Mr Wamb oldt
August 26, 2011 | 11:03 AM
Your partial apology is partially accepted. Your "facts" are still in error, partially. Chairman Bollweg did not cause me to vote for annexation, his actions just illustrated the need for an affirmative vote. Being a former member of the township planning commision you will remember that Mr. Bollweg attempted to bring in a kerosene plant and locate it next to the property at that time being considered for annexation. Being the southern entrance to the City I was concerned as to what other lenghts the Township would go to defile the area from the City limits to the Stateline. If the City ever has the opportunity to annex in the property that goes to the stateline I would be in favor of that annexation also, but only if brought in zoned Rural Holding. As I have always stated just because property is annexed into the city doesn't mean it has to be immediately developed, but 20, 30, or 40 years from now there might be the right use for that land within the City limits. I disagree with the vote to change the Master Plan, at this time the City is ill-prepared to provide City services to that area. And As the Mayor and others have pointed out there is extensive amount of vacant lots to be built on. Prime example is the 735 or so approved residential lots on the former raceway land. To quickly finish up, Attorney Draper's admonition to Aldermen not to speak about closed door discussions is not because of underhanded, or sneaky behind the back subterfuge, it is STATE LAW!! Lord knows there were several times I wish I could have let everyone know of what was said behind closed doors, but the law is the law.
Again thank you Mr. Wamboldt for the apology on here, I would have much rather have had the coffee, but maybe another time.