Hudson School District given 30 days to show options for St. Croix Meadows site
April 20, 2012 at 2:22 am in Hudson Star-Observer
The School District of Hudson on Thursday night, April 12, asked the city Plan Commission for more time to present its plans for a secondary school on the St. Croix Meadows site, and was granted the request. Continue Reading
Does anyone else find it “interesting” that the commercial real estate agent involved in this story is also the husband of a current school board member?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
15
Iris, you make an excellent point. One would think the school district could find a disinterested commercial real estate agent to opine on the feasibility of commercial development. We have to assume that the members of the Plan Commission took Mr. Robson’s obvious bias into account and gave his opinion zero weight. He could have stayed home.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
16
You might also find it interesting that there may be other connections. Like the connection between a city planning member and that land next to Rivercrest that came up out of nowhere.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
16
It would be really interesting to hear this “connection” you speak of! This is Hudson, WI…everyone knows everyone. And as far as this option coming out of nowhere…ask the school district how “out of nowhere” this option was. Bringing this option to the voters would have complicated the votes they needed for the ONLY option they advertised.
What is wrong with laying all of the options on the table and explaining to the voters/ tax payers why they will or will not work…unless you are trying to keep information from the public! I think this referendum vote can be ignored, due to the large amount of info that the voting public did not know!
Like or Dislike:
16 
13
Pain reliever your comment is absolutely false.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
24
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
14 
24
Obviously hit a nerve. “completely wrong!”, “absolutely false”
Really? No connection at all to anyone at city hall?
Remember that anyone can play connect the dots in this town.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
18
City hall is not the same as plan commission. Plan commission will nor city hall will not make 65,000 in commission like Mr. Robson would. Most people in town know who that property belongs too. Yes that hard working employee. Yes pick on the employee who simply offered to sell.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
19
RED, YOU SHOULD CHECK YOUR FACTS. I AM MARRIED TO LYNN ROBSON WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD. I AM NOT AND CANNOT BE INVOLVED IN ANY FASHION IN THE DOG TRACK SALE AND PURCHASE AS THAT WOULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR MY WIFE AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. THEREFORE THE ROBSON WILL NOT MAKE $65,000 ON THE SALE AND BUILD A NEW ADDITION TO OUR HOME AS YOU CLAIM IN YOUR POSTS! I BROUGHT FORWARD FACTS ABOUT THE HUDSON COMMERCIAL MARKET TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SO PEOPLE COULD MAKE A DECISION ON THE FACTS. APPARENTLY SINCE THE OPPONENTS TO THE PURCHASE OF THE DOG TRACK CAN’T FIND FAULT WITH MY FACTS THEY ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT MY FACT BY CLAIMING FALSLY THAT I AM GAINING FINANCIALLY FROM THE SALE. I WOULD SUGGEST NOT CLAIMING THINGS THAT ARE NOT SUBSTANTIATED OR THAT YOU MADE UP. INTERESTING STATEGY!!!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
…..the plan commission could care less if a school were to go on that farm, on UU or at the government center land. What they care about is the value and potential loss of 1.2 million dollars in revenue and tax hike on city residence. What the Robson’s care about is the next expansion on their home. Lets not try and muddy the waters with your attempt to shame an honest system with the lies of the school district. Why don’t you ask them why it took till plan commission for them to explore their options. What is it about the dog track? To be so strong willed about a piece of property when plenty more of avalaiable and large enough. I thought it was for the children? Hmmmmm…..
Hot debate. What do you think?
