More about anonymous comments

Go Gophers!

Facebook product design manager, Julie Zhou wrote Online, Anonymity Breeds Contempt for the New York Times today, 11/30/2010.  Just one more piece of the discussion other parts of which can be found on Locally Grown, the Northfield News in 2008, and this year and this blog.

Ms Zhou points to Facebook’s efforts to use its very social nature to create checks on “the online disinhibition effect.”  I think this is probably more powerful than legislation.  One reason I told my then-13 year old that if she wanted a Facebook page she’d have to “friend” me, was just this principle.  If she knows Mom might be listening, she is more likely to think before posting.  And, because Northfield is such a great community, my daughter also has other adult friends (her theater directors, parents of friends, coaches, grandparents, neighbors) who form part of her online social network and safety net so there are many caring adults who can follow the conversation.

I’m not quite sure how the Facebook social network model transfers to comments on news sites.  It suggests at a minimum that anonymity should be discouraged in favor of being accountable for one’s words.  Fair enough.  I still think thoughtfulness and self-restraint are unlikely to be created by legislation, however, and editorial control over comments can weed out problem comments/commentators, but probably won’t help create a better culture of public discourse.

Vigorous public debate, I’d add, is not necessarily pleasant or nice, but involves criticism, rebuttal, and refutation, too.  There must be ways to allow players to fight for the puck in the corner and even throw the occasional well-timed check.

 

 

Changing development styles

From today’s Star TribuneBuyers, builders want a smaller home in the ‘burbs: Rethinking of priorities means a shift away from supersized developments.  The pendulum is swinging back toward smaller developments which emphasize proximity to work, play and shopping (and are becoming profitable for developers).

Wind on the Planning Commission agenda

The Planning Commission is holding a special meeting tomorrow night to do what the Council asked: review and recommend a response on the proposed wind turbine projects currently before Rice County (Council will approve and tinker if necessary on 12/7).  See my previous posts from 10/30 and 11/7).  As an update, 3 of 5 projects by the same developers (GroWind and Spring Creek Wind) have been approved by the Rice County Board of Commissioners.

The Planning Commission is reviewing 2 projects - 1 is from Carleton College (here’s a map) which the College courteously brought to the City Council  (no legal requirement that they do so) before the public hearing would be held by the Rice County PC on 12/9.  The proposed turbine is easy to understand and to like – Carleton received a gift for another wind turbine.  The College would like to site this turbine so that it could connect directly to the campus electrical grid to power their operations (read all about it in the PC packet) which supports their intent to create a “green” campus.  Northfield would be buffered by the Arboretum and the biggest impact would likely be visual – another spinning windmill to the east (which some people think is wonderful and some consider hideous – not sure how to deal with this dichotomy).

How different from the other project under development in Rice County south of Northfield (here’s that map) which the City Council only heard about through back channels when it was almost too late to comment.  Given the way the issue got to the Council, it’s easy to be suspicious of this one.  The facts that the same developers are proposing to build a total of 5 projects suggests a much more commercial mission than Carleton’s; “commercial” and “profitable” are certainly not negative words, but some have wondered if this is just a money-making deal with no concern for the impact.  Add concerned neighbors (see Dr Gary Carlson’s piece in the Strib) and a contentious Rice County Planning Commission hearing and it gets even harder to calmly and objectively consider what the impact on Northfield and its future development might be.

But, the Planning Commission will need to do just that at its meeting tomorrow evening. The PC has elected to take comments from Carleton College and Spring Creek Wind LLC representatives as well as input from the public (the meeting is not a public hearing but an open forum as a courtesy to the developers and interested others), so they run the risk of distracting themselves from the task at hand which is to recommend appropriate comments on the impact of the projects on Northfield and its land use plans.

Their task is not to recommend to Rice County how they should decide the issue.  Don’t like the County’s use of the conditional use permit process for land uses like this?  Unfortunately, not up for discussion.  The PC needs to balance the goals objectives of the Comprehensive Plan which call for energy conservation and sustainability throughout the community and the planned use of the land at the south edge of town for residential development then recommend comments which reflect what the anticipated impact to our existing and planned land uses.

