My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005_0711_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2005
>
2005_0711_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 1:23:22 PM
Creation date
9/14/2009 10:03:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
205
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
• We would like to see kosevill� allow oth�r developers to offer alternative <br />proposal—prajects tl�at are consiste�it with the ciiy's Master Piaa�. �ave tl�e <br />wildlafe areas—the ti•ees, the wetlands, the la►�ds and tl�e wildlife. Not a fillex•ing <br />plan for Raseville. <br />� City Council sl�ould spend mare tin�e listei�ing to the residealt's wisi7es o�� all <br />matters. <br />� This definitely not good plan for the people of Roseville. We stroilgiy oppose it. <br />� I do ��o� �hinl: we need any more shopping places. I do not wai�t iny taxes to be <br />iz�creased %r tl�is. <br />• Its unfo��unate the people who vote our elected oFficial ia1 a re becoa��ing ihe <br />voices ynu don't listen tc� anymore. Developers ai•e all about $$, T'he <br />enviro��ane�ii is pollt�ied Uecause pf them. We don't ileed tnore retailll The <br />Cauncil isn't listening to ai�yane but tl�c one developer. <br />• 1'his ��rinle piece ofproperl:y should not be a gift to the land barons. M�tst be a <br />be#ter plan. Mi�st be a better plan developici� revc��ue far t���: CrTY. <br />• Rosevillc is givin�; away wiih this developrnent too znuch. <br />� Toa niany housi�lg units. Nat tax ine. financing. The tax we get now is b�tier <br />than none, sin�;Ie family honlcs would be nice. <br />• Tax dollars should not be spent on developme��t. <br />+ I cat�zot believe the decisions this council is nzaking. T��ere slaould be a city wide <br />voTr. <br />� DEan Masc}aka was ar�lazed at the size of the ne�v Target store fron� Iliway 36. I <br />wonder how he'll react to the development at Twin Lakes. Thesc people don't <br />have a clue. <br />• Business shouicl pay for it's own developmeni and taxes like hor�eow�lers do. <br />• What was the City pian�iing to do with the tax mo�ley? <br />• Losin� two acres of parklaild is also appalling! ! <br />• I wonder wllat kind o� a kickback Craig, Dean, and Greg are getting? <br />• Deal should not be exclusive �ior should it be subsidized: P�'imarily disapprove <br />the process. <br />• Tell Mr. Masc�ka, Mr. Kla�rsing and Mr. Schroeder tllat there is no sz�ch t��ing as <br />"free money" <br />• Do not think we shoult[ ha�e to pay far businesses to c�evelop tlit-o�tgl� TI� fu�ids. <br />Have more than a��e tirm offer pla�s for area. <br />• I would like to I�el.p halt tl�is carporate welFare. <br />• We ara opposed to public subsidy for developn�eiit, usc of e�ni��ent do�nain t� siz� <br />privaie property, a�ld are conc�r�led the develapme.nt will har�� La���;ton Lake and <br />exacerbate the TCL; problem. <br />+ Disapprove of tax burden ai�d taking private prope�-ty by law. <br />•(1) Raseville is I'RIME location for dev�loper—they do not ��eed tax bread {25 <br />years) to be profitabl�;. (2) How can big box retail �t i�� w/ residential. Wi�o <br />wnuld chaase to Iive there? <br />• We would Iike a Coslco closer to Roseville, but not in ai� already congested area. <br />• Rnsevil[e doesn't need this development and should look for more creative �.�s of <br />this land. Rottland's use makes us look like every other �ne. <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.