Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Strategy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Longstanding debate over city-owned 'cable house' returns as EDA asks council to reconsider listing
Summary
Following a split EDA vote, the Lindstrom council debated whether to list the city-owned 'cable house' as commercial (the prior joint-session direction) or residential (the EDA's recent request); council asked staff for additional financial, utility and broker-market information and directed further discussion in October.
The Lindstrom City Council spent an extended portion of its Sept. 17 meeting discussing the future of a city‑owned parcel often referred to as the "cable house." The Economic Development Authority (EDA) brought a request for council reconsideration after the EDA’s open-session vote favored residential listing, while previous joint sessions had recommended listing commercially to preserve redevelopment options.
Multiple speakers including an EDA member and family members of a neighboring owner testified about the site’s history, past offers and competing goals. Council members voiced a mix of strategic concerns: several favored keeping the parcel commercial to retain redevelopment control and avoid creating a roadblock for future mixed-use plans; others said the city is carrying debt on the property and short-term rental or residential sale could reduce losses. One councilor urged a transparent market test: "Get it listed commercial and see what the market brings back," the chair said.
Council asked staff to return in October with a set of facts and options: utility-stub and easement mapping, the intentions and timelines of adjacent property owners, broker feedback on packaging the parcel for commercial redevelopment (ghost plat/pro forma), and estimates of relocation or maintenance costs if the city pursues short-term rental while listing for sale. The council also discussed potential conflict-of-interest concerns raised after an offer involving a council member’s family member was referenced at the EDA meeting; the record shows no formal disciplinary action but members asked for transparency and recusal where appropriate.
