Cheryl Hentz argues (registration required) that the Oshkosh Common Council should rescind its earlier, not adequately discussed decision to place a donated pier in Miller's Bay. Since the Otter Street Fishing Club refuses to budge on the choice of location (even though Michael Burayidi's report demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that that the New York Ave. location would be a disaster), rescinding the decision is now the only way to get the pier built in a more suitable area.
More information about this issue can be found in the Miller's Bay Archive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
106 comments:
I agree. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
It is a no-brainer but the no-brains city council will sit back on their asses and do nothing.
Amazing how Cheryl can paint Esslinger out to be a bad guy and he didn't even vote on the issue. How about the other 6 that actually voted? Oh yeah, that includes her golden child Sheuermann. Didn't she talk on this issue at the meeting. Maybe I will watch a replay to see.
There isn't a doubt, Cheryl has a vendetta against Esslinger.
Vendetta schmetta. You can't see anything but good in your golden child Esslinger. Cheryl only reported on what he said. If that makes him look like a bad guy maybe he should say or do things differently. Yes, do watch the replay. Scheuermann did talk on the issue. She asked the city attorney questions.
Anonymous 10:15 p.m.,
You are correct that Mr. Esslinger did not vote on the pier issue. I assume you read my editorial piece, but you either suffer from short-term memory loss or you deliberately chose to ignore the fact that I very clearly stated that he didn’t vote on it. You also conveniently “forgot” to mention that I said I believe the council as a whole did wrong when voting to approve this pier. That includes Mrs. Scheuermann.
Since Mr. Esslinger was not at the council meeting when the issue was voted on last summer, perhaps he should have said nothing about the issue the other night. But because he did, his comments are fair game for criticism. And the comparisons I made are also fair comparisons. They show contradictory postions on his part. But as already stated by an earlier poster, I didn’t put the words in his mouth; I merely restated what he said. If he looks like the bad guy as a result, perhaps the “guilty party” for how they’re perceived is none other than Mr. Esslinger himself. At the end of the day, Esslinger is responsible for ownership of his own remarks.
But, did Esslinger actually do anything wrong? He has no obligation to revisit this issue. He asked if the council did anything illegal and when Williams said no, that is the end of it. You are just wound up because he could bring it back and won't. Your opinion on this has once again clouded your judgement. If you want to beat up on someone, spend more time on the six that didn't lay it over and ram rodded it through in less than 24 hours. Those are the ones that need a boot in the rear, not Esslinger.
By the way, did you ever stop to think that even if Esslinger brought it back, it would still fail? No, of course not.
Did I say Esslinger did anything wrong? No! I said he has once again shown contradictory behavior. I am certainly not the only one who feels that way.
I'm not "wound up" because he could bring it back and won't, as you say. Actually I'm not even sure that you're right in saying Esslinger could bring it back. Typically someone who voted in the majority is able to bring it back. Esslinger didn't vote on it at all so I don't know if he would have that ability or not.
Secondly, if it was brought back it's doubtful it would fail. Again, I could be wrong here but there would probably be a council majority required to bring it back, and if four voted to bring it back, they'd likely vote to rescind it. Otherwise what would be the point in bringing it back?
I think my original piece on my own web site and my earlier comment here sufficiently address your other comments.
Not all that long ago Paul Esslinger seemed to be on our side as we fought against this pier. He said the committee and council acted hastily and he could see revisiting the issue. Now he will not give it a second thought and it looks like he's on the OSFC's side. While this chameleon of a council man is busy playing politics we'll continue fighting to preserve the last remaining vista out onto Lake Winnebago that we neighbors and this city have. And we will not soon forget Mr. Esslinger's position.
Neither will the Ottter Street Fishing Club, forget Ms. Hentz' position and negitivity toward a group offering to the community!
This park belongs to all the citizens of Oshkosh, not just those that live near it, want to have their NIMBY attitude, and act as though they OWN this property!
The public was far more upset with the Wolf and Elk exhibits, and yet Hentz sat on her rump about that and that is costing taxpayers a pretty penny!
Parks are for the public, this is not the neighbors private playground nor property. We're talking about a FISHING PIER of GOD SAKE.
Ms. Hentz for the record, Mr. Esslinger COULD NOT bring back this issue, but MRS. SCHERUREMANN certainly could have, she was spoken to, she has no desire to do so.
Mr. Palermi, why do you continue to put Ms. Hentz' advertisments on your blog site when her site requires you to sign in? If she doesn't want input that's her problem, your just wasting space on your valuable blog! Go to her site, no one is going there or commenting anymore, it has become nothing more than a forum for her personal rantings against only one person Esslinger. It is pitiful.
Per Mr Kraft, anyone can bring the pier issue back.
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY
What's wrong with NIMBY? If you don't take care of your neighborhood, no one will. Without NIMBY, the environment would be in even worse shape.
Anonymous at 8:36 a.m.,
Point #1: I have not been negative toward the Otter Street Fishing Club. I have taken plenty of opportunities to say that they have done wonderful things for the community. The neighbors have not been negative toward the club either. If there is a negative and disrespectful attitude it is that of club spokesperson and parks board member Terry Wohler toward anyone not in support of this fishing pier. One need look no further than any comment he's ever made about the opposition and the manner in which he's said it to see that.
