2007_0827_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 vyLi. 21VYYL V RJl1Vl+ElL bk L+F1.�' ••_UL. i Ltltf 11V31{�itii i 1[i�D 1.�t1iLVLY0.A l.'.LJ.IIQ}'� JC11iG G/ �G��i L U,�..(r/r -----OriginaE Mes�age-____ �'rom: esand52612@aol.com io: d�n.rn�c�coi�casf.n�t Sent: Sat, 4 Aug 204i 91:26 �m Subject: Fwcf: Hawt o Govern a City --St. Pauf Pion�er Press Ed�torral �riclay, J�ne 2? _____�r3g�nal Message----- �'�om: es�ndsZ612@aol.cnrri To: dar�.roe@eomcasi.n�� S�r�t: �'ri, 3 A�g 2�07 11:�Q am Subject: Re: Hnwt a Gove�rn a City --5t. Paul Pianeer Pr�ss Editoriai Friday, June 27 1 was ntrt �ware the ciLjr at�orney had presented legal ac�viee ta staff on the matter. Wt�at proof do yo� have? Is €t in wri#ing? Nave all cn�ancil persc�ns receiv�:d a copy7 rs��rr.� ----Original Message---- Frnrn: dan,rae@comcast.nef Ta: es�nds26i2@apl.com Sent: Thu, 2 Aug 2flQ7 8:19 �rn Subject: Re: Fwd: Howt o Govern a City —St. Paul l�ioneer Press �cfiEorial Friday, June 27 �a�., 'Th� cour� ruling, as T hav�: read it, did NOT pass judqment on whether the Rot��.und plan was or was not consa.stent wit�a the 2001 Masfier P1an, It mere�y said that a vote that was taken ta ct�anqe the 2001 Master Pian required a 4/S majori.ty, and having no� achieved that, was nnt a suacessfe�i vote tn ehange the p1an. The cour� d�.d not say whethex qr not that vote neec[ecE ta be '�aken �"or the pro�ecfi. to have been purs�ed, as fa� as I eould te�.l. I do not know whe�her we would be a.n the sarne apot �nday if the k�ottlund plan had been approved an tne basis of being already consistent with the 200� Maste� Plan, sance that is nat how it happened. �f �he approval isad occurred in tt�at mannez, then T suppose your buciclies at the FOTL wcsuld have ci�ailenged THAT in court, and we might have a co�r� ruling a� �o whether �he Rottlund p�an was consisten� wi�h �he 2E�E31 Master Plan. As we sit here now, we doh't h�ve tk-zat kind of ruling, in my opina.on. The cpurt rulizag as to the AUAR was that the area--by-area uses/impacts in sorne cases were di�ferent than �he AUAIt, so the AUAR needed to be updated, even tkaough the project-wide impacts were lower than t,he arxginaJ. AUAR. As the ruling notsd, the fact that 5 years had passed meant tha� �he AU.7�R needed to be updated axzyway. The updat�d AUAR has been devalopad nn the bas�s of being consis�ent with the 2001 Master Plan, includinq legal advice to staff to tha�. effect. I know that ypu disagree with tha� finding, bu� i have no� fauncl your arguments persuasive. k3owever, you are sti11 enta.tled to youx opinion. Dan Roe ______________ Original message ----___ �'rom: _�.�ar�ds2612�ao�.r.orn > >(?n� more questinn £or you regarding th� Twin Lakes Mast�x P�an:? If, as ynu s3y, http:l/webmaii.aol.com1290471aol/�n-�zslMail/Prin�M�ssage.aspx 8/7/2007