Editorial: Complaints about rezoning are confusing

Talk about it

We’re all for Rosemount residents getting involved in the operation of their city and letting city council members know what is on their mind.

There has been no shortage of that recently in Rosemount. Bar owners and other residents crowded into a city hall meeting room during two recent city council workshops to complain about what they saw as overly aggressive behavior by police in the interest of catching drunk drivers. We didn’t necessarily agree with the arguments -- better to stop a few more drivers for minor offenses than let drunk drivers go, we argued following the first meeting -- but there was certainly value in letting council members know how their police department is being perceived. The result will be a tweaking of police activity during overnight hours, if not the kind of overhaul bar owners were after.

It remains to be seen just how much impact the changes will have, but there was value in the discussion.

We are more perplexed by a recent outcry over some zoning changes currently under discussion by the Rosemount Planning Commission. Planners say the changes are to clean up the city’s zoning code, and to limit liability in some instances. But based on comments made at recent meetings and in letters published in this issue it appears some residents see the changes as a way to simplify things should the city ever choose to sell its parkland, or coerce residents into building a new city hall or school.

We can’t believe that is the issue, if only because selling off parkland in any quantity would be a disaster for any city. Parks are desired amenities. Getting rid of them would make Rosemount a less desirable place to live, and it would anger residents. There is no financial benefit great enough to balance that.

We certainly won’t tell residents they shouldn’t argue their case. There is benefit in all interactions. But some are easier than others to understand.

Tags: opinion, rosemount, editorials