Point #2: Certainly the park belongs to all. And there are people who don't live near the park who believe this was handled improperly and that the pier belongs somewhere else. Two points about the neighbors though. They are citizens and, therefore, the park belongs to them along with other city residents. And while they do not personally own the park, they DO own VERY EXPENSIVE property they purchased for very specific reasons. This pier has the potential to devalue their property; and that alone gives them the right to argue against it. But if you want to view it as strictly a NIMBY issue, we could liken it to those who did not want a Walmart Supercenter in their neighborhood a few years back, including then councilwoman Melanie Bloechl. All may have thought they had very good reasons why the store should not go there, but others in the city labeled those protestors as being nothing more than disgruntled citizens with a NIMBY attitude. I don't believe that was solely the case then, nor do I believe that is solely the case now. But as someone said earlier, people SHOULD care about what goes on in their neighborhoods, and that includes in their neighborhood parks.
Point #3: I have spoken out plenty about the bear and elk exhibits in Menominee Park. Sorry you "missed" those moments. Incidentally, what have YOU done to fight against those exhibits?
Poiint #4: Thank you for "confirming" what I said about Paul Esslinger possibly not being able to bring back the issue. We still don't have the official answer though. But you're right in that most of the others certainly could - AND SHOULD! Again, thank you for re-stating what I already said.
Point #5: As far as my site goes, I was well aware that requiring people to register in order to comment would cause some to stop. But it has not bothered plenty of others. Registration has increased, in fact. Nor has it even apparently stopped even you from going there. And those who do visit can see there are other things there besides just MY opinion. Take a look around at other sites and you'll see that others have also begun changing their policies for commenting; or they moderate comments, whether you like it or not. I suspect the reason some don't like it is because they can't carry on like they have without being accountable for their remarks. Those who have no trouble being accountable also have no problem registering. And those sites that haven't changed policies often only generate a lot of comments when they're bastardizing someone rather than commenting on issues. But you know what? Even if NO ONE comments on another person's site, so what? Information is still being disseminated and the forum exists for people to share their opinions and ideas in meaningful public discourse, if they choose to. That's the point of sites like these, much like Letters to the Editor. If you don't like the fact that some sites like mine require registration to comment on many stories, or that Tony references things on my site, stop reading what we write. It's really just that simple.
Ms Hentz I haven't been reading what you write for sometime, with the except of course, of those times (which are far too many and often, that you spread your word on others sites.) Your comments about Terry Wohler are outrageous and you should be ashamed of yourself, but again, you don't have that much class. Terry has been involved in this community in many positive ways. Both offering services, time and money.
While you spend your time ripping everyone to shreds with your little show, and bitchy commentary there are others that work countless hours to provide real, and needed services!
Before you of all people cast stones at others for how or what they say, you need look no further than a large, full length mirror to see that you, yourself have a great deal to learn about communication.
If your idea of information being given to the community, is in this form you use, I think we maybe better off without your personal attacks on good people name and actions. Mr. Wohler isn't one of your usual political targets. You better learn that quickly!
Anonymous at 9:05 a.m.,
Feel free to take pokes at one's personal appearance if you wish. It shows nothing more than the shallowness you possess. Feel free, too, to take issue with others' commentary and opinions. This is, after all, America. But keep in mind, I have never said Mr. Wohler didn't give things to the community. The generosity of he and his group does not entitle him to be as rude and demeaning to those opposed to the pier as he has been. As a matter of fact, some believe he should have been gaveled during his "presentation" at the last city council meeting. So while you may think I stand alone in my opinions, perhaps YOU should think twice.
Finally, if you don't like the show or what I write, you have the God-given ability to ignore or reject them. Why not do us a favor and exercise that right?
I agree that Mr. Wohler should have been gaveled. His sole purpose was to agitate, and insult citizens who had opinions that differed from his. I believe he should be removed from the Parks Board. There is no place for people like him on our boards. He is a rude, crude, pompous ass.
Yes, and this city could use a few more straight shooters. He will tell you how it is and that is it.
Was anything that he said wrong? His organization is donating a pier that has long been approved. I would be pissed too if I had to listen to this for a year. It is not his fault that this is a problem. It is the city council. They rushed a vote that should have been postponed to a later meeting. That is the real issue, not Terry Wohler.
Seems kind of stupid to place a pier in a location that will reduce the property values of the homes. With the budget situation, Oshkosh cannot afford to reduce property values by a penny. What the hell is the city thinking?
You assume that it will lower property values. You don't know that. It could create additional selling points to families with children so that they can be close to a park with a place to fish. Having a pier in a public park will not lower property values. Get real.
Thanks Anon 9:05 for showing us what real "class" is. Now we'll know it the next time we see it.
A person can be a straight shooter without being a jerk. That is a lesson Mr. Wohler hasn't learned.
Regrdless of your opinion of Cheryl Hentz, Terry Wohler has shown time and again his disdain for people not in agreement with him. He also is a member of the Parks Board that started this whole mess. Is there a conflict of interest in voting in a project your own club is proposing? I don't know the legalities, but it sounds pretty fishy!
Why is OSFC so set on this site? Why won't they discuss an alternative site? I am opposed to this more because of the lack of planning than anything else. This is another example of our wide- eyed council jumping into a project/gift with no research or planning.
Jack Straw
Wohler was so sure of himself in saying if it goes to referendum it will pass. I would no be so sure if I was him. Anyone with any logic can see the best place for the pier is across from Webster near all the facilities.
Giving to the community is a matter of interpretation. Mr. Wohler's "giving" attitude is one of arrogance and pig-headness. Mr. Straw is right about Wohler's conflict of interest being fishy. That's a question slick Paul Esslinger should ask an attorney as he sits on his throne.
The level of class displayed by the poster at 9:05 AM is staggering!
The person who posted at 9:05 doesn't read too well because as I read Ms. Hentz's comments she said Terry Wohler was negative and rude toward people who had a different opinion than him about the fishing pier. I've seen him at meetings and have to agree about his rudeness. Some people need to settle down and just read what's written instead of letting their own negative attitudes about others overcome them to the point of not really knowing what's being said.
