by Matt Marquardt –
MASON CITY – Forest Park residents and Mercy supporters addressed the Mason City Council at the September 4th, 2012 meeting as the Council considers whether to grant a Mercy request for a change of zone north of the main campus.
A change of zone will need to be approved by the City Council in order for Mercy’s energy center and loading dock expansion project to move forward. A 5 vote threshold (at least 5-1 final vote) would need to be reached for the change of zone to pass the Council. See preliminary plans here.
Mercy previously held a community question and answer session on June 28th at the hospital main campus in which the project was revealed in more detail.
Since then, some Forest Park residents have mobilized against the project.
At the Sept. 4th Council meeting, Forest Park residents commented on the loss of property value that the proposed project could have on their homes. Some stated, echoed by Council member John Lee, that Mercy had for years reassured residents that they would “never go north.”
Councilman Scott Tornquist said that Mercy’s biggest mistake was making that promise, as the world is now a “different place.”
Mercy, however, owns all the property involved in the expansion project area minus the city-owned road at 1st Street SW, which Mercy is asking the City to vacate.
Several Council members, including Jean Marinos and Tornquist indicated that the Council has no right to stop Mercy from doing as they wish with their own property.
Mercy’s plans for the project seem to be fluid and have taken on at least minor modifications in recent weeks. In the latest plan revealed late in August, a historic home in Forest Park, located at 63 Linden Drive, would remain instead of being bulldozed or moved as originally planned.
Forest Park residents continue to circulate a petition in the hopes of swaying the Council to strike down the change of zone request from Mercy.
The next public hearing on this matter will be at the September 18th City Council meeting.
Watch video:
httpv://youtu.be/pTYCjx06XBM
Give it up people. It is a done deal and all the talking in the world won’t change it. They will get what they want make no mistake about it. Oh, they may change a few things to make people feel better about it but they will still get it. At this point you should just try to negotiate the best deal you can get. The people of this city have no say in what goes on here. It belongs to the elite so get used to it. You voted them in or didn’t vote at all. You reap what you sow.
I agree with you 100 percent sad but so true what you say!!!!!
They should NOT be able to change the zoning IF it adversely affects the area homeowner’s quality of life or property values. In that case, Mercy should have to buy them out and then the zoning could be fairly changed.
How much did Torny take in contrib’s from Mercy people?
I agree. It’s a done deal, just like the sculptures and the Harley alley are or were done deals. It’s useless to fight city hall and the powers that be. The individual people in this city have no say. It’s just like with our federal congress. It’s all politics and it doesn’t matter whom you elect because everything is about self-interest. All you can do is hope for a leader who puts his or her foot down.
I think the point Marinos and Tornquist were trying to make was that there was no law in the City that could prevent Mercy from cutting down every tree on these properties or tearing the houses down, regardless if they do this project or not.
From what I understand after reading this, Mercy owns the property, other then the street. If that is the case, the people that live on or near that property should have known that something like this could happen. As an example, the city can condem property and force people to move, can’t Mercy do the same with property it owns. As Turnaround said, the world is a different place, for sure.
Mercy cannot condemn property.
Maybe I didn’t understand you correctly….Why would Mercy condem property it owns?
Sorry, I didn’t mean that Mercy could condem property, because they can’t. What I ment was, since they own the property, they could make the people move. Years ago I was told that most of the people that live in the houses on the Mercy property are interns. Now I don’t know if thats true, it’s just what I was told.
“…including Jean Marinos and Tornquist indicated that the Council has no right to stop Mercy from doing as they wish with their own property.”
Indicated? It would be pretty hard to indicate something like that, either they said it, or they did not. The only other option of course is ventriloquism.
I will agree with them to a point, the zoning would have to be changed. In doing so however, there is a huge question about the quality of life for other property owners.
Then, there is the vacating of a public street. Thus, while Mercy can do as it pleases with it’s own property, they cannot do as they please with public property, or tread upon the rights of other property owners.
There are other alternatives for Mercy to attain the same results. And they would fare better with local residents.
I agree with you. They DO NOT own the street but the council and zoning being who they are will GIVE the street to Mercy and that is how it is going to go down. People in Mason City do not have a say on what is going on in this town. They can voice their opinion but the council and zoning will do what they want when they want they have!! This already a done deal. Just like the art all over town think about it. In LESS than a month on voting the statues are already in place come on they had to be ordered long before the council meeting. I may not have a say how this city is being run but I am not stupid and believe the council is NOT up front and honest with the citizens of Mason City
I meant to say Albert Lea not Ausin, Minnesota. I was nervous!