On Tuesday night the Common Council made a selection from 15 applicants to fill the seat vacated by Mayor Esslinger on April 7th. Among the applicants was County Board Supervisor Jef Hall who, for the last 2 days, has been blogging on the "legality" of a conversation that took place during a 5 minute recess on Tuesday.
The question that begs to be asked is: Was there anything that took place illegal? The answer is No. Hall alleges that the conversation constituted a "negative quorum" and that any type of discussion should have taken place in front of the microphone. The City Attorney pointed out in an article by the ONW this morning that in order for a negative quorum to exist, there would need to be enough members present to block a vote. In this case, there would have to be 3 members involved where there were only 2.
Realistically, there was absolutely no reason to have applications for this position. There was no reason that the council needed to have this meeting. Previously, when a member did not fulfil their term for whatever reason, the Mayor appointed a replacement without any of this process and the council confirmed that appointment. The application process was meant to be fair AND open in the spirit of keeping the public involved. This conversation was not illegal nor did it have any effect on the outcome of the vote. Buchholz had 3 votes confirming his selection regardless of what Poeschl voted.
[Addition: For clarification... Buchholz had enough votes to advance for a second vote. It is also clear that even if he had chosen another name, it would not have changed the "top 2" candidates with Hintz receiving 2 nominations and Buchholz 3. After the field was narrowed and some confusion on the next step, Buchholz was selected unanimously by the 6 members. Any discussion on or off camera could not have swayed the outcome.]
There were also comments made regarding an email sent by Buchholz prior to the meeting. This email was never presented to the public nor it's contents discussed beyond that all of the council members received it and some admitted to it influencing their decision to select him. There was nothing illegal nor unethical regarding such communication between the candidate and the council. Hall even suggests that the council members communicated outside the meeting about the email.
So one would need to ask themselves; is this really about a demand for openness? Or is the Chair of the Winnebago Democratic Party and a Board Supervisor simply throwing stones at some local politicians that he does not agree with politically?
Let me know what you think...
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Election Day Predictions
I don't know what today will bring but here are my thoughts on how the races will shape up.
Mayor-
I think that this race is too close to call. Two years ago, this race came down to the final ward and had Frank edge Paul out at the end. I think that this year will be much of the same only with Paul victorious.
Council-
Palmeri, King, and Cummings. Unfortunately, there are three candidates outside the incumbents that share too many views and will likely split the vote. I personally would like to see any 3 of Palmeri, O'Day, Hinz or Poeschl. I was surprised that Jess King did not do more to get re-elected. She didn't spend any money and outside of the forums, she did not seem to campaign at all. Perhaps she isn't as serious as before now that the State seat is out of the picture.
OASD BOE-
Traska, Schneider, and Monte. There is a little bias here but my guess is realistic based on the referendum questions and voters paying ANY attention to the positions of the candidates. The referendum will go down in flames and the conservatives will win this ticket.
Referendum-
Question 1- Yes=30% No=70%
Question 2- Yes=48% No=52%
Question 3- Yes=48% No=52%
I am being conservative with the estimate on question 1. I think that the vote may even be more lopsided than that but 70/30 is a realistic number so I will go with it.
County Exec-
Mark Harris will win this one handily. I don't think Schroeder has done enough to unseat Mark despite his efforts to remind us about the sales tax.
Agree or disagree, that is my take on what will happen today. If you would like to put in your comments, feel free. I will try and keep up with the moderation but my days are very busy and it can be difficult to check.
Thanks to all for reading. Have a wonderful day and above all... GET OUT AND VOTE!
Mayor-
I think that this race is too close to call. Two years ago, this race came down to the final ward and had Frank edge Paul out at the end. I think that this year will be much of the same only with Paul victorious.
Council-
Palmeri, King, and Cummings. Unfortunately, there are three candidates outside the incumbents that share too many views and will likely split the vote. I personally would like to see any 3 of Palmeri, O'Day, Hinz or Poeschl. I was surprised that Jess King did not do more to get re-elected. She didn't spend any money and outside of the forums, she did not seem to campaign at all. Perhaps she isn't as serious as before now that the State seat is out of the picture.
OASD BOE-
Traska, Schneider, and Monte. There is a little bias here but my guess is realistic based on the referendum questions and voters paying ANY attention to the positions of the candidates. The referendum will go down in flames and the conservatives will win this ticket.
Referendum-
Question 1- Yes=30% No=70%
Question 2- Yes=48% No=52%
Question 3- Yes=48% No=52%
I am being conservative with the estimate on question 1. I think that the vote may even be more lopsided than that but 70/30 is a realistic number so I will go with it.
County Exec-
Mark Harris will win this one handily. I don't think Schroeder has done enough to unseat Mark despite his efforts to remind us about the sales tax.
Agree or disagree, that is my take on what will happen today. If you would like to put in your comments, feel free. I will try and keep up with the moderation but my days are very busy and it can be difficult to check.
Thanks to all for reading. Have a wonderful day and above all... GET OUT AND VOTE!
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Election notes
I apologize for my absence. With working full time and taking a full load of college courses (12 credits) there is little time to read and post on blogs. I figured I wouldn't be missed much anyway.
On April 7th, Oshkosh has a real opportunity to make a change in leadership with both the Council and School Board. There is no doubt that the common thoughts around town are on the referendum. With good reason, it is ~$24million of our money being asked for.
Beyond the referendum, there are a few issues that the city is facing. We have several that have been brought up during various forums and some more by the ONW. There is no doubt who the ONW is supporting in this election for Mayor. Not because it is the right choice, but because they don't care for the opposition. The ONW wrote an editorial endorsing Tower for Mayor. That is fine, we all expected it. But did they really need to do the follow up this week? Was it really necessary or did they just want to twist the knife that they plunged in last week? Either way, I think that there is some clearing up that needs to take place.
The ONW pointed out what a wonderful thing was being done with the TIF in the South Shore Redevelopment area. Although I do agree that development is wonderful, was a TIF really necessary there? Oshkosh has set a precedence on granting TIF's to the point that I don't think commercial development will be done without them anymore.
The ONW is quick to point out how saying NO is horrible. Well, do we really need more TIF's? Better yet, how did the City Management and Council let those buildings get so bad that they needed to be torn down? Perhaps we should focus more on keeping our businesses in Oshkosh and then it would not be necessary to worry about replacing what was left behind when they move or leave.
These are just a few thoughts as Tuesday approaches. I must remind voters that staying at home should not be an option. There was an unbelievable turnout for the Presidential election which in the big picture means nothing to the city. Remember, the Spring election has far greater impact on you than any Presidential election. The folks that are elected make the decisions locally, not the President. Remember that next Tuesday when you think that "it doesn't make a difference, why bother?".
It really does make a difference. Take the time. VOTE on April 7th.
On April 7th, Oshkosh has a real opportunity to make a change in leadership with both the Council and School Board. There is no doubt that the common thoughts around town are on the referendum. With good reason, it is ~$24million of our money being asked for.
Beyond the referendum, there are a few issues that the city is facing. We have several that have been brought up during various forums and some more by the ONW. There is no doubt who the ONW is supporting in this election for Mayor. Not because it is the right choice, but because they don't care for the opposition. The ONW wrote an editorial endorsing Tower for Mayor. That is fine, we all expected it. But did they really need to do the follow up this week? Was it really necessary or did they just want to twist the knife that they plunged in last week? Either way, I think that there is some clearing up that needs to take place.