As for other irrelevant comments that one person and others have made on different topics, is it any wonder posting policies are changing faster than we can say 'blog commenter'?
It is not Mr. Wohler's fault that this is a problem, anon 12:16? You're kidding right?? Wohler serves on the very board that rushed this through without theoublic being adequately noticed and one day before it went to the city council. He is as responsible as the city council if not more so.
So Cheryl Hentz shares concerns with the neighbors that this pier is not good for the neighborhood; how nice.
Hey Cheryl, what about the neighbors of Titan Stadium? You remember, the neighbors that had concerns about lighting that UWO needed a variance at the Board of Zoning Appeals Board, you know, the board you CHAIR!! You voted YES for that variance. You hypocrite; you carry the water for some neighbors, but not for others. And you have the nerve to call others hypocrites?!
Get down off of your soap-box Cheryl and start being consistent with issues!
I heard rumor that you’re running again for City Council; if that’s true you had best start being concerned for ALL neighborhoods, not just the ones that your pals live in.
Obviously the neighbors at Titan Stadium don’t carry much importance for Cheryl Hentz. They now have to deal with excessive lighting, excessive noise, garbage, and all of the other inconveniences that come along with the stadium.
THANKS CHERYL HENTZ!!
Anonymous at 11:03 a.m.,
You really ought to spend more time being better informed about things before writing your such obviously hate-filled ramblings that make you sound foolish.
First and foremost, as anyone knows, you can't please everyone 100 percent of the time. But neighbors' concerns with respect to lighting at Titan Stadium were taken into account and if you review minutes from the meeting you'll see that much. http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/Community_Development/Minutes/2006/BOA_Minutes_03-22-06.pdf
Not only was the university amenable to working with the neighbors to address their concerns brought up at a public meeting (most of which under law the Board of Appeals could NOT require as conditions to the variance request, though a couple of us tried and were told we could not do that), but we did approve the request with a condition with respect to lighting. Noise complaints are addressed within existing city ordinances as would be your concerns about littering (ie., garbage). If you feel enforcement of those ordinances is not sufficient enough, might I suggest you contact the police, city hall or your local council persons. I'm sure you have the numbers of one or two committed to memory.
Moreover, if there were so many concerns from neighbors after the public meeting was held, the BOA never heard them. There were no written communications presented to us for or against the request; no board member received any phone calls about it; and only one couple was in attendance at the meeting. And contrary to what you would have people believe, they appreciated the compromises the university had agreed to. If this issue bothered you so much, why did you not write, call or attend the meeting?
Incidentally, the variance request was approved by a vote of 5-0 when in fact, only three votes would have been necessary to approve it. So even if I had voted "no" as you apparently think I should have, it still would have passed. But something tells me had I voted the other way you'd still be complaining about my decision.
You've blown a lot of hot air with your accusations and innuendo, but you fail to offer anything to prove I carry the water for certain neighborhoods (where my pals live) and not others. And you know why? Because none exists, period.
You'd be so much better off and sound a lot less ignorant if you'd be sure of your facts and stick to them rather than listening to or creating gossip and rumors. I'm flattered you are following my moves so closely, though.
YOU'RE MOST WELCOME ANONYMOUS!
Is anonymous so naive to believe that changing lighting at the stadium is going to increase noise, traffic, and garbage? Get real!! The board of zoning appeals didn't approve a new stadium for Chrissake. Only different lights. These people live by a stadium that has been there for years. Different lights in the stadium are hardly a problem causer.
Hey anon @ 11:03am, you hit the nail on the head! Of course you knew Cheryl would come back with a long rambling “explanation” of why she did what she did.
Of course her ramblings are nothing but a poor attempt to cover up the fact that she doesn’t care about an issue unless someone she knows is involved with it. I would be willing to bet that one or more of the pier neighbors know Cheryl and have her ear anytime they want. I would also be willing to bet the people at Titan Stadium aren’t “in” with Cheryl therefore won’t get any of Cheryl’s “good-will.”
I too would like to see Cheryl run again for City Council, but I don’t think she would be that dumb. I believe she’s lost every election she’s run in, and I think she’s come in last place every time as well.
Seeing Cheryl run next time would be fun, but don’t bet the farm on it. Even with her ego, logic would have to win out.
I have never met Cheryl, don't know her, but she sounds a heck of a lot more believable than any of these anonymous wingnuts. How about we stick to the issues and stop the name calling and belittling? At the very least she has the guts to be involved and sign her name. Cheryl, rise above and blow these numb skulls off! They are not worth your time!
Jack Straw
Mr. Straw. You don't know Cheryl Hentz but you defend her.
Are you a few fries short of a happy meal?
If anyone thinks that Cheryl Hentz signs her name to everything she writes, then I would like to sell you the Main Street bridge!
Maybe Mr. Straw is in the market for a nice bridge.
I have proof that she doesn't
Anonymous wingnuts is right. They're nothing but a bunch of crybabies who talk a lot but say nothing. They cn't defend their comments so they resort to acting like schoolyard bullies. The greeneyed monster sure makes people ugly. If Cheryl Hentz is so insignificant why do they care so much what she's doing? Jack Straw is right on the mark with his comments.
Who cares if you have proof? Since when is not signing one's name a criminal act that proof is needed? Most people on here don't sign their names. Get a life.
I don't know whether Cheryl Hentz signs her name to everything she posts or not and I really don't care. I'd be willing to bet that there are more than a few people with well known names who don't sign their names all the time. So what? You folks are wrapped up in things that have no meaning. It's about issues not personalities. What about that don't you get?
