All posts in the topic A bad place for a good project (Short link)
Summary
- There are 23 posts — by 15 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Nanette Echols at Jan 09 02:54 UTC
A proposed 20,000-square-foot retail development at Lexington Parkway
and Randolph Avenue, anchored by a 14,420-square-foot Trader Joe's
grocery store, would actually improve safety and reduce traffic
congestion at that busy St. Paul intersection, according to a
recently released 38-page traffic impact study.
You're not alone if you're not buying the results of a traffic study
that was bought by the developers themselves.
Meridian Management and TOLD Development, the partners in Randolph
Hill LLC, want to bulldoze four single-family homes on Juno Avenue, a
triplex on Randolph Avenue and the Mach 1 automotive audio and
security business at the southeast corner of Randolph and Lexington
to accommodate Trader Joe's and a separate 5,330-square-foot building
that would house a handful of other unnamed retailers. The necessary
conditional use permit and zoning variances for the project have
already been approved by the Planning Commission on the condition
that the necessary rezoning is approved by the City Council. Concerns
about the additional traffic that would be generated by the
development prompted the City Council last week to lay over until
this week a decision on rezoning the 1.27-acre parcel.
To be sure, the traffic study does note that if no street
improvements were made, afternoon rush-hour traffic at the
intersection would drop from D to E on a congestion scale of A to F.
(The D/E boundary is considered by traffic engineers to be the limit
of "acceptable" congestion in an urban area.) As a result of the
additional traffic generated by the retail development, backed-up
vehicles at the intersection would "intermittently block the site
entrance" on Lexington if no street improvements were made, according
to the study.
Now that I'll buy.
To alleviate the impact of the additional traffic, the traffic study
recommends:
* Adding a southbound left-turn lane on Lexington at the entrance to
the parking lot.
* Adding a northbound right-turn lane on Lexington at Randolph.
* Adding a northbound left-turn signal on Lexington at Randolph.
* Retiming the traffic signals at five intersections in the immediate
vicinity.
No doubt all of those measures would help. But it does beg the
question: Why here when there are any number of other locations with
comparable neighborhood demographics that do not throw up such
formidable hurdles to what I'm sure most people believe would
otherwise be a welcome development in St. Paul?
But that's not the only question the development raises. More than a
few people are also asking:
* Why has the prohibition of truck traffic on Lexington, a city-
designated parkway, not been cited as an impediment to the
development? As proposed, truck deliveries would have to be made off
of Lexington because the city's Public Works Department believes any
access off of Randolph would be too close to the I-35E entrance and
exit ramps to be safe.
* What's with the full-court press that Mayor Chris Coleman's office,
the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce and the St. Paul Trades and
Labor Assembly have been employing to insure the development occurs?
Last week, City Council member Pat Harris, who supports the
development, didn't have the five votes needed to approve the
rezoning. The word in City Hall this week was that strenuous lobbying
may have convinced every City Council member except Dave Thune to
support the rezoning when it comes back up for a vote this Wednesday.
How strenuous? It's said that the lobbying has been more vigorous
than what was employed for St. Paul developer Jerry Trooien's ill-
fated $1.5 billion Bridges of St. Paul.
* What does it say about the state of economic development in St.
Paul today when such Herculean efforts are expended locally on behalf
of a comparatively small-scale development whose California-based
anchor tenant is a 294-store national chain that is owned by a family
trust established by German billionaire Theo Albright?
Michael Mischke
Summit Hill
I couldn't agree more with Mike Mischke's assessment of the Trader
Joe's project.
I watched the entire city council proceedings on this matter (SPNN),
and while everyone seems to agree that a Trader Joe's franchise would
be a welcome addition to St. Paul, it was never clear to me why the
developers feel that particular site is crucial.
If St. Paul residents are already willing to drive to St. Louis Park
or Woodbury to shop Trader Joe's, certainly they would be willing to
drive to a more suitable location -- either along University Avenue
or West 7th, the two alternate areas most often mentioned.
