What's Missing in Roseville Planning?
Resident Gary Grefenberg offers some thoughts on how to improve the city process.
Photos
Editor's note: The following opinion post was written by Gary Grefenberg. He is currently chairman of the Roseville Human Rights Commision and is co-leader of the Civic Engagement Task Force. He is also founder of a neighborhood group called Solidarity of West Area of Roseville Neighbors.
Roseville usually does a good job when it comes to long-range planning: witness the Imagine Roseville 2025, Comprehensive Plan update, and the Parks Master Planning effort.
Yet the city never seems to get many residents engaged in these planning projects beyond the usual suspects, yours truly included. And when controversy erupts and the consequences of this planning impact a Roseville neighborhood this lack of wide-spread citizen involvement often results in the feeling that it doesn’t matter what the residents think—a you can’t fight City Hall attitude at best or at worst Government is the problem.
This experience has happened too often to be completely dismissed simply because residents are too busy—or at worst too lazy--to get involved when the opportunities for involvement are good, at the beginning of the planning process. There may be other factors at work here.
I’d like to suggest one. Our community-wide planning, whether it is a new Comprehensive Plan or a Parks Master Plan, suffers from the fact that it is community wide.
City plans rarely focus on the local impacts except when a controversy over a pawn shop or asphalt plant occurs and a public hearing is required before government can make a final decision. Often by then it is too late since the ground rules are written and the land use policies are already enshrined in the Comp Plan and the regulations are codified in the zoning ordinance.
Local opponents, read Neighborhoods, then find themselves in the position of often vocally opposing such proposals for their neighborhoods, and the wider community sometimes reacts to this opposition by dismissing it as typical of Not-in-My-Backyard thinking, an easy epithet often attached to actors opposed to change by those lucky enough not to be effected by the change in question.
We can accept situations such as suggested above as human nature and just the way it always is, or we can try to improve it. I would suggest one problem in our community planning often is that we do not bring it down to the local.
Both the planning for our Comprehensive Plan and Parks Master Plan were not brought back to the local level, in Roseville that means its neighborhoods. The focus was exclusively on community-wide planning, thus setting the stage when controversy erupts for local residents feeling overlooked or ignored.
You can hold all the public hearings and community forums you want at city hall, but without bringing community plans down to their specific impact on local neighborhoods before they are official you will always get this reaction from many at the local level.
Over the last few years we saw this reaction from the extreme NW quadrant of Roseville in its response to the increased density of some of multi-family parcels, and from West Roseville residents when the Wal-Mart development was first announced to the public months after City Staff first became aware of it.
Roseville’s planning process will never be perfect. But it could be better if those planning our future at city hall would occasionally bring the potential consequences of their community planning back to the neighborhoods before it is finalized by the City Council.
Tony Nickelsen
1:59 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Great editorial Gary! This truly brings to light what is missing in our democratic society. With that being said, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink! Civic engagement is at an all-time low because people are frustrated that no one at city hall will listen to reasonable citizen points of views. I mean really listen!! So, they give up and don't remain involved. The trust level has also evaporated between citizens and public officials. The concerns over behind the scene, secretive dirty politics has reared its ugly head. Rezoning to change comprehensive plans, approving obligation bonds on our soon to be $8 million fire station and 1st faze of the $90 million dollar Park & Rec. Master Plan by using Port Authority instead of allowing the voters to approve it through referendums like years before when we voted for the city hall improvements, police station and public works building. The decision to build only 1 fire station, decided by a task force mainly made up of special interest group/former fire fighters, not 2 smaller stations at a lesser cost will prove to be a mistake long term. The Park & Rec. Master Plan is overpriced $90 million dolllars, not $19 million, that's just the first part of the park improvements. Plus, there's no mention of building a community center in any of the new P&R Master Plan! That's what most residents want built, but no, not our visionaries at city hall! We, the people of Roseville can take our govt. back!!!
Bob Willmus
4:43 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Gary
Neighborhood discussions will be part of the Master Plan Implementation Process.
As you may recall the process was delayed as a result the Friends of Twin Lakes (RGR) litigation.
For others interested in the Parks Master Plan I have included the link to the plan below.
http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/4843
Thanks for your ongoing commitment to Roseville.
Donna Miliotis
5:21 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
So tell me Bob, what are you going to do to improve my neighborhood?
