Envision Freedom, Eureka

The Green Sheet: to Comment or not to Comment

I've been pondering whether to send in the green sheet, that invites us to tell the CAC our "ideas, reactions and questions on the Strategic Vision." "You may mail this page back to us by October 8 if you wish," it tells us.

I generally try not to spend time or energy on futile acts without a good reason.  I think most people feel this way.

So the question this morning is, "What good will it do to put words on this green sheet and mail or deliver it to the township?"

So far, the impression I've gotten from the Strategic Vision Committee has been that it is not receptive to any ideas, reactions or questions that do not support its Vision as it has been set forth in its Draft Vision document.  I arrived at this impression by way of the following:

1.  A couple of months ago, a committee member told a group of my neighbors that the committee was not going to change anything in its draft.

2.  Although postcards were handed out to those who attended the recent Town Forum, no further effort was made to encourage people to write down questions, or to collect the postcards, at least during the time I remained at the forum, which was longer than the vast majority of attendees.

3.  Much of the "answer" portion of the Q&A at the Town Forum consisted of what appeared to be prepared lectures complete with Powerpoint slides which did not necessarily relate to the actual questions asked, and which seemed designed to bore people to death by going into a lot of detail on points that were not being  questioned.  This strategy seemed to work.  People left in droves before the Q&A session ended.

4.  One committee member was seen tossing a stack of handouts we brought to the Town Forum into a trash can.  Her response to the comment that the handouts weren't where they had been placed was to pretend to look for them unsuccessfully, including looking in the same trash can into which she had tossed them.

This, along with the questions I asked at the Town Forum, tells me that the committee already has an idea of what my ideas, reactions and questions are.

But there were many other people who came to the Town Forum and left without asking a question, and this leads me to wonder whether their ideas, reactions and questions will ever be known.  I know there were a lot of people who looked at this blog in the days prior to the Town Forum - over 100 within just one 24 hour period. 

So if any of you are still reading, please do fill out the green sheet and send it to the township.  Or, better yet, go to the comment form on the township website and voice your thoughts. 

If you mail in the green sheet, the instructions say to mail "by October 8."  October 8 is a federal holiday and there will not be any mail pickup or delivery on that date.  But I am sure that the CAC will accept your input if it is postmarked on October 9.

So please exercise your right to voice your opinion on these issues. 

   

Biological Significance: Data Security Means the DNR won't Necessarily Tell you Where the Protected Species Are Located

Responses the other night at the Town Forum to questions about "Biological Significance" referred to only one of the three maps mentioned in the relevant section of the Draft Vision.  It was unclear whether this means that this term will now be limited to the areas marked on the DNR map or not, because at the end we were told that we couldn't rely on anything we were told that evening.

The Township now has links to the DNR map, including a smaller version showing only the Eureka Township portion, on its homepage,  along with a link to the DNR website giving us some general information about how the data may have been gathered.

What I found interesting was on another DNR webpage addressing how to get more information about the underlying data.  I found a paragraph entitled "Data Security"  stating:

Data Security

Information from the Rare Features Database can be provided for review of land-use plans, impacts of specific development projects, research projects, and for other legitimate uses.  The publication of exact locational information, however, may threaten the continuedexistence of some rare species. For example, some endangered wildflowers, such as orchids,have very attractive blooms that can lead to exploitation by collectors. Some rare animal species, such as the bald eagle, are sensitive to disturbance by humans, and may desert a breeding area that is approached too closely during certain portions of the breeding season.  For this reason, program staff must carefully screen all requests, and may ask that the level of detail in publication of locational information be modified, or that interpretation of data be reviewed by program staff.

In other words, the location information on the map is not precise, may have been modified, and the DNR doesn't want to release precise location information because, quite frankly, it doesn't trust you and me.

This reluctance would, of course, make it difficult to more precisely determine how to build within the area without causing undue harm.

If you don't know exactly where the protected flora/fauna might be, or even what the protected flora/fauna are, it is not hard to imagine being told that you can't put anything anywhere in the mapped area because the thing being protected might be anywhere within it. 

So much for the idea of minimizing harm to the environment while not unduly restricting the owner's right to use the property.  So then we come back to the repeated phrase, "the entire parcel may be unbuildable."

But I thought somebody said that the CAC didn't intend to take away peoples' rights.

