this council is making. There should be a city wide <br />VOTE. <br />. Dean Maschka was amazed at the size of the new Target store frbm Hiway 36. I <br />wonder how he'll react to the development at Twin Lakes. These people don't <br />have a clue. <br />· Business should pay for it's own development and taxes like homeowners do. <br />· What was the City plmming to do with the tax money? <br />· Losing two acres of parkland is also appalling!! <br />· I wonder what kind of a kickback Craig, Dean, and Greg are getting? <br />. Deal should not bc exclusive nor should it be subsidized. Primarily disapprove <br />the process. <br />. Tell Mr. Maschka, Mr. Klausing and Mr. Schroeder that there is no such thing as <br />"free money". <br />· Do not think we should have to pay for businesses to develop through TlF funds. <br />Have more than one firm offer plans for area. <br />· I would like to help halt this corporate welfare. <br />· We are opposed to public subsidy for development, use of eminent domain to size <br />private property, and are concerned the development will harm Langton Lake mld <br />exacerbate the TCE problem. <br />· Disapprove of tax burden aJ1d taking private property by law. <br />· (I) Roseville is PRIME location for developer-they do not need tax bread (25 <br />years) to be profitable. (2) How can big box retail fit in wi residential. Who <br />would choose to live there? <br />· We would like a Costco closer to Roseville, but not in ml already congested area. <br />· Roseville doesn't need this development aJ1d should look for more creative us of <br />this land. Rottland' s use makes us look like every other one. <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.