I drive through that intersection at Lex and Randolph frequently, and
surely one does not have to be a traffic engineer to see that the
kind of patronage that a Trader Joe's will generate will create
serious congestion problems -- particularly during the evening rush
hour, when so many of us do our shopping.
I understand the developers are not asking for any sort of subsidy.
And as I was watching the council hearings unfold, it occurred to me
their effort may be a manipulative attempt to first suggest this
site, and then "settle" for some other location IF the city were
willing to offer them some kind of assistance.
It seems to me someone within the council needs to exercise some
leadership in this affair and broker a deal for a site that makes
sense -- both for the city and Trader Joe's.
Calling Dave Thune..............................
While I think Jan's suggestion of a west 7th street or University Avenue makes sense regarding a more suitable location, I think the proximity to I-35E parkway makes it more suitable. I don't know where Trader Joe's is in either Woodbury or St. Louis Park. I don't spend a lot of time in either area I do know my way around Woodbury. So I am not likely to go out of my way to get to Trader Joe's in any location other than the proposed location. Even then its unlikely I would ever shop there. My point is that while some areas of St. Paul may actually be more suitable for the development that doesn't make it reasonable to place the development there. Jan Carr <> wrote: I couldn't agree more with Mike Mischke's assessment of the Trader Joe's project. I watched the entire city council proceedings on this matter (SPNN), and while everyone seems to agree that a Trader Joe's franchise would be a welcome addition to St. Paul, it was never clear to me why the developers feel that particular site is crucial. If St. Paul residents are already willing to drive to St. Louis Park or Woodbury to shop Trader Joe's, certainly they would be willing to drive to a more suitable location -- either along University Avenue or West 7th, the two alternate areas most often mentioned. Mike Fratto Payne Phalen Please help those who don't get enough to eat. http://oyh.org http://hungersolutions.org The future depends more on what we do between now and then Than what we did in the past.
Hi All,
I also attended the city council meeting last Wednesday and I spoke in favor of
the Trader Joe’s development in Highland Park.
The Traffic issue was addressed at length the council meeting. This traffic
study recommended several roadway infrastructure improvements to increase
traffic flow through this area that Mr. Mischke talked about. In fact the
developers have offered to improve the roadway and make other infrastructure
improvements leading into the development at NO cost to the city. Traffic
engineers from the city spoke at the city council meeting and supported this
development, stating that the increased traffic for this development will not
be a problem. In fact the road would still be well under capacity. Just a
note here, with the opening of Ayd Mill Road several years ago, traffic has
been greatly reduced at this intersection (Lexington Parkway and Randolph
Avenue) by over 10,000 cars a day (City of St. Paul).
Parking has also been addressed with an underground parking facility of 58
parking spaces with an equal number of surface parking spaces. There will even
be an elevator.
Truck deliveries would be very limited. Like the Ford Motor Company, Trader
Joe’s has their deliveries computerized so the items for the store will come
from one central location. It was explained that there would be only three to
four trucks delivering goods to this store daily. This is the green approach
to delivery of goods, as there will not be 30 trucks coming in and out of the
facility daily.
I will say this again this development is a win-win situation for St. Paul.
The Trader Joe’s development will not only increase St. Paul’s tax base, but
also will add 75 new jobs and not cost the city a dime. Just a note here, the
average full-time Trader Joe's employee earns $50,000.
After the city council raised our property taxes last month by 15.1% and 8.6%
last year, this development is a step in the right direction for turning St.
Paul into a business friendly town instead of a unfriendly business town.
Sure this company could put their store anywhere in the city they want. They
could also decide not to put it in St. Paul. Trader Joe’s has done their
homework on this particular location and they have decided that this location
is the best fit for them. They also have worked with the city on the details
of this project. Did I mention they are footing the bill to locate here at NO
cost to the city? Trader Joe’s already has 294 stores and this company seems
to know what they are doing in the marketplace. If their management team feels
that this is the right location for their store then I say why not. It would
be the same thing if you wanted to build a home in a particular part of town.
You locate the perfect lot for your needs, hire a design team and draw up plans
for your house. Then when you go down to the permit office, some clerk tells
you that it would be better if you built your house in another part of town.