28 
15
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
16 
27
That asking price you want to know. Check with the school district. They got it and never bothered to share the information from what I understand. The teachers never heard about that option for the school. Your theory on city hall and the vote is so far from reality. The council had yet to even take this up. Both plan commission and council have one job and that is to determine whether they should rezone 1/3 of the available commercial land to pu license use. That is it. That is their vote. The only governing body that will stop a school from being built is the school board. They have other properties that can be looked at. So get over the dog track. Cause with any sense at all it won’t be a school. Stop trying to pressure the plan commission to do their job. The school board should accomplished the rezone first. This is their failure and they wasted our tax dollars once again.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
15
More and more conspiracy. That is all you have. I have no theory on city hall, besides the fact they didnt want to sway the vote so they decided to wait for the results of the referendum. I have a theory that the city planning commission is not being truthful to the public. One third of available commercial real-estate? Is that today or after the travel center and all of Carmichael from 94 to vine is rezoned? Does that figure include already commercially zoned property that is vacant? At least the district has a use for the dog track property, unlike Radermacher’s hope that another U-line drops from the sky. Boy, that is planning genious. Oh, it should be noted that if that did happen the city would have to rezone it out of commercial anyway and who will pay to demolish the dog track? You may be right about the planning board having a more limited scope on this but you are way off the mark about the city council. They need to look at the big picture. I thought they were right to wait until after the referendum to appear neutral, but in doing so they admitted to consider the results of the vote in the future rezoning decision. to claim now that that referendum shouldn’t carry any weight is ignorance. So no, I will not get over the dogtrack, and I am assuming to make the voters get over it because of these last minute fits of outrage may be a hard sell to their voters as well as the rest of the district.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
22
Funny how you assume the rest area will be re zoned commercial. Isn’t that a little presumptuous? May not be that easy.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
17
This one is too easy red. What property do you think might be more attractive to develop commercially? A parcel close to a major intersection with high traffic volumes and your neighbors are home depot, county market, Fleet Farm, Menards, Walmart, taco bell, Wendy’s, and McDonald’s all while also in clear view of I-94 OR a large parcel with only commuter rural traffic volume surrounded by a hill on one side, an elementary school on another and condo’s on the front, all while not in view of any other commercial development or the interstate……? Did I forget to mention the fact that a huge building would have to be torn down? Boy that is a tuff one.
I guess I am guilty of presuming common sense.
Are you presuming there will be a light rail station at the rest stop? Could be but I am not holding my breath.
If the root of this debate is truly about wise commercial property planning and zoning then the city should practice wise commercial property planning and zoning.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
15
Maybe you should understand my point. You seem to think you can just decide the cities comp. plan. It does not work that way. How about you do your job and you let the people who have been planning this city for the last 30 years do theirs. And again don’t presume it just makes you sound like a bully. The City has a process and unlike the School District they are following the process, so take a step back and a break. Otherwise you will have a long wait ahead till the next Plan Commission meeting. Let me know when that land by the rest area goes up for rezoning word on the street is the people in this City would really like to see a bus station or something that may get them to the Cities and save gas in this tough economy especially if their taxes raise 500 bucks + once a new school is built.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
16
Hey I love the Hudson bus transit station idea. Just not sure it fits at the rest stop area. If the planning commission is so concerned about traffic, adding a parking ramp and transit station for a large amount of area commuters might not work. Maybe out on exit 4, I am all for that. Some of these new transit stations remain way under used I have read, but i like the concept.
Now red I do understand your point. I just don’t agree with it whether it is your opinion on the zoning or the use of the dogtrack. Continuing a debate about it does not make me a bully. I think if you read your earlier posts you will see that you presumed as much as I have. I joined this thread because others were making presumptions. And as far as letting the planners do there job because they are following a 30 year old plan that can’t change, well I think that is nonsense. The city comp plan has changed and evolved many times as variables and planning members have changed. You yourself just criticized the district for not having a plan and that is your opinion, yet you feel I shouldn’t question the planning commission’s plan? That is hypocrisy.
I also think it is insulting to the voters that you seem to think that now we should sit down and find a solution that makes sense to you when we already have a solution that the majority voted for.
Like or Dislike:
12 
16
You misunderstood what I wrote. When I said 30 years I was referring to Mr. Darnold as I believe in an earlier post you criticized him. The plan has recently changed as they spent almost 1 1/2 reviewing and making changes. Now they should make every attempt to follow the plan. Changing a plan 9 times in the last 20 years hardly a lot. They changed the plan to accommodate growth. The growth in the city has stalled. The school district wants a new school even though their growth projections are off. They don’t need everything on one piece of land. What about building there school on the land they have available to them. 2 story schools do exist. They want athletic facilities to boot. Why can’t the athletic facilities go on the UU land. The land they all ready own. I mean there are ways to get this done. And I have been doing some research there are plenty of new school with less than 65acres that have everything in one spot. Also therein no state required minimum. That is a wish list comment that is not a must.