The ONW pointed out what a wonderful thing was being done with the TIF in the South Shore Redevelopment area. Although I do agree that development is wonderful, was a TIF really necessary there? Oshkosh has set a precedence on granting TIF's to the point that I don't think commercial development will be done without them anymore.
The ONW is quick to point out how saying NO is horrible. Well, do we really need more TIF's? Better yet, how did the City Management and Council let those buildings get so bad that they needed to be torn down? Perhaps we should focus more on keeping our businesses in Oshkosh and then it would not be necessary to worry about replacing what was left behind when they move or leave.
These are just a few thoughts as Tuesday approaches. I must remind voters that staying at home should not be an option. There was an unbelievable turnout for the Presidential election which in the big picture means nothing to the city. Remember, the Spring election has far greater impact on you than any Presidential election. The folks that are elected make the decisions locally, not the President. Remember that next Tuesday when you think that "it doesn't make a difference, why bother?".
It really does make a difference. Take the time. VOTE on April 7th.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Let it Snow!
Welcome to Wisconsin. Where there are two seasons... Winter and Road Construction. After reading the results of the council meeting last night, I am sure glad that I live in a good neighborhood. The reason that I say that is because I never would have thought that sidewalk snow removal was a problem. After all, we all chose to live here. It snows, we shovel. But after watching a week of debate and then more at the meeting, the council took the time to change the city ordinance to 24 hours after EACH storm. I really would like to see that definition...
I have wonderful neighbors. We all clear each others sidewalks (perhaps because it is easier to turn around at a driveway rather than a property line). Seriously though, this was never coordinated but it has been that the first person out to do the snow from four houses does the sidewalk for all of them. Additionally, I have always gone to each of my neighbors after the plow has gone through and cleared that pile for them. I have never considered calling to have the city clear anything. The neighborly thing is to help out if they are not home to do it themselves.
I guess I am lucky...
KM
I have wonderful neighbors. We all clear each others sidewalks (perhaps because it is easier to turn around at a driveway rather than a property line). Seriously though, this was never coordinated but it has been that the first person out to do the snow from four houses does the sidewalk for all of them. Additionally, I have always gone to each of my neighbors after the plow has gone through and cleared that pile for them. I have never considered calling to have the city clear anything. The neighborly thing is to help out if they are not home to do it themselves.
I guess I am lucky...
KM
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
No More Deer
As you may have read in this mornings ONW, the Common Council has voted on the removal of the deer surrounding the Vulcan Quarry via sharpshooter. I for one think it is a good method and perhaps the most economical manner to do away with the animals.
My reasoning for this is simple; if we attempt to relocate the deer, they may find their way back. It has been known in the wild that deer, if not moved far enough, find their way back. Just ask Herbie Kohler. He tried non lethal methods of removing deer from his golf course (Blackwolf Run) and was not successful. There were also proposals for some spray that would "ward off" the deer from vegetation. That is a band aid at best. The spray worked to ward off the deer in that situation because she was the only one using it. If you had a choice to eat a bush with the spray or without, you would go to the one without wouldn't you? If everyone is using the spray, the deer will adapt. Just like I was told to plant Marigolds when rabbits were eating my plants... well they ate the Marigolds too.
Sharpshooters are the most humane method of animal removal. The deer will not suffer and the meat will be donated to those who need it. The bottom line is that deer do not belong in the city and should be removed before more damage is done. This is the most common sense method to achieve that outcome.
KM
My reasoning for this is simple; if we attempt to relocate the deer, they may find their way back. It has been known in the wild that deer, if not moved far enough, find their way back. Just ask Herbie Kohler. He tried non lethal methods of removing deer from his golf course (Blackwolf Run) and was not successful. There were also proposals for some spray that would "ward off" the deer from vegetation. That is a band aid at best. The spray worked to ward off the deer in that situation because she was the only one using it. If you had a choice to eat a bush with the spray or without, you would go to the one without wouldn't you? If everyone is using the spray, the deer will adapt. Just like I was told to plant Marigolds when rabbits were eating my plants... well they ate the Marigolds too.
Sharpshooters are the most humane method of animal removal. The deer will not suffer and the meat will be donated to those who need it. The bottom line is that deer do not belong in the city and should be removed before more damage is done. This is the most common sense method to achieve that outcome.
KM
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Tis' the Season
Election season that is. Now that winter is here, the partisan election has passed and now it is time to gear up for the local non-partisan election season.
We will see many of the usual faces running for office this year. King and Palmeri have decided to run for re-election, Esslinger will challenge F. Tower for mayor, and Bryan Bain has declined to run citing personal reasons.
For the OASD we will see Traska and Kavanaugh run for re-election while Weinsheim is still a mystery (although everything I have heard to this point is that she will not run again). I have also heard that Pat K. (I won't even try to spell it) will not challenge but Schneider will. I will not speak to Michelle's intentions as it is up to her to tell, not me. I have also heard of another Town of Algoma resident that is circulating but that is not confirmed so I don't want to give a name.
As usual, I don't really want to get involved with OASD issues but it may become inevitable as the referendum will take over the ballot and swallow all of the issues. The referendum will be all that is talked about whether you are running for BOE or City Council. I plan to avoid it as long as possible.
Looking at some of the City issues that I don't really agree with and we find the recycle bins, bridge lighting, and roundabouts. Starting with the recycle bins; why should taxpayers that were eliminated from city collection a few years ago under the condo agreement pay for bins that they will NEVER receive or use? My answer is that they shouldn't. The cost of the bins should go to those that actually will use them. Now, I am not really in favor of going to City Hall and paying between $50-$100 for a bin that will not fit in my garage. Now if single stream recycling is everything that they say it is, there may be an advantage to this move. I am not convinced.
Bridge lighting... do I really need to say more? This resolution was ridiculous right from the start. I cannot believe that the council approved it. Why on earth do we NEED lighting on the bridges? Budgets are tight, the economy is not stable, our taxes should NOT be spent on aesthetic lighting on our bridges. That is not the type of "public/private partnership" that this community needs right now. How about the type of partnership where the private half contributes to something that the city currently has to pick up the tab. For example, a local business can "adopt a park" and sponsor the upkeep of that park for one or more years. That is a partnership that we need. Not the city spending money on a feel good project that Progress Oshkosh couldn't fund themselves. For those who disagree, please feel free to tell any one of the folks living near a streetlight that has been extinguished because we cannot afford to keep it lit why you favor this project.
I have never been a fan of roundabouts. My opinion has not changed since I was exposed to a few that have popped up in neighboring communities like Neenah, Darboy, and a little farther away in Sheboygan. I don't believe that the statistic of accident reduction is accurate as I believe that the traffic through such a nuisance is reduced drastically. Less cars = Less accidents. Pretty simple. Right now we are looking at one at Jackson and Murdock. Not far down the road we will see TEN more between 9th Ave, Witzel, and Hwy 21. I think 20th St. will get a traffic boost as people will start avoiding the other 3 intersections. Just a thought.