Beyond the narrow task, I’d say it is also an opportunity for the Council, with help from the PC, to try to begin a broader conversation with Rice County (and our township partners) about planning at the city limits.  This might include working with the County about what land uses are appropriate on our borders and what sort of approval process would be most effective.  I have a dream about regional planning, so I’m hoping for some baby steps toward this dream.  It is also an opportunity for the PC to consider other pieces of the Comprehensive Plan which have not (yet) been addressed by the soon-to-be-adopted Land Development Code such as drafting ordinance language for conservation subdivisions and considering how to preserve a green buffer at the south edge of the city.

Home matters program gets noticed

The HRA/Three Rivers Community Action ‘s Home Matters program got some publicity in the Minneapolis Fed’s Community Dividend newsletter.  Michele Merxbauer, Northfield’s Housing Manager, notes in the Friday memo the “vital importance of networking, partnership and sheer stubbornness” required for getting this project going.  Many thanks to the stubborn Ms. Merxbauer and the HRA.  Read more about the Home Matters program on their website.

he Minneapolis” Federal Reserve bank is actually the headquarters of the 9th District of the Federal Reserve System coering Minnesota, Montana, North and South Dakota, and 26 counties in Northern Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

And, if you haven’t already discovered the wealth of economic-related information – including much for non-economists – at the Minneapolis Fed and the other branches, you should check it out.

Economic development policy questions

No, neither hostile takeover nor fireworks

I applaud my colleague, Erica Zweifel, for adding the discussion item about transferring the powers of the Economic Development Authority to the City Council; it always takes some guts to disturb the status quo and adding the element of surprise by adding it to the agenda at the meeting helped get both the Council’s and the EDA’s attention.  This proposal is also on the Tuesday worksession agenda. (Read the News and Locally Grown coverage, too.)

But why do it? Because the EDA has not presented any clear principles for economic development, has not followed the economic policy planning which has been done, makes decisions in an opaque and unaccountable way and levies your tax dollars to do it.

Having the Council serve as the economic development authority is only one strategy the City might employ to (re)gain control of economic development policy in Northfield, but I’d argue it is also the quickest and easiest way to accomplish this goal in the short term.

1.  Background: The EDA is not like the Planning Commission. The PC is an advisory board (with some decision making authority on variances) with no direct access to financial resources.  So, while the PC has the primary responsibility for drafting/updating the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code, these are both documents presented to the Council for the Council’s review and adoption.  In individual land use decisions, the PC is the body which holds the public hearings and takes public input, then makes a recommendation to the Council.  The EDA, on the other hand, has the power to levy taxes, sell bonds, and spend money.  The EDA has a budget which is approved by the Council annually, but which it can then deploy as it sees fit (See Minn. Stat. 461.091 et. seq. for the statutory details).  Having levy and bonding authority should raise the bar for the EDA in terms of accountability.

2. Transparency and accountability: The EDA changed their meeting structure to shift the bulk of the discussion to subcommittees consisting of no more than three EDA members plus the EDA director; subcommittees operate under the open meeting law threshold of a quorum; meetings are not noticed nor minutes published.   When recommendations do come to the full EDA for action, the rationale behind them is not always clear and the tone of the discussion at the EDA suggests that EDA members themselves are somewhat suspicious about how recommendations are made.

The other more important piece is the policy part. The 1990 enabling resolution for the EDA states these objectives:

LEADERSHIP:   The EDA shall unite the leadership of the concerned groups within the community to develop a clear expression of priorities and programs for economic development.

REGIONAL STRATEGY:   The EDA shall develop a regional strategy for future growth and development that is based on the area’s strengths and assets.

RETENTION:   The EDA shall develop a program to help retain and expand viable existing Northfield businesses by evaluating and addressing their needs.

OUTREACH:   The EDA shall endeavor to attract new commercial and industrial growth that fits Northfield’s goals.

REDEVELOPMENT: The EDA shall encourage and support commercial redevelopment city-wide, with emphasis on the downtown.

FINANCING: The EDA shall become self-supporting.

IMPACT:   The EDA shall take into account the environmental effect, and the housing, schooling and infrastructure needs of commercial and industrial development.