Cue up the Twilight Zone Theme

Town Forum	Actual Draft Vision document	Current Ordinances
It was never our intention to take away rights	1.3.4: "the entire parcel may be unbuildable."
	1.3.5 "the entire parcel may be unbuildable"
reference to "current environmental sensitivity guidelines"	no reference	no reference
there are only a few areas with "desirable" trees that would restrict buildability	1.3.4  "Within two years of the time the comprehensive plan is adopted, the Township will use a professional forest scientist to determine which woods are of highest quality and deserving of protection.  The Board may then decide whether lesser quality woods may be classified as receiving locations for Housing Rights." No map showing locations of "desirable" trees.
"Biological sensitivity is already defined."	1.3.5 and 3.2: Instead of a definition, references to three maps, none of which are included in the Appendix, and none of which refers to the phrase, "biological sensitivity."
A professional ecologist would be used if a property owner questioned whether land was biologically significant and the township would pay that cost.	3.2: "When a parcel that falls into this overlay area comes into question and the maps do not adequately address concerns, a professional ecologist will be used to determine how best to protect them."
The Strategic Vision will be changing, and you cannot rely on anything we say here tonight.

What's the Beef? Part 2

Every time our elected representatives enact a new law, it takes a bite out of our freedom.  It may be a little nibble or a five course meal.  It may be taken from someone else's hide and not yours, but it's a bite nevertheless.  That's why we need to have a good reason to justify why we need the new law in the first place.

The CAC is proposing major changes in building rights.  I have been sitting in on their meetings as an observer since last spring.  I don't remember hearing any CAC member explain why we need to restrict building rights based on "biological significance" and I don't remember hearing any clear definition of "biological significance."  Ditto for many of the other proposed restrictions on our rights.

I do remember another observer asking why the CAC wanted to single out property owners in shoreland zoning areas and prohibit them from buying and using building rights under the proposed TDR program, while other property owners outside shoreland zoning areas would be able to do that freely. 

The initial answer, accompanied by an exasperated look and a roll of the eyes, was that the committee did not have time to go into that, they had been working on these issues for a long time, etc.  Jeff Otto chimed in, trying to be a little nicer, and proceeded to say a number of things that (sorry, Jeff) completely ignored the question.

I sat there and thought, what a brilliant question! 

I understand that when people have been doggedly working on a project for a long period of time that they may tend to lose perspective, to feel that they have a personal investment in the results of the project, and may become defensive when questioned by an "outsider."

All the more reason to invite such questions.

We need to ask the question, "Why?"  And we need to keep asking it.  Why do we need additional
restrictions on our building rights? Even if the objective is a worthy one, why not propose a less restrictive way to achieve it? 

We need to look beyond the conventional words and phrases that are used like meaningless mantras to stave off questions - like "protecting" the trees, "protecting" the environment, going "green," achieving "sustainability."  These words and phrases are simply shields to protect the users from in-depth analysis of their agenda and the methods they seek to use to achieve it.  We need meaningful answers, and a good dose of common sense.

A Moral Dilemma for the CAC

One CAC member has said that they will not talk about grandfathered housing rights at Tuesday's Town Forum because the subject is too complicated.  An excerpt from the minutes of the CAC's August 14, 2007 meeting gives a glimpse of the problem:

VIII.  Existing housing rights

     1.  We have not had in recent years the full knowledge of the history of ordinances.  Some are coming back to bite us.  We have been working under a false assumption:  all pre-existing lots had housing rights.  We have some interlocking regulations from ordinances from different eras that are taking away housing rights.  We need to clean up this language.

 . . . .

2.  We thought we had a large legacy of lots that were permitted.

Here is a big hint that the CAC believes that their "sensitivity issues" will trump existing housing rights, and Jeff Otto wants to give something to the owners who lose their housing rights by allowing them to sell them to be used somewhere else (never mind that the value of a building right has a lot to do with the location where it is being used):

3.  If a lot is deemed not buildable by sensitivity issues, significant value is take from the lot.  By having a housing right that is separable from the lot, it has value the owner can use to apply elsewhere or sell to help offset the loss of use of the lot.

4.  Document parcels that are legal at any particular time and record them then.

But Sharon Buckley doesn't agree that property owners should be given anything when their housing rights disappear:

5.  Sharon disagrees:  There is no such thing as a legacy lot in the ordinance.  What matters is what is legal now.  Dec. 12, 1978, that is the date in the ordinance of whether the lot was buildable at that time.