I know I have neglected this for awhile. My job and school work (I am attending UWO) have kept me pretty busy. I will try to keep up now that I get a break from school for a few weeks.
Thanks to all for sticking around!
We will see many of the usual faces running for office this year. King and Palmeri have decided to run for re-election, Esslinger will challenge F. Tower for mayor, and Bryan Bain has declined to run citing personal reasons.
For the OASD we will see Traska and Kavanaugh run for re-election while Weinsheim is still a mystery (although everything I have heard to this point is that she will not run again). I have also heard that Pat K. (I won't even try to spell it) will not challenge but Schneider will. I will not speak to Michelle's intentions as it is up to her to tell, not me. I have also heard of another Town of Algoma resident that is circulating but that is not confirmed so I don't want to give a name.
As usual, I don't really want to get involved with OASD issues but it may become inevitable as the referendum will take over the ballot and swallow all of the issues. The referendum will be all that is talked about whether you are running for BOE or City Council. I plan to avoid it as long as possible.
Looking at some of the City issues that I don't really agree with and we find the recycle bins, bridge lighting, and roundabouts. Starting with the recycle bins; why should taxpayers that were eliminated from city collection a few years ago under the condo agreement pay for bins that they will NEVER receive or use? My answer is that they shouldn't. The cost of the bins should go to those that actually will use them. Now, I am not really in favor of going to City Hall and paying between $50-$100 for a bin that will not fit in my garage. Now if single stream recycling is everything that they say it is, there may be an advantage to this move. I am not convinced.
Bridge lighting... do I really need to say more? This resolution was ridiculous right from the start. I cannot believe that the council approved it. Why on earth do we NEED lighting on the bridges? Budgets are tight, the economy is not stable, our taxes should NOT be spent on aesthetic lighting on our bridges. That is not the type of "public/private partnership" that this community needs right now. How about the type of partnership where the private half contributes to something that the city currently has to pick up the tab. For example, a local business can "adopt a park" and sponsor the upkeep of that park for one or more years. That is a partnership that we need. Not the city spending money on a feel good project that Progress Oshkosh couldn't fund themselves. For those who disagree, please feel free to tell any one of the folks living near a streetlight that has been extinguished because we cannot afford to keep it lit why you favor this project.
I have never been a fan of roundabouts. My opinion has not changed since I was exposed to a few that have popped up in neighboring communities like Neenah, Darboy, and a little farther away in Sheboygan. I don't believe that the statistic of accident reduction is accurate as I believe that the traffic through such a nuisance is reduced drastically. Less cars = Less accidents. Pretty simple. Right now we are looking at one at Jackson and Murdock. Not far down the road we will see TEN more between 9th Ave, Witzel, and Hwy 21. I think 20th St. will get a traffic boost as people will start avoiding the other 3 intersections. Just a thought.
I know I have neglected this for awhile. My job and school work (I am attending UWO) have kept me pretty busy. I will try to keep up now that I get a break from school for a few weeks.
Thanks to all for sticking around!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Thank You Veterans!
Today is Veterans Day. This is the day that we should all take a moment and thank our nations vets for their sacrifice to our country. For some that sacrifice was minimal. For others it was the ultimate.
Today is a day that we need to set aside our differences and reflect on the freedom that we all enjoy and how we came upon that freedom. So, rather than wait until the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month take a moment now and reflect. I would encourage you to pick up the phone and call any Veterans that you may know and thank them. They probably don't think they did much but they deserve the recognition for their service.
I would also like to thank the families. They give their spouse, father, mother, etc. to service. They should also be recognized for that sacrifice. Their support to the service member is critical for him/her to be successful. They are largely forgotten even though they are a big part of the network that are supporting our troops overseas. Hats off to them.
And although thank you hardly seems adequate, it is our chance to show appreciation for what we have been given.
Thank You.
Today is a day that we need to set aside our differences and reflect on the freedom that we all enjoy and how we came upon that freedom. So, rather than wait until the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month take a moment now and reflect. I would encourage you to pick up the phone and call any Veterans that you may know and thank them. They probably don't think they did much but they deserve the recognition for their service.
I would also like to thank the families. They give their spouse, father, mother, etc. to service. They should also be recognized for that sacrifice. Their support to the service member is critical for him/her to be successful. They are largely forgotten even though they are a big part of the network that are supporting our troops overseas. Hats off to them.
And although thank you hardly seems adequate, it is our chance to show appreciation for what we have been given.
Thank You.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Riverfront Concerns
Sorry that I have been off the blogs for a while. I have been pretty occupied with work and school so there is little time to spend typing about stuff with little or no impact.
A few weeks ago Akcess development backed out of the Riverfront project and attempted to hand the reigns to the Dumke group. I understand why they did that. Akcess was on the hook and would be held responsible for the development of that property. They signed an agreement with the city to have a certain dollar value on that property by the end of the year. They knew that they could not get it done so they looked for someone that could take over and relieve them of the responsibility. Makes perfect sense.
Here is the interesting part... What if there is another interested party? Shouldn't the city explore other options? During a subsequent RDA meeting, Mr. Esslinger mentioned that he was contacted by another interested party and requested that the decision to hand the project over to another developer be delayed in order to give this person a chance to come forward. We later found out that it is the owner of the Sweetwater development between Main St and Oregon on the south side of the river. He was out of town the week of the RDA meeting so he called Mr. Esslinger to speak on his behalf and give him the chance to talk with the RDA himself.
Now we move ahead a week. Mr. Lindemann has withdrawn his proposal with the city. It seems that he has met with the Dumke group and may work with them on developing the property. Sounds like a good idea, right? Maybe not.
My question is this... Why doesn't the city put out and RFP for this project? It has gone through 2 developers without one and now appears to be on a 3rd. Does anything seem off the mark on this or is it just me? I am not an attorney but I cannot imagine that this is normal operating procedure for a community to favor developers with public owned property. Maybe I'm off base but it may be worth asking the questions anyway.
On another related note, it seems that once again the matter is turned personal for another local blogger. She has focused on the fact that Mr. Esslinger stepped forward at an RDA meeting to give Jason Lindemann an opportunity that he would not have had. When will it end? When will she finally let it go and just get on with life? This should not be personal.
Just a thought.
KM
A few weeks ago Akcess development backed out of the Riverfront project and attempted to hand the reigns to the Dumke group. I understand why they did that. Akcess was on the hook and would be held responsible for the development of that property. They signed an agreement with the city to have a certain dollar value on that property by the end of the year. They knew that they could not get it done so they looked for someone that could take over and relieve them of the responsibility. Makes perfect sense.
Here is the interesting part... What if there is another interested party? Shouldn't the city explore other options? During a subsequent RDA meeting, Mr. Esslinger mentioned that he was contacted by another interested party and requested that the decision to hand the project over to another developer be delayed in order to give this person a chance to come forward. We later found out that it is the owner of the Sweetwater development between Main St and Oregon on the south side of the river. He was out of town the week of the RDA meeting so he called Mr. Esslinger to speak on his behalf and give him the chance to talk with the RDA himself.
Now we move ahead a week. Mr. Lindemann has withdrawn his proposal with the city. It seems that he has met with the Dumke group and may work with them on developing the property. Sounds like a good idea, right? Maybe not.