Donna Miliotis
5:18 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Sorry, Gary, but you're assuming that all council members care about neighborhood impact. They don't, unless it affects their immediate neighborhood.... There was zero objective evidence for connecting C2 this past year and plenty of obective evidence for keeping it closed. Citizens presented neighborhood impact statements in front of the council for over half a year. In the end, not one of the 3 council members who voted to connect was able to base their decision on objective data or demonstrated concern for our neighborhood. The rationale provided by these council members was so evasive and inarticulate that I'd have been embarassed for them if I weren't angry. So once council member cuts down on commute time? Another managed to reduce traffic in front of his own home with the connection????? Perhaps you could explain to us what happened.
As you once told me, "A policy is not an ordinance." The same pretty much goes for Comprehensive Plans and this was quite clear in the Walmart decision.
Bob Willmus
10:23 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
You often put forward innuendo and rumor as fact in attempting to validate your perspective. These actions do not serve to advance the dialog or debate.
Below is an excerpt of the meeting minutes from the council discussion regarding the connection of C2. Contrary to you assertion otherwise, my determination to open C2 was based in the data and conclusions of the SRF traffic study.
“In his continuing analysis of the traffic study and overall city-wide and regional traffic issues, as well as the conclusions drawn from the traffic study, Councilmember Willmus stated that it became apparent to him that connecting C- 2 would serve to improve traffic flow for the area. Councilmember Willmus noted that the traffic study showed 300 vehicle trips per day that would utilize C- 2 over Woodhill or Josephine Road for access to the neighborhood. Councilmember Willmus noted that the traffic study showed that connecting C- 2 would not have a significant impact on area intersections, and that a connected C- 2 was more efficient…”
Donna Miliotis
12:24 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
My perspective on the topic of "What's missing in city planning" is that neighborhoods come first.
My perspective is that city council members are elected to serve and protect established neighborhoods, not to sacrifice those neighborhoods for regional traffic. My perspective is that it is the Met Council, Ramsey County or the state's job to solve the problem of how one gets home from Minneapolis to Maplewood. City council members are elected to help the people of Roseville.
Council members are also expected not to enable the bullying of one neighborhood by another. That's why the city's new Traffic Management Policy was developed (quite quickly AFTER the council voted to connect C2) to prevent that from ever happening again (except that it's only a policy, not an ordinance).
We are clearly talking about different traffic studies, because the SRF study that I've read (Figure 9) shows 600 more vehicle trips per day on C2 than Josephine and 1,100 more on C2 than Woodhill. Altogether, there are 800 more vehicle trips per day on those streets with the C2 connection than without. That's not a neighborhood overnight population explosion, that's regional traffic. Furthermore, a drop from an A/C level of service to a C/F level of service at ANY intersection IS significant. (p.19)
Scott Carlson
12:28 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
I find Tony's comment about a community center intriguing. Can anyone tell me if that has been seriously considered by the City Council or the Parks and Recreation Commission? In many respects, it seems like the Skating Center/John Rose OVAL seems to come close to being a skating center. The one major thing that it lacks, which many community centers have, is a swimming pool.
Dan Roe
10:09 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
There is the basis of a plan for a community center in the Park & Recreation Master Plan. The exact timing, location, and features must still be worked out. It was not a Phase I proposal because the Phase I proposals were largely to deal with the existing backlog of basic upkeep requirements in the parks, before adding significant new facilities.
The Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy development was begun before the C2 discussion - as a result of discussions of the previous year's Dale Street project north of C. As was pointed out, the policy was not completed until after the C2 project was approved.
Donna Miliotis
1:27 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Does anyone have a link to the specific details for each park? The link from yesterday only provides the plan evolution and general goals of the Park and Rec Master Plan, including how park improvements are generally paid for. When will the Master Plan have specific details for each park and when will those neighborhoods know what they are/have input on their immediate neighborhood park?
Mayor Roe: A belated thank-you for your statements prior to the C2 vote. You clearly understood the data and the impact on the neighborhood. But if the Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy was already in the works, then why didn't the C2 vote happen AFTER the policy was approved?
Scott Carlson
4:27 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
I have deleted a comment from the comment stream because it has made a questionable attack against an individual. Our Patch policy is that purely personal attacks against individuals are not permitted. This a gentle reminder that we welcome respectful and civil debate, not unfounded mudslinging.
Tony Nickelsen
12:21 am on Sunday, August 12, 2012
The Master Park Plan is a good plan in it's form, minus a few expensive, unnecessary buildings that will cost several hundred thousand dollars. What is missing as Donna said is input from each neighborhoods residents. Plus, without beating a dead horse, we need to be able to vote on the costs of the improvements through referendum. Our property taxes are going through the roof, even though the value of our homes has been going down! If it goes to vote and the people decide that's what they want, then democracy rules and I can live with it!