6.  Cannot bind a future board.

7.  Jeff Otto was proposing a broader historical recognition of recorded lots to let them be recognized so that the housing right can be sold separately from the property if it is not buildable under current rules.  It doesn't make sense to be considering generating additional housing rights on one hand and to take away housing rights on existing lots on the other.

And here we get to the subject of reasonable expectations of property owners who for decades have been paying taxes based on the understanding that they owned a buildable lot:

8.  Sharon askes if it is legal to grandfather all old housing rights?  Jeff counters is it legal to take away housing rights that owners and the County Assessor have had a reasonable understanding and expectation for decades that they were buildable lots?  Moral issue.

The "Moral issue" comment came from Carrie Jennings, the recorder for the meeting.  Sharon and Jeff thought these were legal issues as well.  But I haven't heard anyone say that the CAC has sought any clarification from legal counsel.  I think the whole Draft Plan should have a disclaimer saying that it might be illegal.

Finally the final(?) Draft Vision online

As of this morning, one week after we received our postcard, and three days before the Town Forum, the newly revised "Draft Vision" can be accessed at http://eurekatownship-mn.us/DraftVision.pdf.  I wonder what changes have been made. . . . .

Still no Final Draft Available on line Friday Night

As of 10:15 p.m. on Friday night September 28, 2007, four days before the Town Forum, still nothing at http://eurekatownship-mn.us/DraftVision.pdf.

What's the Beef? Part 1

Somebody asked me yesterday, "what's so bad about what the CAC is proposing?"  For me that's hard to answer because there are so many horrible things about the CAC's "vision."

Let's start with the extreme lack of clarity.  The CAC is proposing major changes in building rights and zoning without saying exactly what it means or how it's supposed to work.  This may lull some into thinking that as long as there's no obvious bogeyman showing his ugly face in the language of the Draft Vision, that everything will work out okay. 

I disagree.

By failing to clarify exactly what its "Draft Vision" means, the CAC asks the township to rubber stamp whatever unexpressed thoughts its members have chosen to hide from us or whatever thoughts might occur to those who administer the township's ordinances.  It will interpret acquiescence as approval of those unexpressed thoughts.  It wants a blank check, to be written out in the future and cashed at the whim of the township.

What isn't clear? 

For one thing, the 900 pound gorilla in the room is the question of how these proposals will effect existing building rights.  An exchange that took place at a recent CAC meeting sheds some light on the fact that the CAC members believe that the "Draft Vision" will restrict existing building rights.  They believe that some property owners who think they have building rights will be told the contrary when they approach the township for a permit.

And yet one of the CAC members announced at a recent meeting  that grandfathered building rights would not be discussed at the forum because the subject was too complicated.

It's hard to think of a subject that is more important to Eureka Township property owners.

Whether or not you can build on your land is crucial to the value of your property.  The Township deserves to know what the CAC has in mind for our property rights.

Does the CAC care more about plants and animals than about its citizens?

Another amorphous threat to property rights lying in the weeds of the "Draft Vision" lurks in the phrase, "biologically significant."  Under the "Draft Vision," if your land is "biologically significant," you may not be able to build at all.  The CAC members believe
that this may effectively erase previously existing building rights.  Why?  Because an environmentalist may decide that your land is "biologically significant."  What does "biologically significant" mean?  Your guess is as good as mine.  I have scrutinized the latest "Draft Vision" language and it is as vague as it can be.

Imagine going before the Planning Commission because you want to put up a storage building, or rebuild your home.  Imagine being told that you can't get a permit until some environmentalist inspects your land to determine whether he or she feels that it is "biologically significant." 

Imagine that the environmentalist that comes out to inspect your land got up on the wrong side of the bed that day, after having been left by his or her significant other, is coming down with the flu, and thinks that you remind him or her of that bully from second grade. 

Then the environmentalist decides that your property needs to be protected from you and decides, without any objective standard, that you can't build because your land is "biologically significant."

Since the environmentalist has not been elected by the voters, he or she cannot be voted out or impeached, and owes no responsibility to the voters or property owners at all.

Ordinances that allow the government to deny your rights without any objective standard invite this kind of abuse of power, and should never, ever be approved.

Okay, that's a start on my answer to the question,"what's so bad about what the CAC is
proposing?" More later.

Hello CAC, is anybody home?