My question is this... Why doesn't the city put out and RFP for this project? It has gone through 2 developers without one and now appears to be on a 3rd. Does anything seem off the mark on this or is it just me? I am not an attorney but I cannot imagine that this is normal operating procedure for a community to favor developers with public owned property. Maybe I'm off base but it may be worth asking the questions anyway.
On another related note, it seems that once again the matter is turned personal for another local blogger. She has focused on the fact that Mr. Esslinger stepped forward at an RDA meeting to give Jason Lindemann an opportunity that he would not have had. When will it end? When will she finally let it go and just get on with life? This should not be personal.
Just a thought.
KM
Friday, September 19, 2008
Ken, we will miss you.
I would like to take a moment to extend our condolences and prayers to the Bender family.
Ken Bender passed yesterday at Theda Clark. Ken was a pillar in this community for his entire life. He was extremely passionate about Oshkosh and was regularly seen addressing the Council on Tuesday night. Even over the last few years when his health was poor, he would be right there fighting for Oshkosh. I am proud to have known him.
Please take a moment and remember Ken. Feel free to share your memories of him but negative comments will be deleted unless they are signed (real names only please). I have the utmost respect for him and know that he will be missed.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the Bender's in this sad time.
The Monte Family.
Ken Bender passed yesterday at Theda Clark. Ken was a pillar in this community for his entire life. He was extremely passionate about Oshkosh and was regularly seen addressing the Council on Tuesday night. Even over the last few years when his health was poor, he would be right there fighting for Oshkosh. I am proud to have known him.
Please take a moment and remember Ken. Feel free to share your memories of him but negative comments will be deleted unless they are signed (real names only please). I have the utmost respect for him and know that he will be missed.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the Bender's in this sad time.
The Monte Family.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
What is next for the Riverfront?
This morning we wake up to see that Akcess has requested out of the Riverfront project. Blaming the crash of the housing market and poor economic times, they feel that the Dumke's are better suited to develop and manage the property.
Let me preface my comments by saying that I supported Akcess despite their desire to build an office complex on the site. I attended the first meeting at City Hall when they proposed a mixed use commercial development (at that time an office building was not the cornerstone) and I liked the idea that they were looking at. Since then, they changed course to make the office building the prime foundation for the development. I think it was then that things began to go downhill for this project. When they could not convince any major businesses here in Oshkosh (and make no mistake, Oshkosh Corp. is always looking or building more office space) to occupy space in that building, they could not break ground.
I am not a developer, nor am I an expert. I simply make observations and based on those observations I form an opinion about things that are happening. I find that people like new. If it is new and fancy it is sought after as long as it is new and fancy. If it becomes old and common, it is not as desired and therefore left to gather dust. Some cases in point are the strip malls along Hwy 41. I don't think anyone will argue that the 41 corridor is prime real estate in Oshkosh as it gets the most traffic. But there has become a great deal of empty commercial space all along that area. Most of that is the strip malls. Some of that vacancy began when WalMart relocated to Washburn. That mall has just about died since then with JCPenney hanging in there (I think that Miles Kimball is still there too but am not sure). Most of the shops that were there have either relocated to another newer strip mall or found independent locations nearby. Another case is the relocation of FEDEX/KINKOS from by PETCO and ALDI's to just north of Red Robin. I guess my point is that although new development is a great and wonderful thing for our city. It is usually at the expense of another older development when all of the businesses move to the new location leaving the old vacant. How many have we seen lately? I cited a couple of examples. are there readers out there that can tell us some more (perhaps some smaller less noticeable ones)?
Your thoughts?
(I will post again a bit later on what is proposed for the new developer on this project...)
KM
Let me preface my comments by saying that I supported Akcess despite their desire to build an office complex on the site. I attended the first meeting at City Hall when they proposed a mixed use commercial development (at that time an office building was not the cornerstone) and I liked the idea that they were looking at. Since then, they changed course to make the office building the prime foundation for the development. I think it was then that things began to go downhill for this project. When they could not convince any major businesses here in Oshkosh (and make no mistake, Oshkosh Corp. is always looking or building more office space) to occupy space in that building, they could not break ground.
I am not a developer, nor am I an expert. I simply make observations and based on those observations I form an opinion about things that are happening. I find that people like new. If it is new and fancy it is sought after as long as it is new and fancy. If it becomes old and common, it is not as desired and therefore left to gather dust. Some cases in point are the strip malls along Hwy 41. I don't think anyone will argue that the 41 corridor is prime real estate in Oshkosh as it gets the most traffic. But there has become a great deal of empty commercial space all along that area. Most of that is the strip malls. Some of that vacancy began when WalMart relocated to Washburn. That mall has just about died since then with JCPenney hanging in there (I think that Miles Kimball is still there too but am not sure). Most of the shops that were there have either relocated to another newer strip mall or found independent locations nearby. Another case is the relocation of FEDEX/KINKOS from by PETCO and ALDI's to just north of Red Robin. I guess my point is that although new development is a great and wonderful thing for our city. It is usually at the expense of another older development when all of the businesses move to the new location leaving the old vacant. How many have we seen lately? I cited a couple of examples. are there readers out there that can tell us some more (perhaps some smaller less noticeable ones)?
Your thoughts?
(I will post again a bit later on what is proposed for the new developer on this project...)
KM
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Near East in the news again
In todays ONW we see that Susan Kepplinger has inserted her extensive architectural background in a project to renovate a residence in the Near East Neighborhood. On a house with a porch that has serious structural problems she objected to the owner using modern treated lumber because it is square rather than round from the "period" that it was originally constructed.
One question I have is... who's money is it? OK, more than one question. Why does she have the say? I posted on the "teaser" story on the ONW site but when they reposted for today, the comment didn't transfer so I will post a copy here...
[Susan Kepplinger knows what is best for her "crown jewel". She is the champion of this neighborhood and heaven forbid someone spend thousands of dollars to improve a house if it doesn't "fit" in her opinion of what should be there. Make no mistake, I am not a favorite of Kepplinger. I was a vocal critic of the Near East Neighborhood when this all started because she blew her budget on condemned houses to tear down rather than let the owners deal with it. One of those houses was owned by a corporate entity from out of town.The bottom line is that if the Redevelopment Authority has an idea or opinion of how it should be, they will do just about anything to make sure it is that way.You know what they say... "it is our way or the highway". That should be their motto.It would serve Kepplinger right if they left it alone and let it be an eyesore. That would be so much better.]
Leave it to the Redevelopment Authority to screw up a good thing. Rather than letting this house get a face lift into the 21st Century, it will remain an eyesore. I think it would be good for Kepplinger if they left it... maybe then she will use grant money to buy it and tear it down.
This would be a good chance for our new City Manager to take a look at this and actually take control for the taxpayers sake.
What are your thoughts??
One question I have is... who's money is it? OK, more than one question. Why does she have the say? I posted on the "teaser" story on the ONW site but when they reposted for today, the comment didn't transfer so I will post a copy here...
