•
- Alien Attack!
Should there be an ordinance that would officially prohibit Richfield police from asking about a person's immigration status? Again, Fred Wroge and Bill Kilian question the necessity of such an ordinance. Wroge wants to see more evidence that there is even a problem before passing such a law. Kilian believes it would send a negative message to the Police Department. Clerk typist Jennifer Romo, who works as a Spanish language translator for Richfield police said officers she has worked with have never asked about documentation in the more than 20 years she's worked for the department. Susan Rosenberg supports the law because of her work with Cornerstone. Sue Sandahl agrees with Rosenberg. Let your council members know where you stand on this issue.
- Citizen Challenges HRA
The Richfield HRA plans to Appeal the ruling by Admistrative Law Judge George Beck that declares that former Richfield resident Ken Wren was eligible for relocation benefits when a city-backed developer purchased his property for redevelopment of the west side of Lyndale avenue between 76th and 77th streets. In Wren's case, the developer of Kensington Park bought him out rather than the city. In doing so, the City's use of a private developer avoided the costs of relocations benefits. However, it was argued that the city's significant involvement in the development means that the statute regarding relocation benefits applied in the acquisition of Wren's property and the others involved.
If the Supreme Court upholds this decision, other homeowners can make similar claims.
Thus continues litigation questioning the means of how homeowners and businesses have been condemned and acquired by the Richfield HRA for the city's redevelopment projects, beginning with the Best Buy project and forward. We have to wait to see what happens.
The reason that the city of Richfield is getting less and less outside funds from outside sources is because it is becoming more and more commercial and less residential. As the city council votes to redevelop more and more single family dwellings, according to the state formula, we qualify for less and less state aid. The problem lies in the fact that our projects are all TIF. While any new taxes generated by a TIF district will effectively reduce state aid, none of those taxes will go into the city's general fund. Consequently, higher property taxes are needed to cover the shortfalls caused as a result of TIF redevelopment.
- Council Actions & Citizen Reactions
Much has been said regarding our political decision making process from the national level to the family dinner table. The process may not be optimal, but we haven't found a better one that works most of the time. The ultimate decision makers are generally chosen by a majority of the group which will then hopefully reflect the consensus of that group. But, while decisions should best show support by consensus, oftentimes decisions are first made and then hopefully followed by support. In the business world this is commonly referred as acting without permission and then apologizing. Some officials believe getting a majority vote translates into consensus--consider that at the national level less than 30% of voters may act to elect our President, which could mean a mere 16% of all possible voters could bring a victory-- this may represent a majority, but not a consensus. Which brings me to the question of city council actions and citizen's reaction to them. In the case of our Northeast Richfield approximately 8% of our property tax base was eliminated based upon unproven 'low-frequency' noise and its debilitating effects. A recent (Nov. 24, 2005) Richfield Sun Current news article stated that east Richfield residents noted little to no change in noise levels and don't want to be bought out while others said low-frequency noise has become a big issue and want to be bought out. While it appears that the 'jury' is still out on the real effects of low-frequency noise the actions by the city council at best might seem premature and at worst did not reflect consensus by eastside residents and probably by the remaining approximate 92% Richfield residents. Regarding 'Roundabouts' or traffic circles, the Richfield City Council recently approved their construction at the intersections of Portland Ave. and 66th St. and Portland Ave. and 17-1/2 St. The council's decision was based upon existing sites with 'single' lane roundabouts and what appeared to be lower density and lower traffic count locations. The approved roundabouts will be 'two' lane based on expected traffic volume. At a late October council meeting, citizens were given the opportunity to voice their opinions on the roundabout proposal. After hearings that lasted until midnight, any observer would have concluded there was no consensus support for the council's action in this matter. Financing for the construction of both roundabouts, at least in part, will be through citywide bonding.
-
Medtronic TIF called Sweet Deal
In a rebuttal letter in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, dated Sept. 18,2005, Duane McCarty, a former mayor of Mounds View, MN, took exception to the Mounds View city council's approval of a TIF District involving the city's Bridges Golf Course as the site of a new Medtronic Corporation cardiac rhythm headquarters. Medtronic lobbyists first characterized the project as a job creator, thus qualifying as an 8-year economic development tax increment project, but the "new" jobs to Mounds View were essentially transfers from a Medtronic facility in a northern suburb. Furthermore, Medtronic lobbied and got tax concessions extending to 25 years. McCarty contended the Bridges Golf course was not only viable, but receiving profits from onsite billboard leases. The city was not only losing a golf facility but also significant income for over 25 years. He went on to describe the action as a sweet deal and an end-run around otherwise well intended laws.
-
Why-Fi?
The city of Richfield is in the discussion phase of utilizing Wi-Fi; the city of St. Louis Park is building a partial Wi-Fi network at a cost of $280,000 and Minneapolis expects to turn on a citywide network in about two years. Why? According to a Minneapolis Star newspaper article, a citywide Wi-Fi system for St. Louis Park could cost $4.4 million and require 3,700 to 7,000 customers for the city to break even. The money raised by selling the service to city residents would pay for the loan at approximately $25 per month. It was emphasized the no taxpayer dollars would be levied. Its my personal understanding that many municipalities, universities, libraries and other public facilities offer the service free. Some of the St. Louis Park Council had concerns about whether the action was part of the city's role, while others saw it as a public utility that the city should provide. I personally agree that government should confine its activities to which it performs better than the private sector. We should understand that Wi-Fi is a radio wave substitute for telephone wires and TV cable and similar to cell phones and short wave radio, except limited to one frequency band, shared by all users similar to a "party line", which might raise privacy issues. Said another way, Wi-Fi is just another way to get to a Internet Service Provider (ISP) and most useful when used with portable notebook and pocket PC's. I'm also curious to know how a city could identify and charge only someone using an airway. Contact richfieldcare@yahoo.com with your opinion and/or clarity, on Wi-Fi in the public domain.
-
Richfield joins Lawsuit
Richfield has joined other surrounding cities in a lawsuit against the MAC in hopes of getting a full package of noise insulation for its homes on the far eastside which are affected by airport noise. The question is that if they win the noise mitigation what effect will this have on any TIF redevelopment . If the MAC mitigates the problem, how can Richfield claim the homes are substandard and therefore qualify as a TIF district? We'll keep you posted on how this conundrum unfolds.