Now I can see this happening in another country, but in America, the Land of
Opportunity this type of dictation of investment only discourages development.
Have I left out the look the man’s wife would give the permit clerk? You don’t
want the look!
St. Paul needs 100 more developments like this. It is my hope that council
member Dave Thune will see the merits of this important development, that will
not only expand St. Paul’s tax base, but will add 75 new, good paying jobs to
St. Paul’s workforce.
I am supporting Trader Joe’s development in Highland Park as a very positive
step forward for St. Paul.
Sincerely,
John Krenik
Highland Park, St. Paul, Minnesota
Oops. Put the wrong address on this before, but here it is for SPIF. With all due respect to John Krenik, I think this Univ. Ave. site was the first choice of Trader Joe's, and there is probably a better fit for something else than the currently proposed TJ site at Lex/Randolph. University Avenue would work better as an alternative location to Highland for TJ, especially so if they could figure out a way to jumpstart the Wellington condo development at Emerald and University Avenues (it is a big vacant lot/hole today) near Hwy. 280; I'm assuming what stalled this project is that the condo market dissolved with the sub-prime mortgage effects on the real estate markets. Here is their project website: http://www.themetrolofts.com/heard.cfm A creative development change could make this location viable for present market conditions and be an attractive site to TJ again; I'm not sure what could happen now, but given the demand for affordable housing, I'd like to see some sort of public/private partnership to presell units dedicated to folks who would not normally be able to vest themselves in real estate, e.g., the present victims of SPMs. Sale prices would be held to some maximum by formula and residents would retire any public debt from financing (TIF or something else?) the project with monthly payments; over time, they would either cash out and move up in the market or stay put and reduce their payments, so it would be suitable for young folks or seniors. Wellington could bail their project out and might even want to throw in with other unsold but finished properties in the larger development towards Franklin Ave. Any other ideas? This site has few of the traffic concerns of the Highland site and is just as strategically located (access from University Ave., I-94/Hwy. 280, and Franklin Ave) to serve St. Paul and the East and West Metro (aside from that served by the TJ Woodbury and St. Louis Park sites), as Lex. & Randolph Avenues. It will also be adjacent to the Westgate Station of the Central Corridor Light Rail line. It is just a far superior site for TJ, I think, so maybe they might facilitate some sort of deal as well.
Generally the city council protocol is for the other members of the council
to defer to the wishes of the council member who represents the area in
question.
However in this instance the proposed location of the Trader Joe's store
while technically in Ward 3, Pat Harris's district, the development could
have as much if not more of an impact on Ward 2, Dave Thune's district.
Building a trader Joe's at this intersection, especially if the stores are
as popular with shoppers as is being reported is going to create a
significant increase in traffic.
We still have unresolved issues with the Ayd Mill Road situation which was
opened up on the south end to relive the traffic conditions for residents
in the Lexington / Randolph neighborhood.
Are we going to just ignore what we have learned from the Ayd Mill Road
controversy and and adversely change the quality of life in this area in
the name of economic development in the form of a trendy grocery store.
I say no special treatment for Trader Joe's, let them locate where it makes
sense for a development of this size and scope. And let's not forget about
the ramifications for the other supermarkets in the area that have been
serving the area well and with workers who enjoy the benefits of union
representation.
Neighborhoods First!
Dennis Hill
West 7th Street
Ward 2
What is Harris thinking???? I've got to look and see where he lives. We have 4
grocery stores (Korte's, Mississippi Market, Kowalski's, and Lunds). that are
locally owned within a mile or two of that location. Plus we have Whole Foods
in that same radius. We do not need another grocery store!!! We do not need
more traffic!!! We do not need more retail!!! We do not need to put our home
grown groceries out of business or stress them for Trader Joe's. Is Harris
getting some kind of kick-back?? These so called jobs are going to come at the
expense of loosing the local grocery stores. This is like Wallmart in the
little town. Just say no to low prices they come with a cost. And that cost is
loss of local business.
