Greenberg Responds to 11 Points on QuikTrip Issue

I feel compelled to take exception to several opinions by Tonya Powell and by Beverly Tronicek that are stated as “facts”.

1. All of the voters that signed the petition are against the Quick Trip relocation. I would have signed the petition if it was presented to me for the same reason that I would sign a petition allowing any qualified citizen to run for public office. That doesn’t mean I would vote for them, especially if they ran a disingenuous campaign.
2. The insinuation that the ordinance was rushed through the Council, when in reality the vote was postponed on several occasions for the allowance of additional information to be processed.
3. You question the legality of the Council process. On what basis do you feel that there were improprieties taking place?
4. You assert that the Council felt the original PUD was flawed. The Council felt that the original PUD had sufficient merit to warrant a vote affirming the proposed development. After the original PUD was submitted, the property at 2601 Big Bend became available and the Quick Trip team realized that it could be a valuable asset to the School District and immediately put it under contract, then asked the Council to substitute the property for the previously proposed property as an amendment to a PUD ordinance that had already been approved. My interpretation of this action is that Quick Trip was doing their best to address concerns that had been expressed by the School Board and community, even though they were not being compelled to.
5. Your “fear” that the Council has the ability to disregard due process and change their vote as a tactic demonstrates a misunderstanding of the legislative process and impugns the Mayor and Council as capricious.
6. Your conclusion that the School Board and Council never communicated and that it was the fault of the Council is pure conjecture based on personal opinion.
7. I never said that the bus traffic was “not our problem”. I simply asked how many busses are we talking about and was informed that there were only 3 busses to take into consideration.
8. Whatever the Mayor might have said in frustration is his opinion and I can definitely see where he is coming from. However, if the entire Council was “done with the School District” there would not have been 3 Council members in the meeting with the School Board, referendum committee and QT development team.
9. Because our neighboring communities do not have gas stations adjacent to schools is because their schools are not located at busy intersections. The commercial properties existed at the corner before the High School was built. There is no gas station located next to the City Hall as far as I know. Safety and pride are not the reason to keep a legitimate, community minded business from locating on a commercial corner.
10. To state that Council actions might be a "smoke screen to confuse voters" might reflect more on the referendum committee's strategy than the public and legal process that the City Council subscribes to.
11. You state that one of your committee members "stopped the conversation". That part I can believe. They felt that the committee would be arrogant to stop the process. Then you go on to attribute that arrogance to City Council along with a lack of planning and unwillingness to see the big picture. The city planning process you speak of is addressed through the zoning ordinance and enforcement that has served the City well even before the School District turned the corner on its path to excellence. It is not a matter that the Council is unwilling to see the big picture, we merely choose to take everyone's needs into consideration when making our decisions, regardless of what direction special interests want us to travel.

Previous articles written by Barry Greenberg regarding QuikTrip in Maplewood:

• Councilman Barry Greenberg: QuikTrip Move Would "Benefit the City and Citizens"