Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />o <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Encouraged with how the <br />Langton Lake Park. <br /> <br />of <br /> <br /> <br />is <br /> <br />near the retail <br /> <br />but trails off as it <br /> <br />o Encouraged that housing design would be unique to development area and not another McHousing <br />project typically seen aligning our US freeways. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />But <br />There is no vision for retail beyond the big box. <br />There is no vision of how unique the housing will be other than it will be "different" <br />It's unclear how the mix of retail, housing and office comes together with any synergy. <br />It's unclear why this plan will augment Roseville's identity. <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />I can understand the notion that it's premature in the process to be specific of what will <br />be built at Twin Lakes. That's fine and understandable, but the problem in this case - <br />Roseville residents may have to pay taxes to finance it. <br /> <br />*-*-*-*-*-*-**-*-*-*-*-*-* <br /> <br />Concluding note - I don't see a compelling redevelopment plan benefiting the short and long term interests of <br />Roseville citizens over expected taxes to pay for it. Though the Twin Lakes mantra was "The Worst Thing to Do <br />is Nothing", to me, the worst thing to do is for residents to pay a lot of taxes for no common good benefit. But I'm <br />open to further plans and discussions, especially around the financing aspect and pointed discussion on how <br />Roseville benefits in the short and long term. <br /> <br />Regards, <br /> <br />Richard "Jake" Jacobson <br /> <br />8/4/2004 <br />