A month ago there was a piece in the Pioneer Press which talked about how there is majority opposition from the Burnsville City Council to permit the Humane Society to move from their current and cramped location to a more spacious 42,000 square foot facility in an industrial area which already houses another animal related business. When I covered the story from their legwork I said that the Burnsville City Council Hates Cute Little Kittens, along with just about everything else that has nothing to do with wasting taxpayer dollars and beautifying the Heart of the City.
Three of the Burnsville City Council members are against the idea because of various issues but especially because it would take the large, and currently vacant, building off the tax roles because the Humane Society is a non-profit agency. According to the this article via Thisweek, e-mails in support of the move have been pouring into the city council member’s inboxes (why the fuck doesn’t Apple Valley have individual inboxes for each City Council member?) with Dan Kealey, who is in favor of allowing the Humane Society to move, going so far as to craft an auto-reply explaining his reasons to support the measure. Are the other council members responding to these support e-mails in some way or are they turning a blind-eye and deaf-ear to those in the public that don’t agree with their stances–just like they normally do?
From the article:
“I don’t know if there’s a day that goes by when I don’t get at least one or two,” Kealey said. “And they just keep coming. … It’s been going on now for a few weeks. There’s very loud and very broad-based support by the community on the request for the land-use variance.”
The reason for the flood of support is because the Humane Society sent out the following e-mail (edited for length) on June 9th to their supporters urging people to take action:
You may have read that the Burnsville City Council during its work session on May 12 did not show majority support for the Minnesota Valley Humane Society’s proposed move from the old Burnsville City Hall to the former Maxsun Furniture building on County Road 42. The support of the City Council is needed for MVHS to remain in Burnsville as a Community Partner. We are asking for your support in sharing the story of MVHS with the Burnsville Mayor and City Council Members. You always come through for us – thank-you. But, we still have work to do. Surrendered and abandoned animals may soon be homeless.
Now…Minnesota Valley Humane Society urgently needs your help and energy all the way through to decision day – July 13 (Planning Commission Meeting) and July 21 (City Council Meeting). Here is what you can do. START TODAY!
* Write or email a respectful letter to the editor of the Star Tribune, Pioneer Press, or your local community news paper (send us a copy to present at meetings since not all letters are printed).
* Write, call, email or add to a blog a respectful message to the Burnsville Mayor and City Council Members (again…send us a copy for presentation).[...]
The city of Burnsville categorizes MVHS as a “kenneling” facility and without an amended permit; the “Maxsun site” is not zoned for our use. As you can see from the above talking points we are much more than a kenneling facility. Therefore…we must make our case to the City of Burnsville to approve the permit required for us to relocate.
We looked at dozens of buildings all over the south metro area. We realized the MaxsunBuilding had everything we needed – high visibility, low cost per square foot and lower remodeling costs. We are left with no choice. Without City Council approval…surrendered and abandoned animals may soon be homeless.
Your opinions, passion and words of support will help MVHS take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. And, we will continue to remain in Burnsville to serve the South Metro communities. Stay tuned for our next City Council Update.
There was a bit of discussion about this the last time around and I’m wondering if anyone has any different thoughts about it or has been sending words to the council members expressing their personal support? If you haven’t, I highly suggest you do and get to every single city council meeting you can to voice your support during the public input portion.
So what do you think about the call to action by the MVHS? Do you think that the flood of e-mails will change the minds of at least one of the people currently opposed to the idea? Are you surprised by those that are in support (or against) the measure? Whatever you feel, go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear what you have to say!
Related posts:
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
Lazy Lightning Gear
BPAC Financials Archive
June 20th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Yep, I feel differently than I did the last time we talked about this. I support the Humane Society now and will try to do at least one of the things they describe in their email.
I thought about the tax issue and decided that, while it’s a legitimate concern, it’s definitely outweighed by the benefits of locating the facility where they want to put it, particularly right now. The most recent Thisweek article also helped me understand the Humane Society’s position better, as it went into more detail.
June 21st, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Just one more reminder of what a mess this council is making of our city. I hope they get this fixed. Drove my Maxsun yesterday, still empty! I am sure if the Humane Society does not move in, it will still be empty 2 years from now.
June 21st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
It’s the Minnesota Valley Humane Society … why do they have to stay in Burnsville? I think they should shop around in Savage. Heck the Maxsun building is almost in Savage anyway. They should check to see if Savage has a stipulation in its ordinance like Burnsville does that would prohibit their organization from being in an industrial zone. Like it or not, city’s have rules about what can be where — it’s called planning. We adopted our dog Max from the MVHS and I wholeheartedly agree that they need a new place. But at the same time they’re rallying the troops for support for the Maxsun site, they should be looking at other options in nearby cities.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 am
Nancy, I get your point about planning. The issue here is that another pet related businesses went before the council, sought and received a variance to operate in the same zoned area, on the same street, I believe, where MVHS wants to operate. Planning is fine, but if you make an exception and allow a type of business to operate in an area where it is normally not allowed, then you don’t get to deny the same request by the same type of operator, profit or non-profit, in my book. Then its not planning, its protectionism, and that’s a whole different can of worms. I say good for MVHS for starting the citizen contact campaign. Also, good for Nancy for getting her point of view out there – it also sends a message that MVHS could just as easily leave Burnsville, which I don’t think the council wants either.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 am
While I do think that the Humane Society should be able to use the Maxsun site, Nancy does bring up a good point. I’m not sure, from the MVHS’s point of view, why they want to stay in Burnsville unless they really couldn’t find a good enough site elsewhere.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:49 am
Nancy,
I am not terribly familiar with commercial real estate opportunities in Savage. Do you know of any open 40,000+ sq. ft. buildings in Savage that offer the same high profile/traffic location as the old Maxsun building?
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I would challenge everyone to start looking around when you drive around Burnsville. At this point, I begin to worry that large sections of town look like a ghost town.
Driving around town this weekend, I noticed huge buildings (old Sams Club area) gas stations, restraunts, and residential locations that are empty. There is industrial, office, and retail space sitting empty all over the city. So while it might seem easy to say they should find another space, it might also be in everyones best interest for them to move into the Maxsun space and actually fill up one of the MANY vacant locations around our city. One less vacant space, more community services, more people employed, and helping a non profit expand. It seems like a win win situation, and I personally would hate to see them go to another city, other than the joy at seeing our city council look like fools once again.