It isn't a matter of signing or not signing one's name. It certainly is interesting to compare what one says with name signed versus what one says when anonymous. I think that may be the point with some anonymouses is that Ms. Hentz accuses some of being negative, stupid, shallow, hate-filled, etc. while doing the exact same under the guise of "anonymous."
According to Ms. Hentz's comments while signed in, she seems informed, involved, and diplomatic though with a tendency to fall prey to defensiveness. If she does comment as anonymous, is she diplomatic or is she that which she condemns?
As far as importance of these questions, if she is to run for any office, it lends somewhat to credibility. Proof would need to be presented to sway my vote.
That same argument can be made about anyone. It's pretty obvious other public figures post anonymously and are less than kind when doing so. So are you suggesting we vote them out of office or see they never get elected in? With the ugliness displayed by some on these blogs it's a wonder anyone signs their name.
The person in question is Cheryl Hentz. Please don't point to someone else's behavior to cover for Cheryl.
Cheryl posts anonymously. Plain and simple.
What sorry lives you people lead. You have nothing better to do than talk about this? Do you have any idea how childish you look (as you post anonymously too by the by). May we get back to the issue of the pier in the park bay? That's what this thread is supposed to be about?
Hmmmmm. When Cheryl bashes someone it's pertinent to the issue. When someone challenges Cheryl it's not pertinent to the issue.
Crystal clear to me now.
Don't look at anyone else's actions but Cheryl's eh, Anonymous 4:40? Anyone can comment anonymously but her. Is that what you're saying? You just lost any ground you might have been making.
As for Cheryl, she has said exactly what she thinks of people even if she thought they were stupid, and she signed her name to it when she did it. I think if someone was going to post anonymously that would be the time to do it.
About the pier in Miller's Bay, I think there are better locations. I don't understand why the fishing club is so insistent about that location. If the fishing there was so great wouldn't people have already been there in boats or casting from shore? I've only been here a few years but I haven't ever seen anyone doing that.
You won't see boats in Miller's Bay as the water is too shallow and weedy. I attempted to get there with my little aluminum. My depth finder read just over 2 feet with nothing but weeds. If there are fish, you'll get more salad than meat.
I understand the pier is going to go out 100 feet. Is it the same depth even out that far? If so it's a pretty dumb place for a pier and we should hope the OSFC members are better fishermen than they are smart thinkers.
Word is people named Kent, Michelle, Paul, and Melanie post anonymously too. So what?
I just finished reading the many comments here and the minutes Ms. Hentz linked to. I would encourage anyone who is tempted to believe anything these anonymous writers say to read them too. It will put things in perspective as to who's credible and who isn't.
The whole board of zoning appeals including Ms. Hentz should be thanked for the diligence they give in considering variance requests.
Doug Schmick
Is Melanie post any relation to Emily Post?
Hmm...The Queen of Crass versus the Queen of Class...I wonder...?
Queen.........
How did Freddie Mercury get caught up in this?!
Mercury? Hey, let's hope the slew of fish caught in Miller's Bay don't have any mercury in them. to find out you'd actually have to catch fish there.
What do Freddie Mercury and the Eye on Oshkosh website have in common?
They both have passed away.
Then why not give talking about them a rest?
Commenting on many web sites has slowed in general since people are being held more accountable for their remarks. Since when is that something for a site operator to be ashamed of or embarrassed by?
Cheryl Hentz’s post at 11:03am discussing her Board of Appeals vote regarding Titan Stadium:
“So even if I had voted "no" as you apparently think I should have, it still would have passed.”
This is great logic. I wonder if her next statement will be…….. If the other members of the board jump off the bridge, I will too.
That’s using the old noodle Cheryl.
Word is people like Stew, Tony, Jim, Dan, Alex, Burk, Bryan, Shirley, Bill, Meredith, Dennis, Richard and Jackson post anonymously too. So what?
How tragic that anonymous 12:32's own noodle is so limp they can't understand such basics in life.
It's so silly to debate people instead of issues. As we've seen for every jab thrown in one direction another can be thrown right back. It solves nothing and you all look childish.
Anonymous at 12:32 a.m.,
My comment would be easier to understand if you read the post to which I responded and then didn't pull just a small piece of my response and present it to people out of context. I'm sure you're smart enough to know the difference between what I actually said and what you presented.
I wouldn't count on it Cheryl. These imbiciles lack gray matter.
Cheryl,
Why should anyone read anything you write word-for-word and then make a conscious effort to maintain a context? You are notorious for pulling out single sentences or phrases and using any context that serves your purposes. What's good for the goose...
Want respect and courtesy? Give some. You don't have to wait for it to come to you before setting an example. After all, you are a public figure and thus held to a higher standard. Take some initiative to be respectful and courteous, Cheryl...if you can.
K Monte
(See, I sign my name, too.)
Leave it to Kent Monte to preach about giving respect and setting examples.
Sure he'll sign his name (when it's to his advantage to sign it). Otherwise don't bet the farm on it.
Is the campaign beginning a little early?
Is Monte going for Cheryl's throat now to bleed her out before the next council race?
Is this a tactic or just a mean streak?
Try both. He's not smart enough to realize everything he says and does is going to come back to bite him in the ass during his own campaign. Even his mentors won't be able to save him then.
First he said how the city council needed to roll up its sleeves and find places to cut the budget...
Then he rode on the narrow coattails of Mr. Esslinger and said it's the city manager who needed to find the cuts...
Then 2 weeks ago he said he was going to find them so we could avoid layoffs...
Gotta love those see-saw politics.
