True will vote her values Tuesday

I’ve been posting a lot of really important information here at True North in the last couple of days. Bloggers will probably like following the numerous links to read reports from the CGI consultants, the marina study, the Coast Guard “safety zones” live fire exercises, and the MPR Grand Marais page. I have been thinking, if others write the stuff, why re-invent the wheel?

But, on the eve of the eve of the most important election in my lifetime (both locally and nationally), I decided to comment on these reports, using my values as a guide. Such values as: sustainable development (meaning that developers will sustain the boreal forest for future generations), respect for the environment, affordable housing for struggling families, and preservation of the unique village so beloved by our tourist base--just plain folks who love us the way we are.

These plain folks are NOT the same as the Baby-boomer-yuppie-sybarites who need $20,000 fully-enclosed toilets that don’t detract from their lavish bath environments with personal Jacuzzis and hot tubs. Their “cabins” are built with zillions of square feet and absolutely no respect for the fragile bedrock supporting our woods and wildlife. The yupsters are the ones who are driving up our property values and driving our young people out, while demanding an underpaid servant class who will clean their pools and their luxury mansions (at minimum wage of course).

All people are welcome to visit, in my book. But they don’t get to turn Grand Marais and Cook County into clones of their suburban tracts back home just because they want a lake view on the same fantastic, urban-scale model; they don’t get to destroy our fragile ecology with their huge footprints on the beautiful shore. Well, not if I can help it.

In the final pre-election days, I will focus on each recent study and share my thoughts.

The Grand Marais Visioning Draft Report

· After a virtual citizen revolt last fall, the city council decided to hire a team of consultants to develop a vision for downtown Grand Marais. They chose the low-bidders who promised to re-write the existing comprehensive plan which they don’t like, and create new zoning ordinances, hopefully before the election now days away.
· Well, too bad for them, CGI ended up being advocates (to a limited extent) for the vast majority of residents who don’t want big development here. They proposed setting design standards based on four concept areas in downtown (please do check the web site link for the map)—lakeshore commercial core, residential, highway 61 corridor, and an “overlay” district that crosses some boundaries.
· CGI conducted a mail survey of residents and business owners over the summer and rigorously compiled every comment from every public forum. They quickly recognized that most people love Grand Marais and want to preserve the fishing village-harbor-small town ambience. They did a good job and came up with some really good ideas, but they didn’t go far enough to overcome the deeply divided differences in the community. Not that they could have done, in the time they had; consensus takes more than a few months.
· The second and third public meetings, taking place in the busy tourist season, were attended mostly by downtown business owners. The mail survey was also biased in favor of businesses: though business owners mostly do not live in Grand Marais, they formed about one-third of survey respondents. Those of us who depend on Grand Marais for jobs, mail, electricity, shopping and a county seat were excluded.
· In short this was a “taxpayer” survey. It differed dramatically from the results of the first, well-attended planning meeting last spring but it did reflect the opinions expressed at the second and third public forums, in July and September. The people who most consistently turned out were downtown property owners, realtors, property sellers, and developers. It makes sense: these are the folks who stand to make the big, big bucks. However, their opinions are a minority of Grand Marais and Cook County residents. Also, most ordinary people would dispute the greedy developer mantra that it is necessary to build to the largest possible footprint in order to make enough money. How much is enough?
· CGI nonetheless proposed some fair standards that could help to preserve the core downtown. They identified zones including downtown harbor, residential, Highway 61 and an overlapping, more restrictive, “design overlay district” that crossed a few boundaries. Among the proposed restrictions: triggers for conditional use permits based on height (over 30 feet), number of stories (more than two), broken-up facades for long storefronts, and limits on street frontage as well as square footage of new buildings.
· The third round of public input provided comment on these standards. Remarkably, most people were in favor of the design standards although they wanted to tinker with the fine points; it seemed that CGI was surprised and pleased at this result. As an observer over the three days, I estimated that perhaps 40 people participated at least once, far fewer than those who attended the initial meetings last spring. Again, NONETHELESS: There is a lot of really, really good input in the comments made over the three days (DO, if you CAN, click on this link). A lot of thoughtful commentary on what development shoulda/coulda/woulda look like. It isn’t the number of comments that ought to count, but the quality and universal appeal of the concepts.
· Curiously, the concerns that kept recurring in public comments reflected that earlier document, much maligned by the present City Council, the Grand Marais Comprehensive Plan. Here are some of them:

a) “Absolutely no buildings higher than two stories in downtown area.” “Why can’t we say we permit two-story building only in the C1 downtown commercial area? Please consider.”
b) “East Bay has a flat roof, big box look.” “Peaked roofs, especially near bay (donut shop, bookstore, Historical Society) fit well, have a lot of charm.”
c) “Historic waterfront commercial district includes Angry Trout, Dockside, North House, Chez Jude. Create separate standards for this area.” “Please make the south side of the proposed expansion to downtown a historical waterfront district because it defines our history.”
d) “Please don’t change the Rec Park much. Don’t allow development or the downtown guidelines here.”
e) “Consider making it harder to get conditional use permit, put the burden on the property owners, not the city.”
f) “Careful regulations that no box Target, Wal-Marts, etc., come in.” “City Council should be proactive in triggering citizen boycotts and protest of big business, using its weight to bully.”
g) “Think outside traditional economic box: curves, slants, etc. are quaintly unique.” “High property values are artificial; they will go down if design limits their uses. Owners will still make a lot of money, just not as much money.”

I hope all Grand Marais voters will think about their values, both now and 100 years from now. I hope the extended Grand Marais family will continue to “vote” their values by writing, e-mailing, and attending city meetings.

Yours,
True

To be continued.....