I'm really wondering about the kind of thinking that brings this crap into
neighborhoods. I haven't seen one shred of reliable evidence that my local
grocery stores and my co-op won't be taking a hit for this. Has all common
sense left the council chambers?
Jeez - I'm really frustrated in St. Paul less than a 3 blocks from this crappy
development idea.
Nanette Echols
Mac/Grove
see you all in 24 hours...
We visited Trader Joe's in Woodbury during the Holiday season and did so via a
third
party description on where it was. We had so much trouble finding it, that we
almost gave up. Two pedestrians did not know where it was, so I actually had
to
stop at a quick stop to ask where it was. We really liked the place! It had
good
quality foods, many gluten-free products, and great prices! It was very busy,
even
though there were probably hundreds of other stores nearby and many with food.
Having said this, I drive past this intersection several times a week and my
wife
does so daily. I agree that it is very congested now and would be much more so
if
the deal goes through. I have yet to hear any information about the half dozen
or
so houses that will be raised for the project. Have the owners objected, or
has
Trader Joe's advance people already bought up the homes?? I feel that a much
better
location is on West 7th near 35E...by the Burger King. They could raise the
Burger
King and not have to destroy any houses. I would definitely drive a little
farther
to go to that location.
Gary Thompson
A few comments on the comments thus far:
Mike Fratto:
I have never been to a Trader Joe’s; but whatever they’re doing, it is a very
popular retail destination. One of the people who spoke in support of the
project argued that many STP residents are presently motoring to either St.
Louis Park or Woodbury to get their TJ fix.
John Krenik:
I saw your brief supportive testimony. But I disagree with your
characterization; “the traffic issue was addressed at length”.
It was, but only by those opposed to the project. At best it was glossed over
by the developer.
The underground parking is great (although it must be a very high expense for
the project). But parking is not the issue here. Rather it will be the number
of cars entering and leaving the site.
Yes, truck deliveries will be limited (2-4 per day from a central warehouse in
Chicago). Thanks to Dave Thune, who by raising a question about this,
underscored that TJ’s has virtually no intention of buying from local sources.
Bill Kahn:
Any chain retail establishment has a flock of experts who are knowledgeable
about siting dynamics, etc. And I respect their expertise.
But I would still like to know, specifically, why they think this is the best
site for their STP operation. That has never been made explicit – at least in
the public hearings.
Dennis Hill:
You said: “Generally the city council protocol is for the other members of the
council to defer to the wishes of the council member who represents the area in
question.”
That seemed very apparent during the proceedings. You could see that others,
especially Dave Thune, seemed to have their reservations. But no one was
willing to voice them, at least publicly.
Nanette Echols:
Personally, I am ambivalent about the “walmart argument.” There is the upside
(lower prices) and the downside (deleterious effect on less efficient local
businesses).
But in this case, the law of unintended consequences may be in play.
Politicians want the economic development (75 new jobs, etc.), but they are not
thinking clearly about the consequences of shoehorning a retail establishment
into an unsuitable site (in a residential neighborhood) – in terms of traffic
congestion and the effect on other retail food establishments serving the area.
........................................................................
We’re not talking about some scum bum operation here. From everything I’ve
heard, Trader Joe’s is a great retail establishment, treats their employees
well, and always seems to be a good business citizen in the community.
But any reasonably observant person can foresee significant traffic congestion
for such a popular operation, which will be a problem for the immediate
neighbors and people passing through the intersection (to get to the airport or
the 35E ramp, for example).
But I would think the congestion would also be a problem for Trader Joe
customers trying to get in and out of their parking lots.
In any case, even if the deal goes through at that location, our little world
will continue to function.
But it will become one more urban nuisance that could have been easily avoided
by locating the store at some other, better location – of which there are many.
