06/20/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 6/20/2000 take the 9 acres and use a small portion to provide additional parking for the recreational facilities we have now. As soon as that was suggested, someone said the whole 9 acres was going to be paved over for a parking lot. Never was a 9 acre parking lot mentioned. Springvale was an issue where he could not get details out of the administration at that time. Basically, to the Mayor's credit at that time, he said, "Duane, that's all you're going to get. Vote your conscience." Now, if he had the details, it's rumored that we currently don't own all of one of the sand traps. Perhaps, with details, we could have owned it. But he is so thankful that we bought it, and we can work out the detail of a sand trap later. He really would like the overall good to be thought about. One statement of, when it's gone, it's gone, may not be entirely true. Years ago, we owned the village green, sold it to Sealtest, bought it back at a huge premium, and then we were able to put in a police station. When it comes to acquiring property, we can acquire it vacant, current market rates, maybe $30,000 an acre in this case. Or we can wait until its developed and pay a half million or million dollars an acre. That's our option. • Mr. Gareau said he had never heard anyone on a City Council advocate that less information is okay. The less you know, the better offwe'll be--he's never, ever heard that! He has never heard anybody tell him that he doesn't need to know the answer to simple questions like, "What's it going to cost?" That's his job. He doesn't have the luxury of just sitting back and going back on to the Farver property and harvesting money off of those money trees. They don't exist. He simply has to ask the question, "What is it going to cast?" "What is the big picture?" He was told he was going to get a big picture. The Mayor said to him in January, "Reserve any final judgment on this proposal until the total picture is presented." At the time, Council member O'Grady said, "That sounds like a fine idea. I commend the Mayor and ask that he proceed and give the City Council as much information as we can get so that we can make as wise and informed decision as we can make." He got nothing. And now he is told that less is more. He rejects that position, and he simply will not accept the notion that he should sit there and be less informed to make better decisions. It doesn't make sense to him. • Mr. O'Grady said two points need to be clarified. First, a statement that the Law Director made, and properly so, that there is no promise as to what the city will do. The Law Director properly stated that the city is not restricted by our own zoning codes. Then an assumption is made, correctly, that the city can do whatever they choose to do on that property. The same is also true of the existing Barton/Bradley soccer fields. We could put anything we want there. We can, but we haven't. Why haven't we? We all know the answer--because we know we need that area for recreation. We know we need it for the future of our city; we need for our children. Logically he thinks the same presumptions could be made if the city were to purchase the Farver property. Yes, the city could put something there. Would we? Same as Barton/Bradley soccer fields--no, it wouldn't make sense. The next issue discussed was that the city could buy it and go in and knock down all the trees. That's correct-- we could. Are we going to do that? We all know that's not going to happen. If we change the equation and don't buy the property, a private developer buys it and can do whatever they choose with their property. If they choose to knock down the house, they can. If they choose to clear the woods, they can. People should keep an open 16