This morning I sent a comment to the CAC telling them that the url http://eurekatownship-mn.us/DraftVision.pdf shown on their postcard does not work.

Still no Final Draft Available on line

As of 8:57 pm this evening, five days before the Town Forum, the final draft is still not available for citizens to view on line before the Town Forum.

If you try to access it using the http://eurekatownship-mn.us/DraftVision.pdf url in the postcard that arrived in the mail five days ago, you will still get a "Not Found" error message.

So much for encouraging voters to read the draft on line before the Forum.

What is biologically significant?

The CAC wants to prevent some landowners from building, expanding or rebuilding on their land, but isn't telling us  what land will be affected or why. 

Because CAC's Strategic Vision threatens to restrict rights on "biologically significant" land, I naturally wondered just what land is "biologically significant."  The 9/24/07 draft of the plan states in 1.3.5:

A parcel containing a site of biological significance will fall into one of two categories: either house placement may be restricted to a portion of the parcel that will support a dwelling and setback requirements without signficantly impacting the protected land; or the entire parcel may be deemed unbuildable. When these parcels come into question, a professional ecologist will be used to determine how best to protect and manage these areas.

This draft doesn't define what the township will consider to be  "biologically significant."

3.2 of the draft contains some clues but no answers:

Biologically significant lands were mapped by the Department of Natural Resources, Non-Game Wildlife, Biological Heritage Division and include small, remaining areas of original vegetation and occurrences of rare plants and animals (refer to map). Further mapping and  classification has been done as part of the Metro Greenways program and Dakota County’s Farmland and Natural Areas Protection Program.

This mapping will be used so that further disruption to  these remaining natural communities is minimized. When a parcel that falls into this overlay area comes into question and the maps do not adequately address concerns, a professional ecologist will be used to determine how best to protect them.

The "refer to map" may be a note to the drafters that hasn't been accomplished yet, because the draft does not contain a copy of the DNR map.  If you'd like to look at the DNR map, be prepared for a long download time.  It's at ftp://ftp.dnr.state.mn.us/pub/eco/mcbs/maps/dako.pdf

(or you could view my downsized version that only contains Eureka Township)

This DNR map doesn't use the term "biologically significant."  Instead, it is entitled, "Natural Communities and Rare Species of Dakota County, Minnesota." 

The CAC apparently intends to cast a wider net with the phrase "biologically significant," because it also refers to "further mapping and classification" by the Metro Greenways Program and Dakota County's Farmland and Natural Areas Protection Program.

The DNR Metro Greenways Program has a map of "Regionally Significant Terrestrial and Wetland Ecological Areas."  Dakota County's Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan (warning - long download time) contains plenty of maps and pictures, but doesn't mention the phrase "biologically significant."

After looking at all of these maps and plans, I still don't know what the CAC means by "biologically significant."

Will they explain all of this at the Town Forum on Tuesday?  I think Eureka landowners deserve to know what the CAC has in mind.

 

Missing from the 6 Page Summary

See a small part of the important issues missing from the 6 page summary. 

The Summary Version of the Strategic Vision

The CAC has prepared a six page summary of its Strategic Vision.  The full version is, as of 9/24/2007, a full 35 pages. 

There are a number of important statements in the full version that did not find their way into the summary.  It looks like most residents who want to read this document will only get the six page summary.

At a CAC meeting in September, we were told that residents would be given the six page summary at the Town Forum on October 2 but if anyone wanted a copy of the full version, they would have to specifically ask for it, but the CAC would not plan to have enough copies of the full version to provide one for everyone that might attend the forum. 

The CAC would encourage residents to read the full version on-line, and the URL for the on-line version would be included in the postcard to be mailed out.

We got our postcard four days ago, and it said the Strategic Vision could be accessed at http://eurekatownship-mn.us/DraftVision.pdf.

It used to be there, but they moved it.  As of yesterday and today, if you try this link, you get a 404 "Not Found" error message.

But if you are really motivated, you can find the latest working draft on your own by navigating to the CAC's page and find the new link where it says, A copy of the Draft Vision is available here (PDF).  So I suppose technically, it's available to the public, just not where the postcard says it is. 

But of course, with less than a week before the forum, it's not in its final form yet.  It may yet be moved to http://eurekatownship-mn.us/DraftVision.pdf, but I'm not holding my breath.

Strategic Vision CAC Town Forum

The Strategic Vision CAC Town Forum will be held October 2, 2007 at 7:00