[Susan Kepplinger knows what is best for her "crown jewel". She is the champion of this neighborhood and heaven forbid someone spend thousands of dollars to improve a house if it doesn't "fit" in her opinion of what should be there. Make no mistake, I am not a favorite of Kepplinger. I was a vocal critic of the Near East Neighborhood when this all started because she blew her budget on condemned houses to tear down rather than let the owners deal with it. One of those houses was owned by a corporate entity from out of town.The bottom line is that if the Redevelopment Authority has an idea or opinion of how it should be, they will do just about anything to make sure it is that way.You know what they say... "it is our way or the highway". That should be their motto.It would serve Kepplinger right if they left it alone and let it be an eyesore. That would be so much better.]
Leave it to the Redevelopment Authority to screw up a good thing. Rather than letting this house get a face lift into the 21st Century, it will remain an eyesore. I think it would be good for Kepplinger if they left it... maybe then she will use grant money to buy it and tear it down.
This would be a good chance for our new City Manager to take a look at this and actually take control for the taxpayers sake.
What are your thoughts??
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Who's fault is it?
I have spent a little time reading what has been posted online about the OASD selection for Superintendent walking away from his offer made last week. I have to say, it is an absolute JOKE that people in this community could actually think that ONE PERSON could have the influence to prevent him from taking the job. I would like to point some things out that I feel NEED to be pointed out... I will use the same format as another blogger;
1.) Who has said that Gundlach turned down the job because of Mr. Becker's inquiries? UPDATE: It was reported in todays ONW that Mr. Gundlach had withdrawn his name before Mr. Becker made the inquiries... Guess we should wait before pointing fingers and assigning blame.
2.) How could this NOT be a conflict of interest? There is no public position that would EVER allow such a relationship to exist. UPDATE: The state ethics have ruled that the conflict would have been "manageable". He would not have been able to participate in contract negotiations. Even though that aspect is a significant duty, it could have been handled by the Deputy Superintendent just as well.
3.) Related to point #1, How could one person out of 7 make that big of a difference? After all, it only takes 4 to hire a Superintendent.
4.) Who said that the language in the conditional offer addressed Mr. Becker's concerns? Hentz must have the power of mind reading to know that one.
5.) Does anyone know why Mr. Becker had to leave on Thursday? Better yet, how long was the meeting scheduled to last?
6.) Why did the board majority feel that they could offer the job to Gundlach saying that the decision was "unanimous" without even a call to Mr. Becker?
7.) Here is the question of the hour... and closely related to #6. How do you "adequately address" a conflict of interest? Perhaps in Mr. Becker's opinion the proper addressing would be for Mrs. Gundlach to resign her position in the district. I know I would expect nothing less.
8.) Where does it say that Mr. Becker "ran" to the media? Couldn't it be equally assumed that the ONW called him to ask his opinion simply because it is known that he is the only dissenting opinion on that "brain trust"?
9.) Mr. Becker should NOT be hailed as a "hero". Nobody can verify that he had anything to do with Gundach's decision to withdraw.
10.) Now looking towards the future... There are 2 other candidates that were good enough to be considered for the position last week but now are not good enough to have the job? What sense does that make? I guess that makes sense if you want to blame Mr. Becker for something else.
11.) About the referendum, and this may be even more important that finding a new Super... How can we put it off for ANY amount of time? Does anyone even remember why this came up in the first place?
The referendum was born because THERE ARE SEVERAL SCHOOLS IN THE DISTRICT THAT HAVE LEAKING ROOFS!! THEY HAVE BEEN LEAKING FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS AND REPAIRS ARE NOWHERE IN SIGHT!! Yep, it's true. The first phase of the plan doesn't even address the deferred maintenance. That means that the roofs will not get repaired until a later phase which cannot start until phase one is complete. The OASD BOE feels that building a new school on the north side is more important than fixing the leaks... Brilliant.
When is this community going to finally see that we are being led by the blind and dumb? It a wonder that the buildings are even still standing.
I know the schools aren't my thing, but I just can't sit and watch the destruction without saying something.
KM
1.) Who has said that Gundlach turned down the job because of Mr. Becker's inquiries? UPDATE: It was reported in todays ONW that Mr. Gundlach had withdrawn his name before Mr. Becker made the inquiries... Guess we should wait before pointing fingers and assigning blame.
2.) How could this NOT be a conflict of interest? There is no public position that would EVER allow such a relationship to exist. UPDATE: The state ethics have ruled that the conflict would have been "manageable". He would not have been able to participate in contract negotiations. Even though that aspect is a significant duty, it could have been handled by the Deputy Superintendent just as well.
3.) Related to point #1, How could one person out of 7 make that big of a difference? After all, it only takes 4 to hire a Superintendent.
4.) Who said that the language in the conditional offer addressed Mr. Becker's concerns? Hentz must have the power of mind reading to know that one.
5.) Does anyone know why Mr. Becker had to leave on Thursday? Better yet, how long was the meeting scheduled to last?
6.) Why did the board majority feel that they could offer the job to Gundlach saying that the decision was "unanimous" without even a call to Mr. Becker?
7.) Here is the question of the hour... and closely related to #6. How do you "adequately address" a conflict of interest? Perhaps in Mr. Becker's opinion the proper addressing would be for Mrs. Gundlach to resign her position in the district. I know I would expect nothing less.
8.) Where does it say that Mr. Becker "ran" to the media? Couldn't it be equally assumed that the ONW called him to ask his opinion simply because it is known that he is the only dissenting opinion on that "brain trust"?
9.) Mr. Becker should NOT be hailed as a "hero". Nobody can verify that he had anything to do with Gundach's decision to withdraw.
10.) Now looking towards the future... There are 2 other candidates that were good enough to be considered for the position last week but now are not good enough to have the job? What sense does that make? I guess that makes sense if you want to blame Mr. Becker for something else.
11.) About the referendum, and this may be even more important that finding a new Super... How can we put it off for ANY amount of time? Does anyone even remember why this came up in the first place?
The referendum was born because THERE ARE SEVERAL SCHOOLS IN THE DISTRICT THAT HAVE LEAKING ROOFS!! THEY HAVE BEEN LEAKING FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS AND REPAIRS ARE NOWHERE IN SIGHT!! Yep, it's true. The first phase of the plan doesn't even address the deferred maintenance. That means that the roofs will not get repaired until a later phase which cannot start until phase one is complete. The OASD BOE feels that building a new school on the north side is more important than fixing the leaks... Brilliant.
When is this community going to finally see that we are being led by the blind and dumb? It a wonder that the buildings are even still standing.
I know the schools aren't my thing, but I just can't sit and watch the destruction without saying something.
KM
Thursday, July 10, 2008
When will the city learn?
Tonight we see in the news that part of Oshkosh are again flooded. I truly feel for people like Lori Stang that just replaced all of her appliances just to watch them get ruined again within hours.
When will the city learn?
I have spoken out on the purpose and viability of retention ponds. I am not convinced that they will do what the public thinks that they will do. Sure, they will reduce the pollutants flowing into the lake but it will not prevent the flooding that we are seeing in Oshkosh.
When will the city learn?
Perhaps they won't. Ms. Stang had to watch as the sewer drain gurgled water (including raw sewage) into her basement. Storm water retention would do NOTHING to stop that. The SANITARY sewer backed up. These are two completely separate systems that are independent of one another. The only thing that they have in common are the houses that are not compliant with code that prevents the pumping of basement sumps into the sanitary sewer. Granted, it is not the sole reason for the backup... but it would go a long way to prevent flooding of this nature.
When will the city learn?