In a message dated 1/7/2008 9:54:25 PM Central Standard Time,writes: I feel that a much better location is on West 7th near 35E...by the Burger King. They could raise the Burger King and not have to destroy any houses. I would definitely drive a little farther to go to that location. <snip> Again, I have no dog in this fight and have posted on what would appear to be both sides of the issue, but... this is an example of the problem that has occurred with the new eminent domain legislation. The City of Saint Paul is prohibited by the State of Minnesota from condemning any property for economic development purposes. So, the City can't go get a new site for this development unless the seller wants to sell, and I don't see a for sale sign in front of the Burger King. JMONTOMEPPOF Chuck Repke **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
Nanette, Council Member Pat Harris is thinking what most other St. Paul residents are thinking; making St. Paul a business friendly place, encouraging redevelopment, revitalization and expanding the tax base instead of raising taxes some more (15.1% for 2008 and 8.9% in 2007) or trying to discourage redevelopment. St. Paul needs to be competitive; bringing Trader Joe’s to St. Paul is a step in the right direction. This development is about redevelopment, not protectionism. The marketplace should be the bottom line in determining if a business will be viable, not government. In the marketplace a business can compete, adapt or go out of business. It is up to the individual business managers to control their own destiny. Nanette, you were wondering what type of thinking would bring this development into your neighborhood? Innovative thinking, creative thinking and business thinking are a few that came to mind. I have looked at the proposed redevelopment plans and what I see is a very beautiful redevelopment that is going to be an asset to our community for years to come. Trader Joe’s will be a wonderful addition to our neighborhood. If we have more jobs in St. Paul, we will need more retail and thus expansion of the tax base and this is a good thing for St. Paul. St. Paul should be promoting business success and encouraging business growth and this can’t be accomplished with excessive taxes or discouraging redevelopments that cost the city NOTHING. Dennis, so very good to hear from you. Just so you know, Trader Joe’s is not receiving any special treatment in the development of this store. In fact the developer has NOT asked the city for a dime, but they are creating 75 well paying jobs ($50,000.00 plus) to boot. Here is an article on the founder of Trader Joe’s, Joe Coulombe you might be interested in: http://www.ladowntownnews.com/articles/2006/05/29/news/news01.txt Joe Coulombe states: - Paying high wages. "From the beginning, I said over and over: Full-time employees would make median family income in California," Coulombe said. "That was the most important business decision I ever made in my life. He said that in the early days it meant paying workers about $7,000 a year, and that today the average full-time Trader Joe's employee earns $50,000. While likely higher than many would expect, he said it contributes to a turnover rate of near zero. He noted that some of the people who began working for Trader Joe's when it opened in 1967 (evolving from Pronto Markets) have only recently retired from the company. Not to bad I should say. Jobs are something St. Paul needs badly! Take care, John Krenik Highland Park, St. Paul, Minnesota
_http://jobsearch.traderjoes.newjobs.com/getjob.asp?JobID=40867987&AVSDM=2007% 2D12%2D31+17%3A16%3A12&Logo=0&col=dlt&lid=338&sort=dt&vw=b_ (http://jobsearch.traderjoes.newjobs.com/getjob.asp?JobID=40867987&AVSDM=2007-12-31+17:16:12&Log o=0&col=dlt&lid=338&sort=dt&vw=b) That is the link to Trader Joe's job description of a "full time" job in the pay range John mentions. It is 9.5 hours a day, 5 days a week. It also is a requirement that one should be able to relocate to another state. They are also looking for someone to be a college grad to be an assistant manager in the grocery store. I did not find any listing for someone to just run the cash register or stock shelves. Still no idea what that would pay. JMONTOMEPPOF Chuck Repke
One of the truly smart things that Krispy Kreme did when they were beginning
their expansion plan was to put stores in unlikely, and somewhat removed
locations. This goes against expectations on the surface, but it actually drove
more sales. When people had to make a trip to find it, and then get there, they
would buy a bigger quantity, at least a dozen, when they might have only bought
one doughnut if it had been more easily accessed. Chipotle did something
similar, though for a slightly different reason.
My point? Just that if there is a Trader Joe's, people will go there. Right
now, a lot of us go there and buy several items-- like a six or two of their
really excellent beers (You owe me for that plug, Joe) or a few bottles of
cheap wine. It's not necessarily a place to drop in for that missing ingredient
for dinner.
I don't think that putting this in a solidly residential area, with limited
traffic flow as it is, is in TJ's best interest. I won't go to St Louis Park
TJ's because of the janky traffic problems-- but I do drop in to Woodbury's,
after a sprint around the dog park, usually.
