11.1 C
Washington
spot_img

“Why didn’t I get a gift card?”: Mr. Heide objects to the Campus Connector Trail

Date:

Share:

Observers of Duluth City Council meetings may have noticed a new regular speaker: the bespectacled G...

A subscription is required to access this article. Subscribe or login below:

Use this form to sign up for the FREE
Duluth Monitor Newsletter.

━ more like this

Superior Public Safety Committee recommends spending 50K to resolve “urgent” police department issues

Superior Mayor Jim Paine and City Attorney Frog Prell were in attendance at the Superior Public Safety Committee meeting on April 17, 2025, to...

Spirit Mountain ordered to pay $908,651 to alpine coaster manufacturer

On April 10, 2025, following a four-day trial, a St. Louis County jury found Spirit Mountain liable for $908,651 in damages to Wiegand Sports...

Lakeview Tower first TIF project in Duluth to subsidize vacation rentals

On March 26, 2025, the Duluth Economic Development Authority (DEDA) approved an eighth amendment to the Lakeview Tower development agreement, thereby allowing for 34...

Former Superior Teachers Union president charged with drunk driving, resisting arrest

At 11 p.m. on March 22, 2025, the Superior Police Department received a report of a red Jeep Cherokee driving erratically and striking curbs...

Lakeside town clerk unable to obtain town documents from previous clerk

On April 8, 2025, the board of supervisors meeting Lakeside, Wisconsin, was unusually crowded. Citizens were concerned because longtime Town Clerk Ruthann Schnepper had...
spot_img

3 COMMENTS

  1. Bravo, Mr. Heide! This is just one small example of a city government that routinely ignores the concerns of its citizens over those of developers.The whole process favors the powers that be. Step #1: The zoning board that limits citizens’ objections to zoning changes to fifteen minutes, whether it’s one citizen or a hundred, you get fifteen minutes total. Step #2: The council gives you five minutes to state a case a competent lawyer would take an hour to explore. Step #3: Down comes the rubber stamp.

    One can only speculate that this is all about the city and its cozy relationship with developers, a city parks commission with a questionable track record vis-a-vis the Lincoln Park debacle, and their weak attempt to use nimbyism as a defense. Just who exactly would benefit from a bike path running from Rice Lake Rd. to the Lakewalk???? And how many of our tax dollars will it cost????

  2. George, not sure where you get your facts from, so let me clear up a couple or 9:

    1- No developer is involved with the Campus Connector. NONE. Citizens and groups have been working on it for maybe 15 years. Public meetings have been out there, as well as active citizens that work extremely hard on projects like this.

    2- I don’t believe there were any zoning changes proposed or made for this transportation trail.

    3- You don’t get 15 minutes at Zoning, maybe 3 at best but sometimes they relax that rule, possibly based on agenda load.

    4- You don’t get 5 minutes at a council meeting. Only 3 is allowed.

    5- A competent lawyer knows that the battle is not won at a council meeting. It is done at the commission level while working with your councilor way before a council meeting.

    6- The Parks Commission is all-volunteer. To question them tells me you have been to either zero Parks Commission meetings or maybe one and only stick around for your subject. I have attended almost every commission meeting for maybe 4 years now and I’m happy to say the commission does a good job. They voted down a new park just last year or so only to have the council approve it. The commission heard maybe 6 hours of discussion and an untold amount of time with emails and talking with citizens. Reading the Monitor only gives you John’s take on a subject. As far as the Lincoln Park deal the commission can only act on what information they are given at that moment in time. There are openings on the commission in your district so sign up!

    7- I agree with the time limits. Once upon a time, the Parks Commission would let someone talk as long as they needed to but would limit it when repeating started. Then they limited it to 3 minutes after they voted down the park project I mentioned above, most likely because the City wanted the meetings not to run long. The reason they ran long is that the City’s positions and statements needed many people to help rebut and clear up after all the BS that they use from time to time. I represent a group and I get 3 minutes, others represent themselves and they get the same time. We have thought about bringing many folks to the meeting and string out our comments but that seldom works, just because scheduling folks’ time is not easy and it would not reflect well with the commissioners.

