ture generations!!” she finished her email appeal. The second petition for a change of grievances— 'change” being the modern term for a wound redress—came from residents of West Division Street and read as follows.

“The development planned for land next to DeSanctis Park is a bad idea,” it said. “The enjoyment and pleasure that the entire city of River Falls gets from this open area is an asset to the community. It is a benefit as people drive in from the west to see the beauty of all the green space.” Echoing Terkelsen’s comments regarding congestion and the noise, the petition signed by Adam Lacy, David Meyer, Dorothy Meyer, Ashley Lacy, Andrew Lacy, Luke Meyer and Chris Dusek ended simply, “I oppose putting in the four high-density apartment buildings at DeSanctis Park.” With eight electronically transmitted ‘nays’ registered, it would seem the Council had a fight on its hands. If there was any doubt it was laid to rest by a petition of over 1,000 signatures made possible through change.org and included in the Tuesday City Council packet, in which those signing registered opposition to the “high density housing development” proposed for a city owned field adjacent to Ryan DeSanctis Park.

“Greetings,” the modern internet petition addressed to Mayor Dan Toland, the River Falls Plan Commission, and the River Falls City Council began. “We, the residents of River Falls, do not believe that a high density housing development is the appropriate use of the city owned fields adjacent to Ryan De-Sanctis Park and the surrounding neighborhoods.

We would like you to consider other options such as annexing into the park to create more amenities and recreation or developing as low density housing.”

A full 52 pages of names, addresses, and signing dates followed, with many of these from River Falls, but others chiming in from Roberts, Wisconsin, El Paso, Texas, and Spring Valley just to the east, along with Minneapolis to the west. Signing dates indicate a span of one month and five days for collection, from July 2 to August 7. Comments accompanying signatures on the change.org petition dwell on the beauty of DeSanctis Park and need to keep green spaces. Other comments made at the City Hall in person touched on traffic safety concerns and the initial proposal designating “property owner” when this turned out to be the City, in the view of resident Dan Nelson.

“The property owner seems to be the city,” he said, “but they never told us they were the property owner…If we allow another eighty units, it’ll only be a matter of time before an avoidable accident happens.” Upon finishing his remarks, Mr. Nelson was audibly applauded by many of those present but off camera. Toland then closed the public hearing and asked for a motion to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Future Use Plan, this motion coming from council member Scott Morrissette and seconded by Diane Odeen. Before anything was voted on, though, council members gave their own thoughts, among which was Sean Downing.

“So I want to thank everybody who came tonight and voiced their comments and concerns, and I agree, we haven’t done a very good job of community engagement on this,” he said. “Why I am against the current zoning proposal on this is it paves the way for a project that our community is loudly saying ‘no’ to. I believe our officials acted in what I would call good faith,” but more community engagement was needed. Downing went on to say that the housing wasn’t affordable, but instead “market rate at best,” and that the city could adjust its approach to DeSanctis without affecting the rest of the zone. “So typically I am not in favor of saying ‘no’ to a zoning adjustment after a general development plan has been approved, however, I’m talking about what goes into the zone when I talk about this. In my opinion this whole process was rushed through by our executive team and the city developer, focusing only on the housing need and not the future of a regional park. We never had a chance for community engagement.” A majority of the change.org signatures and Peter and Susan De-Sanctis themselves were not in favor of the development. “So I think we need to take a step back and work with our community to get it right.” Hal Watson also shared his thoughts.

“One of the things that I’ve always said to myself and to other people—people that I represent—is that I come into every one of these meetings with an open mind. And I listen and I’ve gotten a lot of emails. And they have made me question some of my assumptions,” he said, saying it was a tough vote for him, being an environmental advocate.

“I have a vision for a regional park in this area that is much more significant than what we have in DeSanctis Park right now,” he said, a vision the future land use map helped move the area towards. “We would be looking at a regional park of maybe almost 200 acres, if we can convince the school district to let us make a connection along their property with some trails.” Watson said he wanted the City staff to look at including land to the east. Morrissette sought to clear up the use of “property owner” in the original proposal.

“The City did not buy the land until we were down the road with the Girards,” petitioning city staff to help him in case his memory was wrong. The land to be developed had been purchased by the City as an incentive to get the road, sewer, and electric down to a schoolhouse. “I don’t want us to come across as deceptive, but I think at the time that the Girard property was being discussed with the public, we did not own the land. We bought the land as we moved forward to incentivize development.” That development hadn’t happened, and the City now owned the land. The Shopko site couldn’t host a housing development because it was a private site and the City could not dictate what went in there. Pleas from the council included the words “market” and “math” as decisive factors, these comments made by Morrissette and Bjerstedt respectively. Sometime later, the first of four votes on the map amendment came due. Prior to the council voting, City Administrator Scot Simpson had a point of order to share with everybody.

“Mr. Mayor, a point of order,” he said, saying that the council would understand but the public might not. “A vote ‘yes’ on this does not approve the development project,” he clarified. “This is a vote on the Future Land Use plan, which was voted in favor by the Plan Commission… A vote on this does not require the council to approve any of the other items for the development or the development as a whole,” Simpson said.

Kristi McKahan made note that a vote in favor would pass the resolution.

“A vote in favor would be in favor of passing the ordinance,” she said. “I’ll begin with Mr. Gagne.

“Yes,” Gagne said.

“Mr. Plunkett?”

“Yes.”

“Mr. Bjerstedt?”

“Yes.”

“Mr. Morrissette?”

“Yes.”

“Mr. Downing?”

“No.”

“Ms. Odeen?”

“Yes.”

“Mr. Watson?”

“Yes.”

“That was a ‘yes’?” McKahan sought to clarify.

“Correct. Yes,” Watson clarified.

“Thank you. So it’s six to one, everyone voting in favor except for Mr. Downing,” she said. Throughout all four votes related to the FLU map amendment, Downing was the sole ‘no’ vote.