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
• Don't want city to pick only one contractor. City Cou��cil sho�ild �iot have last say <br />so. <br />• There a�•e better ways to spend out tax dollars. T��e cily is �iving too n�uch to oi�e <br />private developer. <br />• We tl�ink this is a horrible misuse of taxpayer n�onc;y and trust. <br />• We do not believi i�� subsidizing private develop�neiat when tl�ere are othcr <br />avenues for tl�em. In my opi��ion we do noti need any more sl�oppi��g centeres in <br />Roseville. <br />+ Who is the develop�r? All support? 25 years? NO. <br />• We do not nced any �nore shoppin� centers!! <br />� Using tax rncreine��t financing for this developme��t is i�•t'espo��sible: As i� the <br />concepi of tiie wliole project. <br />� Roseville used to ]zave a re�utation as a qttality plac� to Iive. Do we wa��t to <br />become th�; best pIac� ta shop instead? <br />• We already pay too rnany tax�s. We awn a small b�siness. No one in <br />gover�unent is giving trs a tax brcak . <br />• No i��ore rctail. 1'eople in debt tao much, <br />• We do not approv� c�i'tl�is no taxes far 25 years a�l tl�is d�velop�nent pla�a. <br />• 1 am agai��st emii�ent domai�� practices and we sl�auld not be supporti�lg <br />contractors with ot�r tax ���o��ey. If they cazl't c�o it an fiheir aw��-GE`1' RID O� <br />THEM. <br />• Affordable housing would be a better chaice. Listen to your Rosevill� citireus. <br />• We simpl� caiznot afi-ord a venture of this type. We don't ��eed anothe�• big bax <br />stare. How abotzt IZaving I�oseville residenis vote an this? Our ofliciais do��'t <br />seem to bc tisteniz�g to us. <br />+ No to retail. Rosevilfe ��eeds upscaie housin�. <br />• Why don't tliose 3 ding a lin�s on the council listen �o the average nori��al <br />cilizens. I don't �et il. <br />� Don't need mor� senior housing. <br />• Traffic increase is too ���uch. We do no! need more retail. <br />• We are concerned and disappointed over this costly �eniure. There was ��ever a <br />need case built for the project. 'l,his will pravc to be a shortsighied mave witl� <br />Iong ran�e ��e�ative irnpacts on our neighborhaod. <br />+ The bulk ol�the city co�ncil are not Iisle��ing io tl�e public. Thank yo�i for all your <br />doing to help t�e public to be heard. <br />• Too rnuch retail a�ad iraf�c. <br />� We have toa much retail—should not subsidize retaiI developmei�t –Costco <br />• Too 1na�1y einpty areas in maii now. Do�1't �ieed more. <br />• We do �ZOt need at�other shoppiz�g center. <br />• There are already enot�gh retail options in Roseville {tin�es 2}. <br />• We have enough �ig bax stor�s. If the land and location valL�es are so great, ll�e <br />developer should pay �or it rathez- than Roseville Citizens. NO Tl��. <br />� We do not need a�ly more shopping in tl�is area. Tl�e traffc is terribie i�1 this <br />area. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.