in News

Looks like the spot on the agenda isn't even till 1950 do if you want to attend your prolly fine.

Update: Nelson and I attended a good working meeting earlier and have established a relationship with the developers.

I will attend the city meeting tonight. The purpose of tonight's meeting is for the developer to present their proposal to the Conservancy Lands Committee of the city council.

It is important for riders and builders to know this does not stop progress at the bike park, nor does it stop the newly expanded cross country riding.

This land encompassing this project was denied annexation into the city of Middleton this week. Its not dead, but close.

This land encompassing this project was denied annexation into the city of Middleton this week. Its not dead, but close.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/middleton-considers-conservation-subdivision/article_6a9d24f0-8b65-5e72-b958-6db12429f6e1.html

I wasn't able to get back to the current fields they're thinking of turning into the garden/farm but I highly, highly doubt it's organic right now based on what I've seen from the ground and aerial images. If it's conventionally cropped right now, it'll take a LOT of time, work, and money for that to become an organic farm.

What are they going to do with it for the first 10 years if they can't sell it as organic? 

Heck of a "conservation plan" by destroying prairie and forest and building houses and roads. Conservation is normally the opposite 

I wasn't able to get back to the current fields they're thinking of turning into the garden/farm but I highly, highly doubt it's organic right now based on what I've seen from the ground and aerial images. If it's conventionally cropped right now, it'll take a LOT of time, work, and money for that to become an organic farm.

What are they going to do with it for the first 10 years if they can't sell it as organic? 

Heck of a "conservation plan" by destroying prairie and forest and building houses and roads. Conservation is normally the opposite 

My unspun interpretation.

I know it's the top of the Black Earth Creek watershed, and I am pretty sure farmers have allowance or leeway for dealing (altering or construction on or near) with wetlands others don't. Add that "conservation" and "green" are great words when somebody's put lipstick on a pig and your job is to sell it.

Cities all over have to do the development more than ever if not doing drastic cuts because of the state law limiting property taxes. Thus, I'm sure this will happen.

Let's keep the good dialog started with the land owner, other city staff, and other outdoor interest groups. The land owners and officials have said there would be compensation if the bike park skills and jump are is changed. Let's keep at that. The land owners are interested in trail development, and don't forget the part of the article stating how much won't be houses.

Ever notice how new housing developments are usually named after the ecosystems they destroy....Majestic Oaks, Rolling Meadows, etc., etc.

Is there a map that shows this in relation to PV?

Is there a map that shows this in relation to PV?

It's in the OP http://www.madcitydirt.com/index.php?topic=1783.0

the green area at bottom right is the bike park. the blue lines are existing XC trails. (at least that is what I thought).

Ever notice how new housing developments are usually named after the ecosystems they destroy....Majestic Oaks, Rolling Meadows, etc., etc.

I've always chuckled at this myself.

Is there a map that shows this in relation to PV?

It's in the OP http://www.madcitydirt.com/index.php?topic=1783.0

the green area at bottom right is the bike park. the blue lines are existing XC trails. (at least that is what I thought).

I guess my confusion is because this does not look at all like the proposal that was in the paper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

So what happened between 9/5 when it was denied annexation and 9/13 when annexation was approved?  Other than the exchange of a suitcase full of cash?

Paul Soglin calls Erdman plan for Middleton development a 'horrendous' land use

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/mike_ivey/paul-soglin-calls-erdman-plan-for-middleton-development-a-horrendous/article_d0f39f2c-2169-11e3-b72d-0019bb2963f4.html

A 10/22 meeting with the developers, city staff, and city committees was good.

First, the city said if the development hurts the bike park it will be relocated or accomodated like happens with other development. Those comments included likely built better.

The progression over time now has parks and conservancy lands in the proposals. More land for trail than we have now and some great terrain. There should be no ill will and hopefully thanks from the rider community toward the developer. The current state of panning does not have houses on golf course for certain and has more trail opportunities.

I am meeting a planner and ecologist 8:30 AM tomorrow to assess the boundaries and routes drawn at the 10/22 meeting. It would be nice to have a CORP trail builder present.

The map here is planning, NOT an approved or final plan. The forested land north of the utility easement is the subject here (new terrain).



[attachment deleted by admin]