For those like me that realize that the leaders of this city may never learn may want to take a trip to Menards or Lowes to purchase a new drain cap that has a check valve that closes when the water backs up. I've been told that there is a city code that prohibits the installation of this valve, but if the city doesn't enforce the sump code, what makes you think that they would enforce the valve code either? Besides, the fine is far cheaper than replacing your basement contents and appliances.
In the meantime... I think that the city needs to pray for the rain to stay away.
KM
When will the city learn?
I have spoken out on the purpose and viability of retention ponds. I am not convinced that they will do what the public thinks that they will do. Sure, they will reduce the pollutants flowing into the lake but it will not prevent the flooding that we are seeing in Oshkosh.
When will the city learn?
Perhaps they won't. Ms. Stang had to watch as the sewer drain gurgled water (including raw sewage) into her basement. Storm water retention would do NOTHING to stop that. The SANITARY sewer backed up. These are two completely separate systems that are independent of one another. The only thing that they have in common are the houses that are not compliant with code that prevents the pumping of basement sumps into the sanitary sewer. Granted, it is not the sole reason for the backup... but it would go a long way to prevent flooding of this nature.
When will the city learn?
For those like me that realize that the leaders of this city may never learn may want to take a trip to Menards or Lowes to purchase a new drain cap that has a check valve that closes when the water backs up. I've been told that there is a city code that prohibits the installation of this valve, but if the city doesn't enforce the sump code, what makes you think that they would enforce the valve code either? Besides, the fine is far cheaper than replacing your basement contents and appliances.
In the meantime... I think that the city needs to pray for the rain to stay away.
KM
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
What effect do retention ponds have?
That is a question that has been lingering for a while now. If you have read the news, you know that approximately 50% of Oshkosh had some type of water damage from the storm. Most of the central city had their sewer back up into the basement creating quite a mess. That mess was raw sewage, not storm water.
Now back to the question... what good would storm water retention do? How would that solve the sanitary sewer backup problem? My answer... it wouldn't. It looks good on paper but how would STORM WATER retention prevent SANITARY SEWER from backing up? They are NOT connected. They are 2 separate systems and retention would only help the storm water related flooding. You could build 20 retention ponds in the city and the crap would still float in basements.
Now if you want to actually solve THAT problem, we need to figure out the root cause of the issue. It is no secret that houses built 25-50 years ago set up the sump flow into sanitary sewer. That means that every time the sump needs to be pumped out, it pushes the water to the sanitary pipes. Those are the same as the sink, tub and toilet in your house. It also is the same as the basement floor drain and the washer drain which is the source of most of the flooding. Since that time, codes have changed to prevent such plumbing dilemmas but it did not ensure that houses built prior were corrected. Well, perhaps that would be a better way to spend $11 million. Find and fix all of the improperly routed sump pumps and actually relieve the pressure put on the sanitary system of the city.
On another related subject, we have Westhaven retention proposal. Here is an artist rendition of the retention area. If you note, it looks nice and pretty with all of the trees and blue clear water forming several ponds throughout the area. I have news for you... it will NOT look like that. In order for the retention area to be effective, it will be nearly or completely empty for around 340 days a year. Only in the spring when Sawyer Creek swells out of it's banks will the retention area see water. The rest of the time it would most likely be a low lying swampy area with cattails and weeds.
For those who still think it's a good idea... feel free to buy a house in that area as the people who currently live there will want to move. I live across Oakwood to the west and I have not met anyone who really favors this plan. It is far too expensive and will not serve the intended purpose of preventing floods east of 41. Nice thought but planners should hit that drawing board again.
I know I am not an engineer but I don't think you need an engineering degree to see that this plan is not adding up. As with most plans, it looked good at first and nobody is willing to admit that it may not work after all.
KM
Now back to the question... what good would storm water retention do? How would that solve the sanitary sewer backup problem? My answer... it wouldn't. It looks good on paper but how would STORM WATER retention prevent SANITARY SEWER from backing up? They are NOT connected. They are 2 separate systems and retention would only help the storm water related flooding. You could build 20 retention ponds in the city and the crap would still float in basements.
Now if you want to actually solve THAT problem, we need to figure out the root cause of the issue. It is no secret that houses built 25-50 years ago set up the sump flow into sanitary sewer. That means that every time the sump needs to be pumped out, it pushes the water to the sanitary pipes. Those are the same as the sink, tub and toilet in your house. It also is the same as the basement floor drain and the washer drain which is the source of most of the flooding. Since that time, codes have changed to prevent such plumbing dilemmas but it did not ensure that houses built prior were corrected. Well, perhaps that would be a better way to spend $11 million. Find and fix all of the improperly routed sump pumps and actually relieve the pressure put on the sanitary system of the city.
On another related subject, we have Westhaven retention proposal. Here is an artist rendition of the retention area. If you note, it looks nice and pretty with all of the trees and blue clear water forming several ponds throughout the area. I have news for you... it will NOT look like that. In order for the retention area to be effective, it will be nearly or completely empty for around 340 days a year. Only in the spring when Sawyer Creek swells out of it's banks will the retention area see water. The rest of the time it would most likely be a low lying swampy area with cattails and weeds.
For those who still think it's a good idea... feel free to buy a house in that area as the people who currently live there will want to move. I live across Oakwood to the west and I have not met anyone who really favors this plan. It is far too expensive and will not serve the intended purpose of preventing floods east of 41. Nice thought but planners should hit that drawing board again.
I know I am not an engineer but I don't think you need an engineering degree to see that this plan is not adding up. As with most plans, it looked good at first and nobody is willing to admit that it may not work after all.
KM
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Would Water Retention in Westhaven help?
There appears to be great debate over making Westhaven Golf Course a water retention area. There were even comments made by Mr. Patek after the first round of storms on June 7th/8th that some flooding could have been avoided if there was water retention there.
I don't believe for one minute that flooding could be avoided on as large of a scale as he would like us to believe. What purpose would a pond that far west serve? The golf course served as water retention as it was and basements still flooded all over. It sure wouldn't have done any good for areas south and east of the course. The flood waters would still have gotten there. It wouldn't have done any good for homes or businesses north of 9th Ave. either. The largest backup was created at the bridge over Sawyer Creek at 9th. It turned Oakwood Rd into a raging river and Homestead flooded when the water retention west of Pheasant Creek failed. It sure created a mess for many homes west of Oakwood. All the water retention would have done in this situation is take care of the water backing up at 9th and allowed it to go elsewhere besides basements on Ruschfield/Homestead/Wheatfield/Fairfax/etc.
So you need to ask yourself, is spending $11 million on a golf course/water retention project worth it to protect less than 100 basements? I sure don't.
BTW, I live in the subdivision that would benefit from such an expenditure. I still don't like the cost. I think that there are cheaper and more viable alternatives... even finding a location farther downstream would be better. I think Public Works needs to go back to the drawing board and take another look rather than bail out a retiring golf course owner.
