On Monday, May 24th during the Columbia Heights city council meeting, the council discussed whether or not they wanted to allow their staff to enter into negotiations with the city of Minneapolis regarding a streetcar line on Central Avenue. Council member, Bruce Nawrocki led off with a prepared statement as to why he didn't want to enter into negotiations with Minneapolis to build a streetcar line up Central Avenue. Most were expecting Nawrocki who is usually a no vote against the rest of the council to be against the streetcar project.
The surprising event was that both Council member Bruce Kelzenberg and Bobby Williams also spoke against the project citing that it was a bad time to enter into a project with the economy still hurting. Both Council member Tammera Diehm and Mayor Gary Peterson seemed upset and stated that it was just a study and nothing more. Council member Diehm suggested that they should allow the staff to talk with Minneapolis anyways, even without an affirmative vote.
When Mayor Peterson asked if anyone wanted to make a motion regarding the streetcar proposal, Council member Diehm did not offer one and no action was taken on the proposed streetcar project. During the open forum two citizens spoke out against the project while one stated that she wanted to do it because she didn't want St. Anthony to get it first.
With no action taken there is still a possibility that members of the Council will instruct the city staff to still maintain contact with Minneapolis using taxpayer funded time without authorization from the Council to do so, as Council member Diehm suggested. There is also a possibility that the Council, if Peterson and Diehm converts one of the "no" votes will attempt to put the item on the agenda and pass it before any opposition effort can speak out against it.
Some members in the audience suggested that the Council should make an official motion during the next meeting so it can be officially voted down for the record.
See the story regarding the work session regarding the streetcar proposal here.
Comments
Apparently I am the person who wanted the street car line "so St. Anthony wouldn't get it first." Nothing could be further from the truth. While street cars are cute and nostagic, they are very impractical and expensive. One of the other citizens stated that Minneapolis had a vested interest in involving suburbs in "sharing" the cost. I simply stated that St. Anthony would be the only other choice I could think of, but that it would also be impractical for them because the only logical route would be along Stinson Blvd., which is not exactly a bustling avenue until it reaches Silver Lake Village. But, I warned I didn't want to hear any "crying" from the citizens of Columbia Heights if St. Anthony is approached. Seems some are a bit envious of some of the amenities St. Anthony enjoys. I, for one, am NOT envious of their individual residential property tax burden! Please get your facts straight!
I am often perplexed by zealots from any party in the political process who seek to impose their will on that of the general electorate without allowing for "discussion". Clearly this is the case with you. I too watched the meeting and frankly do not agree with your charachterization of the outcome. I do not support a streetcar on Central avenue. But, unlike you and your compatriots, I am not afraid of discussion on the matter. As I recall, the vote would have been completely without financial obligation to the city. So why are you afraid of your city leaders leaving the door open to learn about this projeect as it progresses? I suspect it is because of what I wrote earlier. You want to impose your will on all of the citizens of the city and don't care about their wishes or the impact that these decisions have. Thank God for leaders like Peterson and Diehm who make decisions they believe are in the best interest of the City regardless of the loud clamoring of a minority such as you.
By the way, you are incorrect in your statement that "the council discussed whether or not they wanted to allow their staff to enter into negotiations with the city of Minneapolis regarding a streetcar line on Central Avenue". The item for consideration actually was "approving joint planning efforts with Minneapolis regarding Central Avenue streetcar line". There is a distinct difference but you knew that already. I agree with the other posting. Check your facts.
Actually, I wasn't incorrect, I paraphrased what council member Diehm stated, which was a better description of what the issue actually was. My goal in these articles is to help the average person see though the smoke and mirrors all politicians use to fool the people they represent so they can stay in power.
Oh you silly, silly man. Exactly what power do you think a city council member of a town like Columbia Heights actually has? Come on. What, are they building an empire for themselves? Such a grandiose self-concept. The conservative fighting for the "average citizen" against the "Man". But of all the postings of yours that I have read, your statement above is the most honest and telling. It is good to know that you feel "all politicians use smoke and mirrors to fool the public", including the republicans you promote such as Tim Utz. I'm sure he would be happy to know you feel that way. You portray yourself as the "unbiased voice" looking out for the public and yet what you seek to do it promote your own ideology and suppress the views of those you don't agree with. Shame on you.
Mr. Utz is well aware that I will cease to trust him in reference to government the second he is elected. I tell him as much on a routine basis. Feel free to blindly trust elected officials as you wish.
John, I don't "blindly trust" anyone in any walk in life. They must earn that trust. But to blindly distrust anyone simply because they are elected to a political office is ludicrous and an indication of some internal cynicism on your part. If a person is trustworthy enough to be called your "friend", then simply distrusting them because they have chosen to seek elected office means doesn't make sense. Are you saying that any person who seeks an elected office is, by definition, untrustworthy? That would be a extremely cynical view. I agree that many who seek elected political positions do so for their own self-seeking reasons. But those people are usually not satisfied with a local position and seek higher offices. I believe that of our own local council, 4 of the 5 are there because they truly want to serve the community. Why else would they put up with the aggravation. The 5th does so for his own self-aggrandizement.
Personal relationships have nothing to do with political trust. CH City Council has proven to be abusive to the liberty of the average citizen. If they don't want to "put up with it" there are other people that will replace them without complaint. I guess you'll just have to agree to disagree with this silly man.
"Are you saying that any person who seeks an elected office is, by definition, untrustworthy?"
No, they start out fine, once they're elected they are by definition, untrustworthy. Thanks for reading my articles.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!