Mr. Greenberg - I do appreciate your desire to communicate with the community. It is to be commended. While you refute a lot of the Referendum comittee's opinions, one thing you do not address is the actual legal conerns about what we are actually going to be voting on. If the Council approves ammendments to the PUD before the vote, what will the vote accomplish? If a YES vote, does that return the PUD to its original state? If a NO vote, does the ammended PUD still survive? There is obviously some confusion here.

My growing interest in Maplewood's vision and administration found its genesis in 2 issues: Concern about the Jumpin' Jupiter and the QT proposal. I've been attending Maplewood's city council meetings for the past year and boning up on municipal code as a way of understanding the basic processes that drive our city.

Most meetings there are only a handful of people there--in fact the Mayor, Council members, City Attorney, City Administrator and City Secretary usually significantly outnumber the audience.

The council is just regular folks that are seeking to make a difference. There is no fame or money involved--I'm convinced they don't get up every morning looking for some way to screw the rest of us over. They are charged as citizen arbitrators to make sure that Maplewood meets its obligations to County, State & Federal law, provides the basic services that we as citizens need and to oversee the critical processes of planning and zoning (so that we don't end up with a cement plant right next to a boutique restaurant). These are nice folks, trying hard to be of service. I'm personally very thankful for their sacrifice.

So regardless of what happens with QT, we simply mustn't allow the frustration of the moment to undermine our relationships as neighbors. Few of us can make a difference at the Federal, State or even county level, but we CAN decide to treat all members of our community with respect, even as we disagree on what we think is the best path forward.

I (and I believe many others) would like clarity on this issue. Is the April 2 vote on the PUD that was approved by the City Council in November? If so, how are any amendments made next Tuesday binding? How will the city make this information fully available to voters on April 2? How will this be reflected on the ballot? Mr. Greenberg, other City Council members and Mayor White, I would be grateful if you address these questions.

Well said Mr. Greenberg.

Mr. Greenberg -

In response to accusation #1, I have clarified my statement regarding the 1,144 voters who want to vote on the QT development and labeled them as that - citizens who want to vote. Convenient of you to ignore that FACT (no quotes needed as that actually is one). And I certainly hope your innuendo about a disingenuous campaign was not directed toward our referendum committee as we have been completely upfront with both the Council and the citizens regarding our actions, our motives and our goal.

#2 - Yes, it is my opinion the vote in November was rushed. There was no inuendo about it. I've stated it quite clearly severeal times. Changes to the PUD were still being made on the fly the nigjt of the final vote and I do not believe the appropriate safety assessments or traffic studies were conducted.

#3 - I question the legality of amending the PUD in the middle of the referendum process. The ordinances which mandate the process are reasonably clear in what steps can and cannot be taken once the process has begun. The Council had the opportunity to repeal the QT ordinance in February and chose to put it on the ballot instead. To change it now is in direct defiance to the written processes.

#4 - Since I sat in the meeting where Council members and QT reps stated repeatedly how making these changes were the right thing to do, that implies that the original actions taken were not the right thing. Perhaps if the original vote in November hadn't been rushed, the original PUD would have ended up right the first time.

#5 - My fear seems to be well founded as the Council is ignoring the legislative process by amending a PUD that should not have been touched. Someone doesn't understand the process here, but I don't think it is me.

#6 - I think this refers to Beverly's earlier statements that she would have liked to see the entire Council and School Board sit down together and discuss the development. From all reports we have had thus far there have been a handful if smaller meetings but never the same people and never both groups in full. If this has happened you have had several opportunities to let Beverly know since she has been asking for this to happen for several months and said as much in multiple Public Forums.

#7 - I didn't have that conversation with you, but there were similar statements made by others on the Council disregarding the need for the District to stay in compliance with State laws prohibiting the mingling of busses, cars and student pedestrian traffic. At no time did a single Council person jump up or speak up to help the situation.

#8 - The Mayor has made several disparaging and some might say insulting statements about the school and this process. He says them in open meetings and puts them in print. Not sure if you are supporting him, defending him or you just want us to know he was frustrated. News Flash - we are too. I know that as a citizen who stood in front of you meeting after meeting I'm more than a little frustrated.

#9 - Your words "Safety and pride are not the reason to keep a legitimate, community minded business from locating on a commercial corner." My words "Seriously?" I think what you said pretty much covers it. Safety is ALWAYS a good reason and without community Pride Maplewood would not be the outstanding community it is. What we have here is a fundamental philosophical disagreement. I think the safety if our citizens out weighs a few dollars of tax revenue.

#10 - intentional or not, the actions of the Council are creating confusion. Your refusal to supply a legal opinion regarding these options further confuses and MISLEADS the citizens and voters. The current strategy of our committee includes trying to get a straight answer. That is our strategy. I can see where that might seem nefarious to you. That answer would show voters that they have been mislead by some of their elected officials. As for the legal process the Council follows, maybe you could share with us what that is since in This Case that process does not follow the law and processes published regarding the referendum process.

#11 - the arrogance reference pertains to our committee refusing to make our decision based on our own personal opinions. We chose instead to listen to the 1,144 voters who For Whatever Reason want to vote on the ordinance the Council approved in November. The comparison I make there is that the Council has refused to listen to the citizens. I guess it makes it easier to ignore us if you call us a special interest group. Fine. Let the matter go to vote. Stop trying to confuse and mislead the voters about what they are voting on and let them have their say.

TP,

What, in your opinion, is the council hoping to gain by all this? Words like nefarious, misleading, rushed,insulting, disparaging, illegal, etc, suggests that they have an agenda that is dark and perhaps underhanded.

What would you like to see on that corner? What alternative vision do you have for the space that might be acceptable to the current owner?

I don't know what the Council's agenda is but the current actions of evading questions (not just mine but several others) and ignoring the laws regarding what can and can't be done during a referendum process are creating a bigger mess of a difficult situation. Nefarious did not refer to the Council.

I think I explained rushed quite well. They were still throwing together a patchwork of restrictions, new roads, demolition projects and rerouting if traffic the night if the final vote. That was a rushed vote.

Misleading? Lets start with the FACT that Mr. Greenburg is urging people to vote yes on a revised PUD that has not been approved, and even it is was, it is not what is covered on the ballot. He is encouraging them to vote on something that isn't on the ballot.

What I want is a process, Council, and result I can be proud of. I want honesty, dignity and respect demonstrated at all times. I want a Councilman who answers my questions instead of evades them.

I want to see a development at that corner that is put together in a responsible manner with the proper assessments done for safety, accessibility, environmental impact, and I want to see evidence of some long term city planning.

My problem isn't with what is going there as much as it is How it is going there, How the Council has acted and How they have tried to make anyone who opposes it or questions them out to be a bad guy.

I don't think the entire Council wakes up each day thinking about who they are going to screw over, but I do think there are some who are not thinking enough about how they can help this situation

Mr. Greenberg - Since we want the facts to be out in this public conversation, can you clarify how voting YES on the proposition will help 'Keep Our Taxes Low' as Mr. Lesseg's property advertises as of yesterday? I'm confused how this proposition relates to taxes at all.

Wow, good job refuting the harrumphers Council man Greenberg. TP got straight owned and her replies just look petty and reek of the need to have the last word.

It is my hope that you and others like you can continue to help make our city great.