How is the EDA is attempting to fulfill the Northfield Comprehensive Plan (and the Economic Development Plan) with its emphasis on sustainable development, compact growth, and enhancing the small town character of Northfield? Clear expression of priorities and programs?  Redevelopment?  Impact?   These questions are, to me, unaddressed.  When EDA members, Business Park Steering Committee members, and Council members have asked questions like these, there have been no answers and often dismissal of the questions.

3. Strategy: Having the Council take over economic development activities in the short term would allow the Council, the most accountable body, determine how to best manage economic development.  For the longer term, I don’t know that the Council wants the added duties nor does it have the expertise to manage these issues for the long term.  However, the Council can and should weigh in on what the City’s economic principles should be, how the EDA can help accomplish the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and how dollars should be allocated to address these priorities.

In addition, having eliminated the position of City Planner and approved the early retirement of the Community Development director, this leaves the City with a reorganized department for community and economic development without a clear focus and with limited staff.  Having the Council function as the EDA for a limited period would allow us to finish thinking through reorganization with the Interim City Administrator to better serve Council goals before recreating an EDA to do the majority of the day to day work.

Preview of 11/09 Council Worksession

Not my dog, fortunately.

Before we get to the worksession, we also have a brief meeting to adopt minutes, act of the consent agenda, and canvass the votes from Tuesday’s election.  The work session, however, is where the action will be despite the fact we do not take action at work sessions.

Welcome center reimagined: Follow our discussion about the Welcome Center coordinator back in August, we will be hearing a proposal for a public/private partnership between the city and Growing Up Healthy for a LINK center.  Read the proposal and related information in the packet.  The Council must allocate funds for 2011 for this proposal to allow it to go forward; $20,100 is the dollar cost, but like in-kind services to community events and supporting the Library, this is not just an expense, but an investment in Northfield’s social infrastructure about which I’ve written before (commenting on Art Rolnick’s ideas, about the Library, and community events).

Safety center: It’s back.  We still don’t know what MNDoT plans for the Woodley site and our partners are not yet really included, but:

The Council needs to answer three basic questions:

  • What is the project scope?…
  • How much is the City Council willing to commit to funding the project and how will it be financed? …
  • Where should the facility(ies) be located

Wind project (described briefly last week): The only item included in our packet is a copy of an e-mail requesting a delay by the Rice County planning commission in considering a conditional use permit for 2 wind turbines.  Unfortunately, this minimal documentation is part of a much larger information management failure at city hall.  Fortunately, interested citizens and have helped alleviate the data void:

  • Notification about the project: the Council only learned of the project in Rice County after a neighbor contacted Councilor Jim Pokorney who contacted city staff who, finally, contacted the entire Council.
  • Review and comment: under Rice County ordinances, the city is to be notified so it can review and comment on a project in the County’s UR (Urban Reserve) zoning district.  Unfortunately, Council did not receive the information in time to comment before the Rice County planning commission met last week to consider the conditional use permit.  Fortunately, requests from Tim Madigan, interim city administrator and Tracy Davis, Northfield Planning commission chair along with other interested citizens have delayed the CUP until December 9.
  • Project documents: Unfortunately, the Council was not provided with any of the relevant documents; fortunately another project neighbor e-mailed the Council the Spring Creek (Hubers) Wind Turbine CUP application, a Neighborhood Petition, and Attorney Carol Overland’s Brief.
  • Carol Overland’s Legalectric blog: fortunately, we have a local energy law and policy maven.  Read this for lots of background and information about not only the 2 turbines on which Northfield is permitted to comment, but other related wind projects in Rice County, the legal infrastructure for permitting large wind projects, and a guide to the policy and practical issues.

The Council has been allotted 15 minutes (!) at the end of the worksession agenda to consider our comments to Rice County and/or future steps the Council can/should take.

Pro forma budget review continues with information about enterprise funds (utilities, liquor store), municipal district #4 (the downtown TIF district) capital projects and capital equipment plans.  I’ve said enough about the Pretty Picture Budget Process.

“Hurdles” to gov’t use of social media

So I told Griff Wigley I’d be a panelist for his webinar on government use of social media…and you can listen to the audio of the webinar which happened last week.

The webinar, however, only served to get me thinking again about what I might say about my own social media use and what obstacles I might have encountered. Continue reading