My suggestion? Hmm.... well, there is a LOT of property across from the Swede
Hollow Cafe that juuuust might fit the bill. Far enough away from many, yet E-Z
access off of the highway and E 7th.
Kathy?? Whaddya say? Let's wrestle this baby over here to the Bluff!!
Here is a link to part time crew members (cashiers/stock/etc) - at least in MO, they pay $8-11 per hour. You actually have to search job listings for each area around the country. http://jobsearch.traderjoes.newjobs.com/getjob.asp?JobID=24338329&AVSDM=2007%2D11%2D26+16%3A44%3A26&Logo=0&col=dlt&lid=497&sort=dt&vw=b<http://jobsearch.traderjoes.newjobs.com/getjob.asp?JobID=24338329&AVSDM=2007%2D11%2D26+16%3A44%3A26&Logo=0&col=dlt&lid=497&sort=dt&vw=b> Gloria Bogen West Side = Best Side ----- Original Message ----- From:<mailto: > To: <mailto: > ; <mailto: > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:57 PM Subject: Re: [SPIF] A bad place for a good project That is the link to Trader Joe's job description of a "full time" job in the pay range John mentions. It is 9.5 hours a day, 5 days a week. It also is a requirement that one should be able to relocate to another state. They are also looking for someone to be a college grad to be an assistant manager in the grocery store. I did not find any listing for someone to just run the cash register or stock shelves. Still no idea what that would pay. JMONTOMEPPOF Chuck Repke
Oh, just try this link for jobs: http://jobsearch.traderjoes.newjobs.com/<http://jobsearch.traderjoes.newjobs.com/> Gloria Bogen - who doesnt know how to link weel West Side = Best Side ----- Original Message ----- From: GLORIA E BOGEN<mailto:> To: <mailto: > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 11:33 PM Subject: Re: [SPIF] A bad place for a good project Here is a link to part time crew members (cashiers/stock/etc) - at least in MO, they pay $8-11 per hour. You actually have to search job listings for each area around the country.
To Bob's suggestion to Kathy. In my last post, I almost suggested that a better location would be the site of the proposed Cub Foods in the Phalen Area. It might even be more acceptable to the local seniors. Bob Parker <> wrote: One of the truly smart things that Krispy Kreme did when they were beginning their expansion plan was to put stores in unlikely, and somewhat removed locations. This goes against expectations on the surface, but it actually drove more sales. When people had to make a trip to find it, and then get there, they would buy a bigger quantity, at least a dozen, when they might have only bought one doughnut if it had been more easily accessed. Chipotle did something similar, though for a slightly different reason. My point? Just that if there is a Trader Joe's, people will go there. Right now, a lot of us go there and buy several items-- like a six or two of their really excellent beers (You owe me for that plug, Joe) or a few bottles of cheap wine. It's not necessarily a place to drop in for that missing ingredient for dinner. I don't think that putting this in a solidly residential area, with limited traffic flow as it is, is in TJ's best interest. I won't go to St Louis Park TJ's because of the janky traffic problems-- but I do drop in to Woodbury's, after a sprint around the dog park, usually. My suggestion? Hmm.... well, there is a LOT of property across from the Swede Hollow Cafe that juuuust might fit the bill. Far enough away from many, yet E-Z access off of the highway and E 7th. Kathy?? Whaddya say? Let's wrestle this baby over here to the Bluff!! Bob Parker MN, St Paul Info about Bob Parker: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/bobparker This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4uw455tAf4XRtMDgbsd180
But this site would not serve TJs need to be a "freeway close"
destination for those no close by. I really think that the City of
St. Paul needs to use TIF or whatever vehicle to get me my TJs within
walking distance of my house in Minneapolis; they need to do it soon
[only half joking as my jones gets worse]. And TJs would indeed be
great for seniors, Mike.
I think that the most important thing about this discussion is that it has
finally been steered towards what is important, at least from a city
policy standpoint. Thanks, Mischke!
