On the Eye on Oshkosh blog, Cheryl Hentz provides a summary and update on the Miller's Bay fishing pier. Most readers of this blog are aware of why that matter is controversial: the Common Council approved the pier on a Tuesday after the Parks Advisory Board, which has a member of the Otter Street Fishing Club on it, approved it only 24-hours before. Neighbors in the area were never given a meaningful opportunity to comment on the pier location.
The entire matter is just one more symptom of the accountability deficit we've been experiencing in local government. As with the garbage tax, the angel in the park, the Five Rivers resort closed meeting, and many other matters, the pattern is this: Vote First, Talk to Citizens and Ask Questions Later.
I don't think wanting a Council that talks to citizens and asks questions before voting is asking for too much. And talking to citizens means more than waiting for their phone calls; sometimes the elected official needs to get out there to alert people to what is going on in their own community.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Everything you say may or may not be true (I would urge you to read Dr. Michael Burayidi's report that I have linked in the "Miller's Bay Archive" on the Tonypalmeri.com site; "the view" is only one objection, and not even the major one), but does nothing to negate the fact that a Council passing a resolution 24 hours after an advisory board vote is simply bad government. To say that it is okay to do that because the people involved are acting on "NIMBY" principles is just not responsible, in my opinion.
Besides, there is nothing inherently wrong with the NIMBY principle. It is the principle that is at the root of trying to reign in big box retail stores, Department of Transportation attempts to widen streets that do not need it and build roads that do not need to be built, and parents' attempts to keep neighborhood schools strong.
I don't plan to get on to Council by launching personal attacks against any segment of the population, be they those that live off Lake Winnebago or anywhere else. Indeed, government by personal attack--as when the powers that be deride the "Joe Lunchbuckets" who are "against progress," is what has in large mess got us into some of the bad policy messes we now find ourselves in.
There would be no issue right now regarding Miller's Bay if the Council had simply allowed people the opportunity to speak. I don't think that was/is asking too much.
Dear Plushypussycat,
It is interesting that the perception seems to be that everyone who lives on Menominee Drive is affluent and self-centered. On the contrary, this neighborhood has changed immensely in the past 5 years at minimum. There are individuals like myself, who earn modest incomes who live in this area. This constant attack of this being a neighborhood full of rich snobby people is disappointing and ignornant to say the least.
There are many reasons for changing the location of the pier. The pier was promoted as a pier for handicapped children. Yet this pier will have no railings and will not be located near restroom facilities or proper lighting. This is a safety issue.
Another major reason to change it's location has to do with fish. This simply is not a good location for fish according local fisherman. So why put a fishing pier where there is no fish? Hmmmmmm
This location is the last precious green space left in the City of Oshkosh. City developers often fail to acknowledge green space until it is too late for recourse.
The bottom line is that Terry Wohler, a Parks Board member and member of the Otter Street Fishing Club has come up with the NY ave location for a pier and he is not receptive to other potential locations. This stubborness has hurt everyone. It seems to me that a compromising location would be a win-win for everyone. Citizen input would have allowed for some discussion of the pier location. This citizen input was denied. Instead, the decision was fast-tracked intentionally via the Parks Board through the City Council.
Yes, the Park belongs to everyone. Everyone has a voice and opinion. I respect your opinion, but I strongly disagree with it.
Teri Shors
Plush,
Thank you for starting this thread. It is much appreciated.
I do, however, think we are talking about different things. I'm imagining myself as a member of the Common Council elected AT-LARGE. At-large representation, as you know, means that the Councilor represents everyone, regardless of their address.
Now suppose a Menominee Dr. resident calls a Councilor and says: "Last night the Parks Board fast tracked the approval of a fishing pier in Miller's Bay with little analysis or discussion of the possible consequences, and the Council is going to be asked to vote on it tonight. Please help."
I don't think as an at-large representative, I could in good conscience say to that person: "You live on Menominee Dr. and are probably a NIMBY inspired home owner who will not change your mind on this issue no matter how long it is discussed. So, I will vote in favor of the pier and wish you the best."
Shouldn't a member of the Common Council AT LEAST make sure that the Parks Advisory Board did a sufficient amount of research into the issue before voting on it? Or should the Council just rubber stamp an advisory board's decision?
I'm not asking you to answer these questions, but only suggesting that the process followed in this case was not a good one. Since the vote, Dr. Burayidi's report has been produced and, to my knowledge, has been summarily ignored by the Council and administration. At least I have seen no formal responses to it. Some may choose to minimize or ignore issues related to parking and restroom access, lighting, handicap access, loss of green space, etc., but I consider those to be legitimate issues that need to be at least ADDRESSED before a vote takes place.
Non-response to or quick dismissal of such concerns, it seems to me, just isn't good government.
The Uninvited and Irrelevant Outsider Sez -
The post here was a campaign statement in blog form. There's even a sentence in boldface type that hammers the idea further.
Tony was speaking to the policy issue, the M.O. of the council in recent past and NOT reopening the various merits of the various positions on the pier issue (or the angel issue, etc). That seems clear from his wording of the post.
Rich poor or otherwise, it is customary (and often actually law)to hold properly announced public hearings when any construction/alterations to/by/on/affecting anyone's property are planned. Even public projects that may alter flow of rainwater or whatever. Same for area wide zoning changes, or even the granting of variances to individuals, you give the neighbors a chance to put inthier 2 cents - always. (You can tell I have a civil engineer for a parent)
Often no one shows up to these meetings. But they must be properly noticed in the official way. Also, people often do not attend a single meeting but DO blow a gasket only after they see bulldozers lumbering up the road. They are out there at 6:30 a.m in a robe and with popping eyeballs and fists.
Usually even though they are "in the right", having followed statutes or codes properly, city officials work to calm citizens concerns and try to work with them even after the fact if possible.
That's just the way things are done in WI communities. No value judgements on the concerns of the rich or the dumb worries of the trailer trash, just an awareness that people's properties are seriously effected by what is happening adjacent to those properties. Which is why you even have zoning regulations in the first place. And engineers and planners, too.
Following an established procedure in each and every case of property alteration is the least arbitrary and most egalitarian way of reaching a consensus in all cases. And, should apply to public lands as well.
It was a post about the council's need to follow a uniform, egalitarian procedure and nothing else.
Staying on message works really well for Bush, right?Well, "accountability" is a theme here.
The U. and I. signing off then...enjoy, people.
p.s.
City Managers and Administrators (city lawyers too) are supposed to keep the council within "current best practices", it's part of their job descriptions.
p.s. -
Hi Cat
When you leap dramatically onto the stage (during a lull in the production yet) brandishing The Hammer of Thor AND The Sickle of the Proletariat over your head like that you don't leave many diplomatic options open. I mean, strewing your path with rose petals would seem kind of inappropriate that that point. Perhaps another time then.
I'll have a sonnet ready in case you ever steal in like the dew upon the diaphenous rays of the morn.
Post a Comment