Actually, Lisa, he is right. It is the City Manager's job to handle the budget, preferably without threats to cut into vital services. How about a freeze on his salary until we can actually afford his hot air and threats? That might save some money. Monte also said he would try to find the money. Reality is, it doesn't matter if he finds a hidden stash somewhere between now and next budget cycle. He has no say, as he is not in office. Even then, he would be only one of seven. I suspect if Monte did find the money, the City Manager would find a way to spend it foolishly. Whether someone likes or dislikes Monte, is irrelevant. The city council and city manager have screwed a lot of people in favor of the things that pad their pockets and egos.
Hey, Cheryl, you are the great investigative journalist with "your eye on Oshkosh." I hear you may be making a run for office. Where are your great solutions? Where are your suggestions? Where is your extensive coverage of budgetary issues? Where is your "eye," really? My guess is closed.
Anonymous 4:24 p.m.,
As someone who seems to demand so much from investigative journalists, one would think you would not listen to rumor and innuendo. But then again, it's hard to dismiss those things when you're the one perpetuating them, isn't it?
By the way, who besides people like you ever said I was an "INVESTIGATIVE" journalist? If you want to come after me, at least do yourself the favor of knowing what I actually do for a living. Of course that would involve opening both your eyes and your ears, wouldn't it?
you are the one that isn't denying your candidacy. are you running or not? simple question. what about a simple answer? you like to talk around everything and answer nothing. so, if you arent a journalist, what are you? another simple question that you wont answer.
Why are you so concerned about what I do or will be doing in the future? I've given plenty of answers to things and yet those who like to attack anonymously can't defend their own positions by answering questions.
Am I running? Am I not running? Hmm, let's just say I have until December to decide what I'm doing. Until then, knock yourselves out guessing and gossiping.I'm enjoying watching you carry on about it.
Until someone completes a candidacy form with the city clerk or the elections board they're not officially a candidate anyway. So why don't you all worry about things that matter instead of if some body is seeking a city coucil seat?
Kent Monte has done more as a council "sideliner" than most of the "sitting" council members.
And as for Cheryl Hentz, she hasn't done anything for this city to speak of and is negative against just about everything.
I certainly wouldn't vote for a chronic complainer like Cheryl Hentz, but I would vote for Kent Monte who is actually trying to find solutions to problems.
Should we be surprised that Anon. 2:07 left out a few other bright moments in local elections history.
Like how Paul Esslinger lost twice or thrice before getting elected to city council and how he couldn't beat Bill Castle for mayor. Or how he continually gets passed over by his peers for deputy mayor and mayor. Or how about how Melanie Bloechl lost everything she's ever run for except city council.
It's a little hard to come in any place but last when you're in a 2 person race for county board. But I think Cheryl won the primaries she was in. Maybe the Montes could tell us how coming in last place feels. They've both lost and come in last place in every election they've run in too.
You'd be in the minority voting for Monte.
How has his doing all these wonderful acts helped us? He's powerless and something tells me he's going to stay that way?
Cheryl Hentz is negative but Kent Monte isn't? You need reading glasses.
Why is Kent Monte trying to find solutions to problems? BECAUSE HE'S COMPLAINING AND UNHAPPY ABOUT EVERYTHING!!! DUH!!!
Mr. Monte said once upon a time he couldn’t afford a budget book because the city charged $10 for it. But now he plans to show where cuts can be made without laying people off.
Does that mean he finally got a budget book? Maybe he found some spare change under the seats of that fancy new SUV he’s driving around town.
Cheryl Hentz couldn't get elected dog catcher in Oshkosh.
Please wake up and smell the coffee, or better yet get back to taking some of the dope you're on!
I didn't know we elect dog catchers here.
Only an immature ass would say someone is on drugs when feeling backed into a corner and unable to answer simple challenges put to them. But the name-calling and belittling comments say more about you than they do anyone else. It's a pity you're not smart enough to see that.
Notice how Kent Monte never answered Cheryl Hentz's question. Anonymous has been busy though. Kinda makes you sit back and say hmmm.....
Jay,
Yes, I did. Take a look on my blog and you will see that I did.
As for my SUV, (the one I drive is 7 years old, hardly new) sounds more like jelousy than anything. I should not have to spend money on a budget book when I will get nothing but insults and tripe for my efforts. Nobody knows what my budget is. I am supporting a household of 6 without help.
I am curious, Where does Cheryl Hentz think that the money for a class action lawsuit against the city council will come from? Talk about a budget breaker. She was one of the loudest against Dan Beckers decision to recount and bashing him for wasting money, now look at her suggest a lawsuit. That is the single most ludicrous thing that I have heard in a long time.
K. Monte
Kent, did you also think it was ludicrous for city council members Paul Esslinger and Bill Castle to suggest that people could sue the city over the angel statue if they so chose because the suit would be covered by insurance? I bet you did as I didn't hear you say anything to the contrary and I believe you not only supported its proposed location but donated to it as well.
Besides, I merely offered a class action suit as one possible suggestion. Your answer would be what? Allow the city to just do whatever they want and never fight back against that which is so blatently irresponsible and probably illegal?
Here you are wanting to be elected to the Common Council but instead of expressing outrage over the situation as a whole, you've shown where your real priorities lie, and that is to pick apart one thing I said in a nearly 30 minute interview. Thanks for showing us the real Kent Monte.
As far as your budget information, you conceded that your suggestions probably were not realistic. Given that the city's budget problems are very real, I would think you'd want to deal in realism rather than idealism. Also, you claim to have found just under $700,000 for this year. That's all fine and well but as I think the city manager said when the fee was approved, to not have it in the final quarter of this year, because the year is already nearly half gone, you'd now have to find nearly twice the original amount. So even if your figures are accurate and would be realistic, you're still a tad bit short: like a half million dollars or so.