I take Randolph every day, either by car, bus or walking. It is a narrow
66' wide street, excepting the freeway approaches, east of Hamline.
Despite that it is a very heavily used street, making an important
connection between Highland and the rest of the city. I have little doubt
that the overflow from Snelling, which starts to become congested north of
Randoph, is part of the problem.
It's hardly shocking that the growing problem on Randolph has been
neglected given that the problem on Snelling has also been ignored.
However, Randolph is an important commuter street that could reasonably
benefit from major upgrades to the transit. The 74 bus carries about 16k
people a day (by my estimate, not MCTO) through there, on its way from
Downtown to the LRT station in Minneapolis. This is an important
connection for many, many reasons - the most serious of which being that
it is one of the few significant links to Highland.
Upgrading anything along Randolph is hampered by its narrow width. Even
running more buses could be a problem as traffic backs up. I consider
this street to be my #3 pick for trolleys in all of Saint Paul, behind
only University and Selby - but the engineering of such a system would be
difficult at best.
The proposed Trader Joe's could be acceptable to me if it is accompanied
by a commitment to improve the connection along Randolph - specifically
with transit. There is no doubt in my mind that what is currently on the
table will cause traffic nightmares, and thus precipitate a crisis. If we
go into it with our eyes open and actually fix the problem we know is
coming, it may be worth it.
In other words, I'd support TJ because I think it will screw things up and
all I care is that we're honest about it and do something for once.
This location is very problematic, and it's also very important. We've
neglected it for a long time, largely because the problem is difficult. I
have little doubt that TJ will make it worse, but if we can find some real
solutions that respect and enhance the neighborhood, such as increased
transit, it would be worth it to me. Naturally, the people who live there
might not think so, and that opinion needs to be respected. But I do
think that once you see how unstable the current situation is, and how
likely it is to be a terrible failure in the future, what really counts is
preventing the problem we can see unfolding now. TJ is just a detail.
What faces us here is a regulatory decision, where the city will reach a "hard
power" judgment over the outcome of the decision. Those decisions tend by
their nature to be polarizing, which is what spurs me to write.
Here's a missing observation: most developers also respond to the "soft power"
at the City's disposal.
Soft might include meetings with the developer before applying for rezoning,
where specific development sites are encouraged or discouraged. One of the
interesting dynamics here is that often a developer forms their idea with one
Councilmember and Ward's needs, which can hinder the City from taking a "big
picture" assessment of what's best for the City broadly.
Soft power might include meetings with the developer to discuss what kind of
impacts on adjacent homeowners would be appropriate, and what would not. Soft
power might mean getting the developer and community stakeholders together for
constructive meetings before any formal application is made.
Soft power might include financial incentives to locate the project in areas
where the public benefits are perceived as greater (like using a grocery store
to directly leverage other new taxpaying development) and drawbacks fewer (in
an area better able to handle traffic). Of course, those incentives often
bring controversy, but that controversy can be softened by involving the public
up front.
Soft power is usually not as visible to the public, but it's potential is real.
I don't know exactly how that soft power played out here, and importantly, I'm
intending no judgment on it.
But it is clear that in reality, when you pull back from the current moment,
there's a lot of ground between the rather unhelpful designations of being
"pro-development" and "anti-development". Reliance on those designations
tends to mask legitimate points of disagreement, and creates a less fruitful
discussion as a result.
The closer I look into the Trader Joe redevelopment proposal the less I
like it.
Contrary to John's view that this is a win-win situation for Trader Joe's
and the Randolph/Lexington neighborhood, I remain unconvinced.
Trader Joe's is asking the city to rezone this 1.2 acre parcel from single
and multi-family residential to Traditional Neighborhoods zoning.
To create their vision for a Traditional Neighborhood development Trader
Joe's will remove from the neighborhood, four single-family homes on Juno
Avenue, a triplex on Randolph Avenue and the Mach 1 automotive audio and
security business at the southeast corner of Randolph and Lexington.
So the entire 1.2 acre site goes from being a primarily residential tract
of land to an exclusive commercial shopping center whose hours of business
may run around the clock.
