CC_Minutes_2004_0927 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

stormwater drainage and the wooded barrier to the south of the lake is "opened up" for viewing from Twin Lakes Parkway. Although the developers have claimed that this development is the only way to clean up soil and water contamination in the Twin Lakes area, this just isn't true. Under this proposal, the city is agreeing to pay all of the costs of environmental clean up. The city has no obligation to agree to pay any clean up costs at all and there is no reason why we should agree to clean up for a project that does not benefit the community. Whether the city ought to commit public money to pay for environmental clean-up is a decision totally separate from the decision whether to approve this particular development. The proposed redevelopment will not create living wage jobs, or any genuine economic growth. The proposed subsidy can't be justified on economic development grounds. And how does it benefit the community to unfairly subsidize large retailers at the expense of local small businesses? The proposed redevelopment does not provide for any public needs, but it does provide a lot of things that Roseville doesn't need: more large retail development, more senior housing, more traffic, more pollution, a new and expensive Twin Lakes Parkway, and additional costs for roads, police and fire protection, and environmental clean-up (without any additional tax revenues to pay these costs). For all of these reasons, the city council should not agree, even "in principle" to provide the public subsidies the developers are asking for. There are too many risks, and too many unknowns for the city council to make such a momentous financial commitment on behalf of Roseville residents and taxpayers at this point. I urge the council to take this opportunity to slow the process down. Further investigation is needed on environmental issues and further public input is needed on the proposal and its impacts for the community. Amy Ihlan Roseville City Council Member