"L&M needs the City’s support in order to convince the ALR the land should be removed."

Catch 22 isn't it. To think that an engineering /planning firm does not appear to understand that.

I would have to ask L&M whether if the City was their client, would they advise the city to support the removal of the land before it is determined by the City whether the land in question ought to be used for light industrial. I mean, why does the City have to support the request to remove? I am assuming that they will support that request based on a contemplated end use.

If the City says remove it, and they know full well that the land is not being removed just for the sake of removing it but to be rezoned to light industrial; wouldn't a reasonable person assume that the City is supporting the very purpose for its removal?

The City, the Airport, the past land owners and probably several others over time have had decades to reach the conclusion that if the airport was ever to join the big league, that some land around it would be required for some light industrial purpose.

I mean, how long has the airport talked about extending the runway for cargo air traffic purposes and that providing that service would likely generate the requirements for storage, sorting, maybe even assembly purposes.

Now it appears these people are running around like chickens with their heads cut off and someone is being asked to plan by the seat of their pants.

Again, if L&M principles were city planners, or had been contracted by the City as consultants, I would hope that they would recommend exactly the same to Council as the city administration is doing. Otherwise, in my humble opinion, they would not be doing their due diligence in the matter.

If the city supports the removal, and does not approve a rezoning to light industrial afterwards, how much would L&M be crying foul at that time? I betcha just as much as they are trying to do now.

"This delay MAY threaten the opportunity"

not WILL .....

So, all based on conjecture ....

Owl, the city is not the client. The city is another government. Governments govern for their own interests, especially this city government. There seems to be a little confusion about what the city is here for. The city is so used to being the developer that outside money and planning is raising their hackles is all. The city has tried successfully to halt development in this area before when it was called the Airport Plaza, and bankrupted the fellow in the process.

The city can't bankrupt this new guy so the city just says they will just do everything they can to stop development. The 16" water main that runs beside the property can just rot as far as the city is concerned. When it comes to competing against the cities own development properties the city is the dog in the manger.

Owl, no one is running around like chickens with their heads cut off, least of all a respect local planner group like L&M. Granted some like the Owl's in the city are being Chicken Little's, but that is a different kind of chicken.

Funny how when the city says "may need a study" than holds more water than "may threaten the opportunity". The city is going to be around for a long time and "may" is in that context of time frame. "May" to the applicant is a proposal today that could be lost tomorrow, as in "maybe" I'll go to Hawaii instead. I know some of the people involved and if I was them I'd toss everything to do with PG in the garbage and go fishing instead. Life is too short too bother butting heads with the local yokels in the city administration.

The City Council doesn't oppose the administration's wishes. How can they? Some councillors are so old they have a hard time staying awake, and the others get confused about what's being discussed. Pretty hopeless bunch to stand up to, or even question, administration about anything other than what's for lunch.

It doesn't matter what happens at the Monday council meeting anymore. The damage has been done. Clearly the city administration will try to sabotage development on the land in question at every opportunity now.

It's time to pack it in and don't loose anymore sleep over the issue. It isn't worth it.

"Owl, the city is not the client."

Chad ... I wish people could read for content.

Where did I say the City was the client? I asked what L&M's recommendation to Council would be if L&M were the consultants for the City in this case. That is a very legitimate question since, when I first came to town, the City did not have a planner and all planning work was farmed out to a local planning firm, not too unlike an L&M of today.

The recommendations of a consultant very much depend on who their client is since different interests have to be protected depending on the client. This is simply a case of whose interests are at stake.

I realize that L&M's client's interests are at stake, as are the City's interests. In my opinion, the City's interests are reduced if the City were to support the removal of the property from the ALR since a rationale has to be given, which typically goes to what is the intended use of the land.

Also, in my opinion, the City should have been ready for planning for the ALR lands in the City rather than leaving them as “holes” in the plan. So, it is not as if I am holding the City blameless in this. Whether it is the administration or Council that are to blame for that circumstance is really irrelevant. I do know that the mayor seems to think that there is no farm land in the City and that their should not be any agricultural reserves, or at least in some areas, if not the entire City. To that I say the City then should have gone to the Commission to get all the ALR land removed some time ago, with a city OCP and phased planning map in hand showing what the long range zoning is to be.

Instead, as I say, the PGMAP online show gaping holes where there are ALR lands rather than long range uses.

As far as the rest of the conspiracy theories, they are not even worth responding to. Talk about being political. Utter nonsense!!!

City Manager: “Why do you wish to work for the City Mr. Radloff?”
Mr. Radloff: “I want to stop the growth of the City.”
City Manager: “You’re our man. You’re hired!”

What nonsense!!!

"Governments govern for their own interests, especially this city government."

I am sorry, that is an opinion I simply do not share. As with any organization, there are good organizations and there are bad organizations. How they are judged is very much a personal point of view, not objective in any fashion until one actually puts an objective measure in place and compares themn to other similar organizations.

In my opinion this City has for a long time not had a top notch planning department since the 1980's. I would say that Peter Bloodof was the last good planner we had. Why that has ended up being so is beyond me. Up to date planning is important to a City's growth. Everythign these days seems to be reactive rather than proactive. This case is a case in point. They should have had that study ready a long time ago, especially since all the signs visible in the public realm where there ate least for 2 years.

IN fact, I think that the airport plaza period would have been one where they should have looked at the growth scenario for that entire area.

And then, of course, there is my pet one of not having industrial land ready outside the bowl removed from the City population by at least 10km and more. There is absolutely no excuse for that. As Councilor Zurowski said, there is an inventory.

Show an inventory of land without any services to an industry wanting to move here and they will simply laugh and move on.

In my opinion They will probably have to start greasing some palms.