    8- I will not argue your point “…city government that routinely ignores the concerns of its citizens over those of developers.” Our group fought a development or a part of it only to find out that the City promised the developer something like a road so our fight was lost at the council level. This City seriously lacks equity and transparency. This is why it is hard to fill commissions. If the council will not take the commissions’ hard work and try to understand why they vote a certain way then we do not have effective commissions and I will argue we will not be able to fill these positions with citizens when their time has not been respected. I think there are over 30 open seats now. Join one and see how it actually works.

    9- The development you have an issue with is underway and it’s a good project. You just didn’t get your way, I guess. I seldom get mine, but I have learned from them. I hope you will as well.

    • Mr. Casey,

      The petition below was sent to the City Council members, Mayor, Directors and the project manager Jim Shoberg. I would be glad to sit down with you to set the facts straight on the communication and correspondence sent to these public officials and city staff regarding siting of segment 1. I believe I previously requested that you identify your position regarding the approval and building the Campus Connector Trail when you made comments to the Duluth Monitor in the past. If you truly want to know the facts related to information provided to the City Administrators and Joel Sipress based on our concerns I will review the material with you. You will find out that the concerns are valid and unanswered by project manager, his director, Joel Sipress and the Mayor. The following correspondence was sent to Joel Sipress and his fellow City Councilors prior to the City Council approval of the plan:

      City Councilors,

      City of Duluth – Parks and Recreation Proposed Campus Connector Trail – Residential Stakeholder Petition (Bristolwood Development)

      The residents of the Bristolwood Development are petitioning the Duluth City Council members to consider how Segment 1 of the Campus Connector Trail will interface with our residential development prior to and after approving the Mini Master Plan.

      We are petitioning the City Council not to approve the design that requires Segment 1B and 1D/ Chinook Drive cul-de-sac spur as proposed by the City. We are requesting that the proposed design eliminate Segment 1B that places the trail at the backyard property lines of even number Chinook Drive homes. We are requesting that proposed Segment 1 trail utilize Chinook Drive to connect to Segment 1D via the Chinook Drive cul-de-sac spur trail.

      By considering and acting on our petition the City will develop infrastructure that is in balance with the surrounding built and natural environments while; impacting less wetlands, reduce carbon footprint, conserving woodland areas, reducing maintenance costs, meet the requirements of ¼ and ½ mile distances from origin to destination (mid campus CSS) distance*, increase safety and security of Bristolwood Development residents and trail users and reduce the Segment 1 cost to the tax payers by $937,000.

      The City will be able to meet all the requirements and guiding principles of the Mini Master Plan by making the revision to the existing proposed plan as requested by the residents of Bristolwood Development. The Mini Master Plan’s guiding principles:

      1. Identify shared goals and vision for trail with stakeholders and community.
      2. Generate preferred trail alignment and design considerations.
      3. Provide high quality recreational and commuter trail opportunities for local residents and regional users.
      4. Develop infrastructure that is in balance with the surrounding built and natural environments.

      With our support, we will invite individuals into our neighborhood who share the same goals of the stakeholders who promoted the Mini Master Plan to use Chinook Drive to connect Boulder Ridge, Rice Lake Road to Segment 1D via Chinook Drive cul-de-sac spur.

      * Higher Education Area Small Plan; Transportation research uses 1⁄4 mile or 1⁄2 mile as the distance people will typically walk to reach their destinations—depending on such factors as condition of pedestrian facilities, weather, and barriers such as intersections with major roadways.

      Please see attachment for petition and the recent survey conducted by the residents of Bristolwood Development. Eleven surveys were submitted. This is the same number of surveys that were submitted by residents of Bristolwood Development to the City when the Parks and Recreational Department conducted an online survey of Bristolwood Development regarding the Campus Connector Trail. Please submit the two documents to the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on October 28, 2019.

      Respectively submitted,
      Wade Roseth
      1820 Chinook Drive

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here