My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 10222024
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2024
>
CC PACKET 10222024
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/29/2024 12:03:27 PM
Creation date
10/22/2024 8:37:13 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 <br />Jennifer Doyle <br />Subject:FW: Public Comment: Resolution 24-063 <br />From: Yaacoub Hark <yaacoubhark@gmail.com> <br />Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 5:49 PM <br />To: SA City <city@savmn.com> <br />Cc: Steve Grittman <steve.grittmanconsulting@gmail.com>; *SAPlanner <planner@savmn.com>; Charlie Yunker <br /><charlie.yunker@savmn.com>; Jennifer Doyle <jennifer.doyle@savmn.com> <br />Subject: Re: Public Comment: Resolution 24‐063 <br /> <br />Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. <br /> <br />I support resolution 24‐069 denying the request for amended PUD based on my concerns stated previously. <br />The discussion at the City Council meeting regarding this further reinforced my concerns that none of the <br />serious issues resolving this were satisfied, as well as exposed that their application process was not <br />transparent nor consistent. <br /> <br />Thank you for listening. <br /> <br />Yaacoub Hark <br />2914 & 3000 36th Ave NE <br />St Anthony <br /> <br />On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 11:27 AM Yaacoub Hark <yaacoubhark@gmail.com> wrote: <br /> <br />Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers— <br /> <br />I am against the proposed PUD amendment per Resolution 24‐063. Aside from the environmental, traffic, and <br />parking issues raised at the previous discussions, which are themselves serious issues that need addressing <br />regardless of what is done with this property, my issues with this, as a life‐long SAV resident, are on a more <br />fundamental level. <br /> <br />If the City's mission is to provide affordable and sufficient housing, this is something they need to enforce and <br />actively pursue, not passively. Staff needs to do what's best for both the City as a municipality, and its <br />Residents. Which means providing itself with sufficient tax revenue from projects like this and businesses to <br />lessen the tax burden on residents' property taxes in the long run. <br /> <br />I know the concern is if the property remains vacant for an extended period of time the same way Walmart <br />did before The Ruby, but those projects take time. And I'm sure in hindsight The Ruby was worth the wait for <br />the City tax‐wise. Knee‐jerk reactions should not be taken because it's been two years vacant. Waiting a while <br />until you get a large housing project is a big plus in the long run, because you create long term housing <br />opportunities which not only generates property tax revenue but additional tax revenues from the new <br />residents that that housing puts in our city. Properties and constituents both generate tax revenue and <br />housing projects generate both new property and new constituents. What drives property taxes higher on <br /> Some people who received this message don't often get email from yaacoubhark@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.