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 don't need more big box retail in Roseville! Traffie is bad now and wllat wi11 <br />be with t�is develo�nzent. We need a new mayor. <br />• We da not want a big box store in our �ieigl�borhaad�too n�ucl� traffic ai�d <br />congestian. <br />• Rose�ille does a�ot iieed morc, retail. The council s��oulci be seeking tt��l�iple <br />prapc�saIs froin rnare than one developer. Citize��s s��ould not by payizi� #axes a��d <br />support expe��ses. T'llis does not appear to be a well thougllt out plan—citizen <br />input has nat ��en nlaximized. <br />� No �Iaore big boxes. <br />� No more shoppin�; ce�ttc:rs in Rasevil�e. Please <br />�"�'he pec�ple shoulc{ i�ot pay for a private conlpany b�iilding projects. It is just <br />paliticians coming ��p with ideas to spel�d our money <br />+ Should nat force pcople to sell their property. Also cfoes not see�n ri�;l�t to sp�nd <br />so much ta�c nlaney, i��cur so much expense, far what benefit'? <br />M This is a bac� policy and a bad deal far Rosevillc. <br />* I quesfiion the need for this development at this time. <br />• We have sa mucl� �t��used/�acant cominercial spac� -- don't spend iax dollars to <br />build more. <br />a We don't wa��t another BIG BOX retailer. Please; you ��aust �•ecoi�sider this <br />plari. <br />• Traf�c would increase toa much — tha��ks for doing the sLir�ey. <br />• No inore retail in Roseville. No more traf�c. <br />�� disapprave of the �tse oi'public money (TI�'} for subsidizing tl�is �roject, aild <br />disapprave of the retail camponent of this project. <br />• Give�� Rosedalc;, no ��eed for any further con��nercial expansioi� i�� Rosevill�. <br />• Why is it that those indi�iduals elected to serve the people do not lisfen to what <br />the electorate want? When the project is as wlpopular as this one, it wauld see�� <br />the best action would be ta change the �lari or ehange the dc;ve;loper. <br />•"i'here is eaaough retail ii1 itoseville, traf�ic on Hamli��e and Co Itd C is already <br />�;etting too lzeavy for crossing the street. <br />• The city has ign.orett me in the past. I don't think tl�ey will listen naw, bt�t it i� <br />worth a try. <br />• Gaad luck! Let's not l�t the corporat� dollaz' run our coirununity. <br />� Go get them tiger! <br />� Put it to a vote to let the residents of Rosevill� decide. <br />• We �ot e�iou�h stores. <br />• W� voice stro�ig disapproval of any city action or monies ior Twin Lakes <br />developer. <br />• We thaught the City Cc�ux�cii was far the people, not t��e developers! <br />• Disapprove oi�public #izaancing for private developn�ent. <br />• Please do �lot allaw this developnle��t. <br />• Council — get out of our faee. No tax ii�c�•eme�at �nancing. Aren't our taxc;s high <br />enougl�? W��y s��ould Rottlund Hoznes b� ti��anced by us? <br />• Stop them. Keep up the good work. <br />� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.