Oh I almost forgot, I was not against Dan Becker's decision to ask for a recount. I thought they way he handled it was poor and made the process drag on loger than necessary. But I was ALWAYS in support of a recount.
Cheryl Hentz, You are a liar! You can dance around all you want but on your site you took every opportunity to take indirect shots at Dan and pay lip service to others who outright bashed him. Complacency is just as much a determiner of guilt as saying the words yourself. If I am wrong, show me something where you defended Dan against those attacks.
I read Monte's budget information. They are very real. Your little game of semantics is nausiating. I wish you would follow the same rules you hold others too. The only thing unrealistic about Monte's numbers (straight from city hall) is that no one on the city council nor the city manager will do anything. You want to be critical? Where are your suggestions other than encouraging private citizens to sue the people they voted for. How much will that cost? While you have no problem suing everyone and anyone, not all of us have that kind of money to maintain lawyers on stand-by. Clearly you have no clue how representative government works. That could be why you cannot get elected to represent.
BTW While Cheryl made it through the primaries, so did both Montes. As a matter of fact Michelle did not come in last in the primary, Traska did followed by Didlo and Daggett.
Good morning Cheryl,
So you want my suggestions towards Five Rivers. Here they are.
Fire Jackson Kinney. He has pulled the wool over our eyes for far too long and should not be allowed to continue forward with this project. It was mentioned by you months ago on your site that the city staff had contacted banks for Doig. That should have been indication enough that there was something going on. Suing the city council is not an option. You should not even consider such an idea. Insurance or not, this city does not have a budget to support such an endeavor. Like I have said from the beginning, the only way to envoke change is at the polls. This is a representative government and the voters need to choose who they want making these decisions. The term sheet appears to have taken the council out of the final decision towards Five Rivers. You can blame who ever you want but it comes down to whoever wrote the term sheet and the council members that didn't read it before voting on it.
You are so against the garbage fee, and my suggestions that could have avoided it. What are your suggestions? Where would you have made the cuts? Would you have cut the fire fighters that wouldn't endorse you in your last election? Would you shut down a fire house? Take half dozen police off the streets? If my ideas are so bad, what are some good ones? I did mention that because the year if half over, the numbers I was using are useless. I believe I called it an 'exercise in futility'. Something so people like you can have your fun ripping me apart. Well, you have your chance, have fun. Otherwise, have a wonderful weekend.
K. Monte
Maybe Cheryl could start a fund drive for the garbage fee like she suggested for the class action lawsuit against the city and council. Hell maybe Cheryl could get elected to be the head of a new fund drive committee to fund the entire city budget. Between her idiotic suggestions of lawsuits and Doig and Kinney running Oshkosh into bankruptcy, we'll need as many donation cups as possible.
Ann,
Call me names if that makes you feel special or powerful. It displays a level of maturity and adds a nice touch of credibility to your post. But I'll address your comments anyway.
I took every opportunity to say the recall requested by Dan Becker was the right thing to do. But I will not help defend his actions once the recall started and in fact, I disagreed with how he handled himself during the recall process.
As far as Monte's budget information, where is the game of semantics I've played? I gave my impression of his budget solution, which he himself said was probably not realistic and an exercise in futility. I also reiterated what the city manager said about needing to find twice as much savings in order to not put the fee on this year. The only thing nauseating is your inability to see past your own prejudices to read what was actually written instead of what you would like people to believe. Fortunately, most people can read for themselves.
You asked for my suggestions on budget cuts and said I was critical of Monte's. I was not critical of his. I only said he was not being realistic - a comment which agreed with his own. You asked for my suggested budget cuts. (a) I have not seen a budget book since the election of 2005 (b) I never made the statement that I could "prove" cuts could be made without layoffs (c) I never said the budget could be tweaked to eliminate a fee this year, unless the fund equity was tapped (d) The budget process for next year has not yet begun so I can't speak to cuts for next year. A budget book isn't even yet available. But plenty of suggestions have been made by me and others in the past and I think everything should be looked at. I do agree with Monte that police and fire should not be the automatic first option for cuts as others have suggested. Those services should be preserved as best they can because they are essential.
But if these proposed savings of Monte's are so real and so good, why isn't he suggesting them to his friends on the council and letting them bring them forward? Why is he not going to a council meeting and presenting them to the council during citizen statements? Why has he not sent an email to all the council members and city manager setting them forth so they can be reviewed and responded to? Something tells me there is a component missing here and it's not quite as easy as he has made it appear.
As far as the lawsuit suggestion, it was only one. I also said a recall was a possibility. But where was your outrage over Paul Esslinger and Bill Castle helping encourage a lawsuit over the angel statue. Even Mr. Monte did not speak out against their attitude. Sounds like more double standards to me.
Finally, Ann, I have a very good understanding of how representative government is supposed to work. This isn't it! But apparently you'd rather try beating me up instead of those who your anger should really be directed at. If you want to avoid lawsuits against the city over Five Rivers, or even the suggestion of one in the future, I would encourage you and all others out there to write the attorney general's office and ask them to (a) speed up their investigative process with the complaints already sitting there about Five Rivers, and (b) explain why you feel Oshkosh citizens have been done wrong in this process. Perhaps if more people than just a handful of us did something, a lot of this nonsense would stop.
Kent, I agree Jackson Kinney should probably be fired. Much easier said than done, though.
Perhaps a suit against the city is not the best answer in the world, but like I asked Ann, where was your public shaming of Esslinger and Castle essentially encouraging a lawsuit over the angel statue? It didn't happen, did it? In fact, you are in favor of it in the park, aren't you? That will bring a lawsuit, guaranteed. Perhaps you should be encouraging the statue to be placed elsewhere.