Like or Dislike:
15 
11
You just proved my point red. If the plan has changed 9 times in 20 years (which is your data, but you seem closely connected to this so we will use it) then the comp plan has changed about once every 2 years. So your argument that it just changed so now we should avoid changing it for a while is pretty week. The fact is they change or make modifications to the comp plan when new opportunities come up or requests are made from outside sources. Nobody knew the rest area or fog track would be up for sale. The dog track sale opportunity is a new occurance. The only reason the dog track is zoned the way it is is because that was its original use when built. Not because it would be a wonderful spot for a shopping mall, which are not being built anymore. So i am going to completely dismiss the idea that this zoning change cant happen because the loss of commercial land to the city or that it is against the comp plan. And now you claim that growth has stalled and that the schools projections are off. Well the economy has been hard but enrollment has still continued to climb every year during the worst economy in our lifetime. That is a fact. I wonder where or from whom you are getting your numbers from. Plus now we have a Stillwater bridge that means more growth to Hudson. All of hudson. Also, our current H.S. is on 53acres (47 usable) with very limited fields. The only sport that actually uses on site for conference play is the tennis team. Plus we rent parking space from St Pat’s. So I think the 65 acre minimum is actually too small if you want any fields. And why would we build a new H.s. on a small site and the build fields on uu when if we built both a school and fields at the dog track we could sell uu for residential development and sell the football stadium for residential development? Then our bussing costs would go down getting kids to athletic fields and eliminate parking issues at football games which the e.p. rock area residents would love. Also, the new school would actually be 3stories high in part of the building (the part that is already there) so that should make you happy. You are right, this can and hopefully will get done. The way the voters chose.
The more I look into this, the more excited I am with the advantages of the dog track.
Like or Dislike:
12 
14
Bloc, you seem to pose questions as though you already know all the answers.
In every vote, the result is called into question by some who claim the voters did not have all the information. If we voted ten more times with the same result there would still be those making that claim.
Like or Dislike:
14 
14
I got my numbers on the comp plan from the plan commission meeting. It was your people who gave those. And as far as growth. The elementary enrollment is down 10 percent since the projections for the Rivercrest referendum. How do I know this? Cause I still have the flyer that the school board to sell me into voting YES. This is why I voted NO this time their projection are off. You love to take words and twist them. Have you seen growth in the City? I said the comp plan is changed to accommodate growth. Not growth of a school which is argumentative. Since you know so much. What are the current class sizes at the high school? I agree with BLOC this vote is no mandate. However there were mandates that night, just not the school in my opinion.
Like or Dislike:
11 
13
So Red, you are going to hang your hat on an enrollment projection done before the recession compared to this years actual enrollment that was with in 10 percent as your smoking gun? I would say that was a pretty close estimate. So be it. You voted no. That is your right. I voted yes, along with 58 percent of city residents. I think we can agree to disagree.
Words are not twisted just because you do not agree with them.
Like or Dislike:
13 
12
I for one welcome my new taxing overlords with open arms…
the tax to buy the land
the tax to “improve” the land
the tax to hire a full time staff to fill it….
the tax to heat/cool/repair it…
the tax to make up for the tax we are not getting from it…
you think the land is the only cost?!?!? “will only add xxx to your taxes…”
HA!
Like or Dislike:
16 
11
I choose to not go there with the 58 % comment. Since the entire City did not actually vote. But have it your way. The enrollment was elementary and yes I will hang my hat on that. The fact is there has been no increase in enrollment. We have a bubble we need to get through and I don’t think we need to spend 80,000,000 dollars to do it. But with your yes vote you are hanging you that that their projections are correct.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
15
You are right red, I meant to say 58 percent of the city voters.
Like or Dislike:
13 
6