|
 |
||
|
Letter to the editor Is it in the public interest to rezone a property to residential or mixed use from commercial when the terms of sale have not been disclosed? To rezone a property for development contrary to its principle use in the original site map would seem to require full disclosure. The public interest is the prevailing underlying premise. If the use conformed to the zoning specifications on the site map, such a disclosure would not seem pertinent except to the extent it conformed to the municipal code. Why would the city rezone a property when the terms and conditions may not be in the public interest? In order to determine if they are in the public interest, I would presume that one would have to know what those conditions are, particularly when the use permit or rezoning is at stake. We know that Target, as a matter of record in the Jan. 9 Planning and Transportation meeting, is restricted in its full use of the property by terms specifying that the residential and commercial developments are coexistent or tied together. Is the public’s interest served when the public can only guess at what’s going on or when Target must develop the property contrary to the original zoning or site map? James Edward Woodin |
||