I agree with your comments about the term sheet. But I have looked at both term sheets and they really are outlines more than anything else. Perhaps I missed the provision, but I could not find where either said the city council would not be approving the final agreement. The city council members I've spoken to so far all had the same impression - that they would be approving the final agreement. So the term sheet gave the city the right to enter into an agreement. I think most of us think of the city as being the city council, not the hired help. perhaps the city council members thought the same way. There are a lot of questions about this latest development that need to be answered and I've presented them on my web site.
I've already addressed budget cut issues in my response to Ann. The two of you had such similar posts it's a shame you couldn't have gotten together and just submitted one.
Now I see why people recommend I avoid blogs with Cheryl Hentz's name attached. If you disagree with her or challenge her, she will not present evidence, she will just ridicule you and make stupid assumptions.
How can anyone say they have made suggestions without actually making any. It is even more interesting to read Cheryl's own comments that she hasn't seen a budget book, yet has suggestions and can opinionate which are good suggestions and which are bad. Even better, Cheryl knows who has done what with whom and when. Where is your smiling face at city council meetings if you are so into what the council is or is not doing? You have several questions, go ask them.
Cheryl must have a lot of money to keep lawyers on retainer and Private Investigators tailing Monte to know everything he has and has not done and everyone he has and has not talked to. Even better, she knows who we all are though most of the time names are not used and when they are, there are no last names. Damn, she's good. Sign me up for her campaign. I always wanted a psychic in office.
H.S., my comments speak for themselves (as do yours, incidentally) and I have defended my positions whenever I felt it was appropriate or necessary. I will continue to do so, much to the dismay of those who would prefer I remain silent.
Most of your comments are unfounded and innuendo-based, therefore undeserving of a response. As for my appearance at city council meetings, thanks for your interest but I am usually working during that time. I do watch the replays and follow more closely than many what is going on, however. That is why the meetings are aired on cable access, aren't they?
You say you've been advised to disregard what I write or say. Yet you lay claim to so many things about me. Talk about being psychic!!
On a personal note to Tony: You were absolutely right. They have failed to disappoint.
Hi again Cheryl,
I have talked to some of the Council Members. Three of which were at the 5th Tuesday forum. Where were you? If you are so concerned about Five Rivers, why not call ALL of the Council Members? Not just the ones you agree with. I will point out that you haven't called one of the members that has consistantly voted against Five Rivers. Why is that? You don't have to answer, it doesn't matter.
Why is it such a stretch to believe that there are people out there that agree with me? There were more than 2000 that voted for me, so why would they do that if they didn't agree with me? Anyway, I don't know who Ann is or anyone else except you because you are using your full name.
As for my exercise in futility, if it wasn't for comments like yours, I wouldn't have bothered. It was a waste of time so late in a budget year. I am willing to 'roll up my sleeves' and help the city administration get the job done whether I am on the council or not. Some think that I am a joke. Well, opinions vary. I know that it is not my job to do budget issues whether I am on the council or not but I am willing to do it.
You keep bringing up the angel statue. Well, this is why I didn't flog Castle and Esslinger. #1 I don't think that this will ever get to court. #2 I don't think that an "angel" is a religious symbol (in the bible, angels do NOT have wings) I guess we can thank Hallmark for this one. #3 There has been an organization that has stepped forward to defend the city in this matter. #4 I support the Fishers, and don't care where this statue is put. And you are correct, I have given a small donation to the cause. #5 It is not a foregone conclusion that the statue will be in the park or another site. It was approved by the council but until it is there, any site is fair game.
As for your lawsuit idea, it would solve nothing and spend a fortune in the process. The only way anything is going to change is if the council takes the control back from Jackson Kinney and reassure the public that they are truly in control of the city, not the staff.
I guess I covered it all for now. have a great afternoon.
K. Monte
Kent,
You've talked to some of the council members, as have I. Why will I not call one who has consistently voted against Five Rivers? (a) You know perfectly well that Paul Esslinger and I are no longer speaking. But I certainly do not need to call him to know where he stands on the issue. As you said, he has been consistent, and I have given him kudos for that - our personal differences aside. That is more than I can say for some, however. (b) I could ask you the same question however. Why have you not contacted all of them? I think it is a safe bet to say that some people are simply more comfortable with certain councilors than others and they feel they are more approachable and receptive. There are people throughout this entire community who feel that way, and have for years.
You said I called only the councilors I agree with. Interesting that you should think you know who I have called. I mentioned Meredith Scheuermann on the radio program and I certainly do not agree with her on the way Five Rivers has been handled and I told her as much. So your statement really falls unsupported.
You've spoken about the Fifth Tuesday Forum and questioned my whereabouts. Not that my schedule is anyone's business, but as I have already explained, I frequently am working Tuesday evenings. But the meetings I've been at, you haven't been. Shall I turn the question around for you? Everyone cannot always attend meetings, but that does not mean they are uninformed or do not care.
One councilor who I don't think has been at ANY of the forums is your friend Paul Esslinger. If you believe attendance at these meetings is so important can we assume you will be trying to encourage this representative of the people to start attending them?
Other points:
#1 -- Kent, did I say there were not people who agree with you? Hell, I even agree with you on some points, so I don't know on what you base such statements.
#2 -- You should not have done the budget exercise because of comments like mine. You should have done it because you promised people you were going to do it. I only made the inquiry because you hadn't followed through and it seemed like that might be a more worthwhile thing to do than make other less important comments.