KM
I don't believe for one minute that flooding could be avoided on as large of a scale as he would like us to believe. What purpose would a pond that far west serve? The golf course served as water retention as it was and basements still flooded all over. It sure wouldn't have done any good for areas south and east of the course. The flood waters would still have gotten there. It wouldn't have done any good for homes or businesses north of 9th Ave. either. The largest backup was created at the bridge over Sawyer Creek at 9th. It turned Oakwood Rd into a raging river and Homestead flooded when the water retention west of Pheasant Creek failed. It sure created a mess for many homes west of Oakwood. All the water retention would have done in this situation is take care of the water backing up at 9th and allowed it to go elsewhere besides basements on Ruschfield/Homestead/Wheatfield/Fairfax/etc.
So you need to ask yourself, is spending $11 million on a golf course/water retention project worth it to protect less than 100 basements? I sure don't.
BTW, I live in the subdivision that would benefit from such an expenditure. I still don't like the cost. I think that there are cheaper and more viable alternatives... even finding a location farther downstream would be better. I think Public Works needs to go back to the drawing board and take another look rather than bail out a retiring golf course owner.
KM
Saturday, June 7, 2008
How influential is Special Interest?
That is one question that has long been going through my mind. The opinion of many that I know can tell you that there is a great deal of influence. There isn't much doubt that money drives politics. That will always be true. Just look at recent elections and you will see that the candidates that raise the most and spend the most get the votes on election day. I really don't think that the message matters. Just that people hear the name.
The only election that has even been close was last year when Tower and Esslinger faced off for Mayor. Neither spent a bunch of money and the election was very close (51% to 49% if my memory serves). In that same election, Jessica King came out of nowhere and won a seat on the council. She spent over $7000 to do it, but the outcome seems to be worth it. Now she is looking for a seat in our State Senate.
Another example of how the message doesn't seem to matter. Last year there were four candidates for Oshkosh Area BOE (Becker, Monte, Bowen and Thiel). There is not much of an argument on agendas with that group. Becker and Monte align while Bowen and Thiel have shared opinions for many years. But the outcome was far from "party lines". Becker and Bowen were elected with only a separation of 100 votes. Monte came in 3rd with Thiel following in 4th. What on earth were the voters thinking? I don't understand.
Oshkosh has long been run by those who have power with deep pockets. Whether or not they will step up to the microphone or pull strings from the shadows, both will have the same results. As long as there is private money to "assist" in projects, the city administration will have their hand out. The Sundial was just the latest. A perfect example of how our administrators are spineless. Fitzpatrick stated during the last council meeting when Esslinger tried to bring a resolution to block the re installation of the fountain that nothing needed to be done and that the Sundial would not be put back until more discussion could take place. We can see how far that went. It didn't even make it to the next meeting. By the way, the influence was not C.R. Meyer (thank you for the correction) nor the $5000 that they were paid to R/R the thing. It could have waited.
I will open the door for other examples of Special Interest control... Please don't get personal.
KM
The only election that has even been close was last year when Tower and Esslinger faced off for Mayor. Neither spent a bunch of money and the election was very close (51% to 49% if my memory serves). In that same election, Jessica King came out of nowhere and won a seat on the council. She spent over $7000 to do it, but the outcome seems to be worth it. Now she is looking for a seat in our State Senate.
Another example of how the message doesn't seem to matter. Last year there were four candidates for Oshkosh Area BOE (Becker, Monte, Bowen and Thiel). There is not much of an argument on agendas with that group. Becker and Monte align while Bowen and Thiel have shared opinions for many years. But the outcome was far from "party lines". Becker and Bowen were elected with only a separation of 100 votes. Monte came in 3rd with Thiel following in 4th. What on earth were the voters thinking? I don't understand.
Oshkosh has long been run by those who have power with deep pockets. Whether or not they will step up to the microphone or pull strings from the shadows, both will have the same results. As long as there is private money to "assist" in projects, the city administration will have their hand out. The Sundial was just the latest. A perfect example of how our administrators are spineless. Fitzpatrick stated during the last council meeting when Esslinger tried to bring a resolution to block the re installation of the fountain that nothing needed to be done and that the Sundial would not be put back until more discussion could take place. We can see how far that went. It didn't even make it to the next meeting. By the way, the influence was not C.R. Meyer (thank you for the correction) nor the $5000 that they were paid to R/R the thing. It could have waited.
I will open the door for other examples of Special Interest control... Please don't get personal.
KM
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Welcome Back to the Sundial
I found out this evening that our Acting City Manager will have the sundial replaced in Oprah House Square tomorrow (6/5). Just one week after we heard him at the Council meeting telling Council Members not to worry. That it wouldn't be put back until a decision can be made to an alternate location.
I guess the "powers that be" in the community have spoken and convinced the City Manager to put it back. What does that say about the leaders of our city? Even the Council can't prevent an eyesore from being the center piece of our downtown.
And for those that think that I am being too critical about this fountain, keep in mind that this fountain has not been maintained in quite some time. Half of the nozzles were not working and it does not fit in with the architecture of its surroundings.
So, I would hope that the "welcome back" is short lived...
I guess the "powers that be" in the community have spoken and convinced the City Manager to put it back. What does that say about the leaders of our city? Even the Council can't prevent an eyesore from being the center piece of our downtown.
And for those that think that I am being too critical about this fountain, keep in mind that this fountain has not been maintained in quite some time. Half of the nozzles were not working and it does not fit in with the architecture of its surroundings.
So, I would hope that the "welcome back" is short lived...
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Will the Chamber get our money?
After watching painfully for more than 3 hours and through countless amendments to the Chamber resolution, I wonder if there has ever been a more controversial issue that the council has faced?
Most of the public comment in favor of this development have something to gain with it. Those who don't, didn't want to hear it. There were a few that would just a soon see the land given to the Chamber to do with as they please. Perhaps that could be brought up in the future. Kudos to those who took the time and spoke out. We need more people like that.
I agree completely with Ms. King. Why are we (the taxpayer) paying for land that we already own? It is clear that the valuation includes the land, so why are we paying the higher price? I don't understand.
Dr. Palmeri tried over and over again to convince the same council that voted 7-0 against this last summer that nothing has changed. But repeatedly he was told that the timing is better now. Never mind that the plans for that intersection rely on more than the Waterfront development to need the rerouting. Again, I don't understand.
Dr. Tower put a contingency that the office complex reach 50% completion prior to the purchase taking place. I have to say, I agree that if we are going to buy it, let's make sure that the office complex is really going to happen. No sense in committing more than half a million just to see the Chamber move somewhere else.
Mr. Esslinger made a good point with his "yes" votes on the amendments. If we are going to approve this in the end, at least it will be with contingencies and at the lowest dollar amount possible.
Miraculously, it finally did fail 3-4 with Mayor Tower, Dr. Tower and Mr. Bain the only Councilors voting in favor. Giant Kudos to Councilors King, Palmeri, McHugh, and Esslinger as common sense prevails.
I feel that the Akcess Group has their work cut out for them. With less than 33% occupancy on this proposed office building, it will be a hard sell to fill the building. I think that this development had a much better shot at success than the Five Rivers project had. But with a lack of interest in office space, I don't know that this specific portion of the development is viable. I am not a developer nor a real estate expert. This is simply my opinion.
As it is late, I will cut this off now and call it a night. I have had all the excitement that I can handle for tonight. Goodnight all.
KM
Most of the public comment in favor of this development have something to gain with it. Those who don't, didn't want to hear it. There were a few that would just a soon see the land given to the Chamber to do with as they please. Perhaps that could be brought up in the future. Kudos to those who took the time and spoke out. We need more people like that.