From the St. Paul Zoning Code:
Sec. 66.311. General intent, TN traditional neighborhood districts.
"TN traditional neighborhood districts are intended to foster the
development and growth of compact, pedestrian-oriented urban villages. All
three (3) districts are intended to encourage a compatible mix of
commercial and residential uses within buildings, sites and blocks; new
development in proximity to major transit streets and corridors; and
additional choices in housing."
In my opinion what comes to mind when I read the definition of a
Traditional Neighborhood district is not what is being proposed by the
Trader Joe's redevelopment proposal.
Where is the compatible mix of and residential uses within buildings? They
remove residential properties to make way for this project. They degrade
the residential character of the neighborhood for the surrounding
residential properties that border the 1.2 acre site. Think of the noise,
light, and air pollution that will result for the residents whose homes
border this development and ask contemplate what this project will do to
the value of their homes and the residential character of the neighborhood.
How does this project does this development "foster the development and
growth of compact, pedestrian-oriented urban villages."? In my opinion it
doesn't. It encourages consumers for miles around to drive to the center to
shop. The intended consequences are likely to be to attract shoppers from
suburban communities south of the river to drive to the store thus
increasing the traffic on Lexington Pkwy, Randolph Ave, 35E and Ayd Mill
Road.
This project is not what I envision when I read the definition of a
"Traditional Neighborhood" zoning district.
It is my view that Traditional Neighborhood zoning would not be an
appropriate designation for this redevelopment project and should
not be approved by the city council at their January 9 meeting.
Dennis Hill
West 7th Street
Ward 2.
P.S. to John K, you can't really believe that 75 retail grocery store jobs
that pay over $50,000 a year are going to be created at Trader Joe's can
you? John, tell me your not that easily persuaded by highly paid corporate
PR salespeople.
Ahhh...yes, all of this and more. This is precisely what local government is
there for. It is sound public policy to protect locally owned businesses
from being drive out by deep-pocketed national chains. Local businesses are
far more stable and, when competition exists from other local business,
better quality vendors overall, putting a far greater percentage of their
profits back into the community and maintaining the sense of community that
only neighbors doing business with neighbors can promote. National chains
drain a community of its dollars then pull them out of the city to a
national profit center, adding little to the value of the community in the
process.
Trader Joe's may be a better chain than most, but it is not local and it
should not be allowed to drive established locally owned businesses out of
business as so many chains have.
Yes, sir. Government does have a major role to play in maintaining the
stable life of a community. Capitalism is a partnership between and among
business, consumers and government. If one element swamps the other, no good
can come of it.
Bob Spaulding: "But it is clear that in reality, when you pull back from the
current moment,there's a lot of ground between the rather unhelpful
designations of being "pro-development" and "anti-development". Reliance on
those designations tends to mask legitimate points of disagreement, and creates
a less fruitful discussion as a result."
Thanks Bob for that insight.
Bob noticed that I may be against this idea, but I am not against development.
I'm against stupid development. And that is exactly what TJ's on the corner of
Randolph and Lexington is. It will bring down the value of my home, it will
increase the difficulty I already have trying to get out of my neighborhood
onto Randolph or Lexington, and it threatens the fabric of my neighborhood with
more suburban folks traipsing through to get to the destination of the moment
(not always trader joes).
John Krenik: "bringing Trader Joe’s to St. Paul is a step in the right
direction." Maybe so, but not at Lexington and Randolph. One thing I'm noticing
on this list is that John is the only doe eyed one on the list that thinks this
is a good idea. John, You talk about economic development for St. Paul, well
then why destroy the neighborhood when there are a plethora of other options so
well stated on this list by very thoughtful members.
BTW - I wonder what the mean salary is... that would be a statistic. I like fun
with numbers. Bet it's no where near $50 K.
I've also heard from my close friends that TJ's is 'the best' place. I think it
would be great for St. Paul to land this big deal, just not at the expense of
my already traffic congested end of the hood.
Nanette Echols
Mac/Grove
3 blocks from the debacle
Posting
Only members who are logged in can post, and you are not logged in.