#3 -- As for the angel statue issue, whether you believe it will make it to court or not is not germaine. The point is a lawsuit against the city has been threatened and essentially encouraged, and you said nothing. This group has taken communities to court before and there is no doubt they will do it here if that becomes necessary. Whether they will prevail or not remains to be seen, but if it goes in the park, the city will be sued. I think we can count on that.
And if the city is so sure that it's position on this is right then it should not accept Jerry Falwell's group's money for its defense. Chances are it would fall on the city's insurance carrier. But the fact that Falwell has taken such an interest suggests there is a religious component to this argument and don't think for one second that an opposing attorney would not make that argument.
#4 -- As for my own lawsuit idea, again, it was only one suggestion - be it good or bad. But I do think that a lawsuit to defend against the way Five Rivers has been handled would have more meaning to most taxpayers in this city than one over the statue. Ask people which issue is more improtant to them. I think we both know what the answer would be.
Kent, whether people want to accept it or not, there are some issues which people are going to have to work together on - regardless of their other philosophies or political views. There is strength in numbers and on the subject of Five Rivers all who are opposed to the way this has been handled may have to band together in order to get things accomplished.
Cheryl,
Just for clarification, I did the budget exercise because I got tired of trying to explain that this late in the budget cycle it would not matter. I was in St. Louis during the last round of comments regarding it. That is when I said that I would do it. Then once I did, I had difficulty posting it. I found that I couldn't post the spreadsheet with the numbers. The file sat idle for several days while I tried to figure out how to post it in my spare time. When I wasn't able to, I posted it as clear as possible. It is still difficult to read but I think I made my point, that there was funds in the budget that didn't need to be allocated the way they were.
As for us agreeing on Five Rivers, you are right. I don't want this project to bankrupt the city. I have talked to all of the council except Castle and Sheuermann. I figure at this point, Meredith has had enough people calling her that she doesn't need me doing it too. The rest are probably sick of the whole mess.
About the angel, I have had conversations regarding this offline and that is where they must remain for now. Let's leave it at that. Please. Thanks.
I need to sign off for the afternoon and spend some time with my daughter as today is her birthday.
Have a great afternoon,
K. Monte
Kent, thank you for your clarification. I appreciate your being unable to get the file presented as you wanted to. Sometimes the blog platforms are more difficult to work than one might think and some just aren't capable of handling certain things.
As for Five Rivers, at least we agree. With as many people upset about this as there are, there has to be a way to handle this to see that our interests are protected.
I have obligations today as well but I will be writing some other questions and concerns about the Five Rivers project that I have thought about, based on my conversation with Meredith. I hope to have them on my own web site later tonight or sometime tomorrow.
I hope your daughter has a nice birthday. At least the weather is cooperating.
Mr. Monte,
I keep hearing that angels in the Bible have no wings. So what?
Angels through hundreds of years of Christian art are winged and I would think if you asked people across the nation from toddlers to those about to croak from old age to draw an angel it would have wings. Perception is reality. In our society angels are first and foremost Christian.
The people who are pushing the Christian agenda are adept at changing titles in an attempt to push their tripe. Notice "Intelligent Design". That is simply Creationism having undergone their attempt to divorce it from religion.
Dream on, Monte. You ain't gonna convince anyone outside your circle that a CHRISTMAS Box Angel is not specifically Christian.
As for the Fishers, while I sympathize with their loss, did they never hear of private grief? That is how most of us deal with our sorrows.
The statue is meant to be a place to heal in a happier atmosphere of a park. It isn't about grief. As far as the concept of grief, most civilized societies acknowledge and support those who are grieving. I guess our American society of public drunks, litterbugs, child porn, and street hookers have other ideas of what should be displayed in public.
I am not Christian. I follow a much older path and think the statue is an expression of what our society is missing: love, empathy, and compassion. Maybe you, anonymous, could use a little. Here's a psychic hug for you and others without love. MMMMM!!
As an aside, it is nice to see to people who thought they were so apart in thinking (Kent and Cheryl)taking the time to discuss issues more rationally and realizing they aren't so different and can find common ground while being part of different circles. Blessed Be to you both.
Cheryl, why so defensive? If nothing I say is of consequence to you, why bother with mroe of your blather?
I'm tempted not to post because of the personal attacks and inuendos, especially since so many post so close together. I have to say, this is like a schizophrenic acid trip. I hate you! I like you! I agree with you! Your a moron! See I told you so! You are clueless! I know who you are! No you don't! Does anything get accomplished on these sites?
Tee Hee, I just wnated to be number 100. Like everyone else on this site, I don't really have anything meaningful to say, but I like Tony and wanted to see him crack 100.
H.S. can call her comments blather. They make sense to others. It's all how you choose to see it.
The only ones Cheryl makes sense to is Cheryl, anonymous, and according to Cheryl, Tony. No one ever said Cheryl did or didn't make sense anyway. Several have said they are sick of her almighty judgments. One can have an opinion without bashing others or minimizing the value of someone else's opinion.
So Jimbo you've spoken to everyone on the net to know how they feel? It's a wonder you have any time to write. The contempt shown for someone by a malcontent always makes for an interesting, but predictable, case study.
If h.s. doesn't know the meaning of words they're using maybe they shoudn't use them. Blather means foolish talk.
h.s. thinks it is. Others don't.
Several of us have said we are sick of those who add nothing to the discussion but constant harping about Cheryl Hentz too. That hasn't stopped you. Your comments won't stop us. And I hope they don't stop her.
Several of US have said we are sick of Cheryl Hentz. That hasn't stopped her or her consorts like you, either. I guess we are even.
Yes you said that earlier. Why do you think I responded like I did? I also made one of the same comments you just did. Can you not read or are you just blinded with indifference? We don't share the same opinion. That's life.
Post a Comment