I agree completely with Ms. King. Why are we (the taxpayer) paying for land that we already own? It is clear that the valuation includes the land, so why are we paying the higher price? I don't understand.
Dr. Palmeri tried over and over again to convince the same council that voted 7-0 against this last summer that nothing has changed. But repeatedly he was told that the timing is better now. Never mind that the plans for that intersection rely on more than the Waterfront development to need the rerouting. Again, I don't understand.
Dr. Tower put a contingency that the office complex reach 50% completion prior to the purchase taking place. I have to say, I agree that if we are going to buy it, let's make sure that the office complex is really going to happen. No sense in committing more than half a million just to see the Chamber move somewhere else.
Mr. Esslinger made a good point with his "yes" votes on the amendments. If we are going to approve this in the end, at least it will be with contingencies and at the lowest dollar amount possible.
Miraculously, it finally did fail 3-4 with Mayor Tower, Dr. Tower and Mr. Bain the only Councilors voting in favor. Giant Kudos to Councilors King, Palmeri, McHugh, and Esslinger as common sense prevails.
I feel that the Akcess Group has their work cut out for them. With less than 33% occupancy on this proposed office building, it will be a hard sell to fill the building. I think that this development had a much better shot at success than the Five Rivers project had. But with a lack of interest in office space, I don't know that this specific portion of the development is viable. I am not a developer nor a real estate expert. This is simply my opinion.
As it is late, I will cut this off now and call it a night. I have had all the excitement that I can handle for tonight. Goodnight all.
KM
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Public Enemies in Oshkosh
This is something that Oshkosh has needed for a long time. Universal Studios has brought Hollywood to Oshkosh, Wisconsin. It is definitely a positive thing not only for Oshkosh but specifically downtown.
I took some time last night to tour downtown and take some pictures. It is amazing how the movie company has transformed our downtown back to the 1930's era. Talk about an investment for a few minutes of the "silver screen". Fortunately, it is their investment and not ours as Universal is paying the tab. The details are incredible and I recommend that if you have a few minutes, take a walk through downtown and look in the windows. It is really a sight.
I got my first look on Friday as I passed the airport on my way home. Unfortunately, my schedule didn't allow for me to stop. It was neat to see that tri-motor and the vintage squad cars lined up for the scene that ended up being filmed late at night through till morning. It would have been my only chance to see filming in person because my schedule just doesn't allow for it.
I did see where some people are complaining about the movie. I guess some would have a valid argument because it may cause some inconvenience to a select few that may live or work in proximity to downtown and have to tolerate the crowds or closed streets. I would like to say to those people, please be patient. This is good for Oshkosh as a whole and perhaps if we are good hosts, they will return in the future.
I guess it really pays to have a historic downtown.
I took some time last night to tour downtown and take some pictures. It is amazing how the movie company has transformed our downtown back to the 1930's era. Talk about an investment for a few minutes of the "silver screen". Fortunately, it is their investment and not ours as Universal is paying the tab. The details are incredible and I recommend that if you have a few minutes, take a walk through downtown and look in the windows. It is really a sight.
I got my first look on Friday as I passed the airport on my way home. Unfortunately, my schedule didn't allow for me to stop. It was neat to see that tri-motor and the vintage squad cars lined up for the scene that ended up being filmed late at night through till morning. It would have been my only chance to see filming in person because my schedule just doesn't allow for it.
I did see where some people are complaining about the movie. I guess some would have a valid argument because it may cause some inconvenience to a select few that may live or work in proximity to downtown and have to tolerate the crowds or closed streets. I would like to say to those people, please be patient. This is good for Oshkosh as a whole and perhaps if we are good hosts, they will return in the future.
I guess it really pays to have a historic downtown.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Westhaven Wetlands
As most of you know, the city is currently considering the purchase of the Westhaven Golf Course to convert it into a wetland and allow for water retention on the west side/Sawyer Creek. On the surface, it seems like a good idea. The down side is what isn't widely known at this point. Most of the numbers I am seeing are not set in stone but are close enough to give the public an idea what is being considered.
The current estimate for this project is about $16 million (includes Armory portion). $3 million for the purchase of the course and the rest for the conversion and modifications for retention. On paper, it looks like a beautiful plan. It is what lies beneath that I am having a bit of heartburn over.
This deal is a great scenario for the current owner. He wants to retire/get out of the golf business and the city wants to buy it. Seems like a win/win situation. The catch is that there are covenants for that subdivision that guarantee to the residents of Westhaven that the space cannot be developed for a period of 25 years. Most of that area still has several years left on that agreement. That being the case, there is a significant restriction on the uses for that land. The owner would get somewhere in the ballpark of $3 million for the property (approximately double its assessed value) and the city will spend approximately $12 million more to convert it to handle run off.
I don't see that this is such a good use for the property. Jonathan Krause has a good idea but I don't see the current owner settling for $1.5 million in a private sale instead of the $3 million that the city will pay.
Now keep in mind that I have no dog in this fight. My property is not close enough to have any impact on what is taking place. As a matter of fact, my neighbors on Ruschfield will actually benefit from the ability to retain water downstream rather in their backyards. The city has already spent some money acquiring property along the Creek to alleviate future flooding issues. And although I am not an engineer, it doesn't take a degree to see what the bottlenecks are along Sawyer Creek. One of them is the 9th Avenue bridge by Mercy Hospital. It creates a backup every year. I think the city realized that when they did Oakwood because that bridge has a wider opening allowing for better water flow.
I know that something needs to be done as this area grows. Caseys Meadow is being developed and more water retention is a must. Is this the best course? You be the judge...
The current estimate for this project is about $16 million (includes Armory portion). $3 million for the purchase of the course and the rest for the conversion and modifications for retention. On paper, it looks like a beautiful plan. It is what lies beneath that I am having a bit of heartburn over.
This deal is a great scenario for the current owner. He wants to retire/get out of the golf business and the city wants to buy it. Seems like a win/win situation. The catch is that there are covenants for that subdivision that guarantee to the residents of Westhaven that the space cannot be developed for a period of 25 years. Most of that area still has several years left on that agreement. That being the case, there is a significant restriction on the uses for that land. The owner would get somewhere in the ballpark of $3 million for the property (approximately double its assessed value) and the city will spend approximately $12 million more to convert it to handle run off.
I don't see that this is such a good use for the property. Jonathan Krause has a good idea but I don't see the current owner settling for $1.5 million in a private sale instead of the $3 million that the city will pay.
Now keep in mind that I have no dog in this fight. My property is not close enough to have any impact on what is taking place. As a matter of fact, my neighbors on Ruschfield will actually benefit from the ability to retain water downstream rather in their backyards. The city has already spent some money acquiring property along the Creek to alleviate future flooding issues. And although I am not an engineer, it doesn't take a degree to see what the bottlenecks are along Sawyer Creek. One of them is the 9th Avenue bridge by Mercy Hospital. It creates a backup every year. I think the city realized that when they did Oakwood because that bridge has a wider opening allowing for better water flow.
I know that something needs to be done as this area grows. Caseys Meadow is being developed and more water retention is a must. Is this the best course? You be the judge...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)