The Neenah Town Crank

Recent commentary: Have you got a dog in the hunt in your town?

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:44:00 GMT

Are the municipal elections important to you?

(published 21-Mar-2011, Appleton Post-Crescent)

No matter which town you live in, you can learn a lot by attending Council meetings. You might think you've got it all figured out; but it isn't until you see your city/town/village Council in action that all the incongruities and inconsistencies, machinations and maneuverings, earnestness and evasiveness of local politics are revealed. You learn who on the Council you can rely on and who you have to watch out for; which ones lead and which ones fill space; who shoots straight and who are the slippery characters. Then when you see that it's time for an alderman to go, you hope for a replacement you can trust. In District 1 in Neenah, I believe it's Ms. Cari Lendrum you can trust. Lendrum is a willing volunteer, a tireless worker, an ideal neighbor, an excellent listener, and honest as the day is long. Please vote for Cari Lendrum.

[This long series of "Recent Commentary" posts is from the Appleton Post-Crescent weekly Reader Reaction Forum feature. Each submission can be no longer than 150 words. Any comments to RRF postings on-line can be no longer than 1000 characters. That explains some of the terseness of expression and cramming to fit. - Ed.]

Those windmills

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:01:00 GMT

This will only be a brief entry on the Neenah wind turbine imbroglio. I have yet to watch the video of the December 15th Neenah Common Council meeting to see how my three 3rd District aldermen explained away the reversal of their votes at the Neenah Budget Hearing on November 16th.

The Appleton Post-Crescent story on the re-insertion of a wind turbine or solar energy project into the budget caused quite a few comments. I posted one myself (limited to 1000 characters):

I'm on the Sustainable Neenah Committee. I confess that after I made a speech opposing the windmills at the Neenah Budget Hearing on November 16th, I didn't pay any more attention. I figured that a 6-3 vote to remove wind turbines from the city budget was pretty definitive. Apparently not.

Note that the issue was resurrected in a special meeting of the Finance & Personnel Committee which took place an hour before the Council meeting on Dec. 15th. Therefore, there were no minutes of the meeting available for public inspection. The issue sailed through the F&PC and was then brought before the Council.

I had to laugh when I read "Proponents returned with a more detailed proposal for either a solar or wind energy project". How can it be "more detailed" when there's an either/or? The city is going to borrow the money for an either/or?

I also note that my three 3rd District aldermen reversed their votes from November. I can't help but wonder why.

More to come. Stay tuned.

Will this chairmanship change hands?

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:09:00 GMT

There may be a do-over for the chairmanship of the Neenah Finance and Personnel Committee.

I was present at Mark Lange's farewell party when a few Council members discussed the very real possibility of nominating a new chairman of the committee rather than re-electing Jim Hemes, the current chairman. One of the Council members appeared to me to be willing to step up to be chairman.

At the Council meeting of April 20th, the fellow who said he'd take the chairmanship actually nominated Hemes. The motion was seconded by Council President Stevenson. The motion carried and Hemes was re-elected.

After the Council meeting another Council member was overheard remonstrating Stevenson for his second; challenging him to justify his second when, in the Council person's opinion, it was clear that Hemes ran roughshod over the Finance meetings, refusing to let some people speak, interrupting committee members who had the floor, and even leaving meetings early.

Apparently, Stevenson may ask for an item to be added to the next Common Council meeting's agenda to reconsider the election of Hemes to the chairmanship. The Council member who told me about this possibility thought it quite possible that it would happen; that is, that the agenda would include this item. I told him that I doubted it and that I'd bet legal tender of the United States against it happening.

If it does come up on the agenda, that would be a first. Stay tuned.

Letter to the Editor, Appleton Post-Crescent

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:32:00 GMT

To the Editor, Appleton Post-Crescent:

I've learned a lot about Neenah city government from Todd Stevenson. Over the past 10 years, as an observer and as an alderman, I've seen how much Todd has been on top of things in the city and that he would make a fine Mayor.

Todd is extremely fair and even-handed. He shows his ability to lead through his confidence in debate, his appreciation for the contributions of others, and his way of getting to the heart of the matter forthrightly and energetically.

I've done some volunteer work over the years, but Todd puts me to shame. Just one example: his work with Neenah sports teams over the years led to his earning the 2003 Neenah High School Red Smith award.

In fiscal matters, Todd thinks straight. Only Neenah Finance Director Mike Easker's copy of the city budget is better annotated! Todd always verifies where the money is coming from, whether an expenditure is over or under budget, and whether the money comes from tax levies or borrowed dollars...that is, nothing gets past him. For that reason alone we would be well-served with Todd Stevenson as Mayor of Neenah.

Todd challenges every expense, including city employee contracts. He knows that the citizens have been asked to go the extra mile in our own jobs -- wage freezes and cuts, furloughs and layoffs -- and even farther: 10% of us are out of work altogether. Todd knows that we're hurting and that the city needs to pull back.

Todd's attention to detail, his willingness to act in creative ways to save money, his knowledge of city affairs, his business experience with budgets and negotiations, and his follow-through and boundless energy have earned him my vote for Mayor of Neenah. Join me on April 6th in voting for Todd Stevenson.

Steve Erbach
Neenah

What to print and what not to print

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:27:00 GMT

I attended last night's forum for the two candidates for Mayor of Neenah. As I often do at Council and committee meetings, I recorded the proceedings. I'm not acting as a reporter, as such; there are things said that I find worth reviewing from time to time and it's useful to hear exactly what was said. Last night was one of those times.

I transcribed the introductory remarks of Neenah Council President, Todd Stevenson and posted them in their entirety last night in this post.

Duke Behnke, the Neenah beat reporter for the Appleton Post-Crescent, was there. He heard Stevenson address the slur made about his thinking abilities by a sitting Council member while campaigning for Stevenson's opponent, Mayor Scherck. Behnke witnessed how quiet it got in the Council chambers as people hung on Stevenson's every word.

The question and answer session between the two candidates was interesting, but not nearly so riveting as Stevenson's introductory remarks. There wasn't a person in that chamber who didn't wonder who it might have been that was foolish enough to say such a thing.

Afterwards, I spoke to Behnke as we all stood up to leave. I said to him, "I suppose the only question now is, 'Who was it?' " I figured that he would find out, if anyone would. When I made the sardonic comment, "But nobody will say anything," he said something like, "Yes, I will."

At the time I was so overcome that an alderman had said something so foolish that I completely forgot that Stevenson had practically named the person who said it. That is, if you read the transcript, you'll see that he said it was a "city council member campaigning on their own behalf and soliciting support for both the council member and for George."

Still thinking that it could have been any of the Council members, after speaking with Behnke I chatted with Lee Hillstrom, who is up for re-election in the 3rd District. Lee is a gentleman from his head to his toes. There is no way on God's green earth that he could have said anything remotely resembling what Stevenson claimed. While I was listening to the candidates give their answers, I listed the Council members and immediately crossed off Lee's name. As I said, everyone in the chamber was pondering the big question. Hillstrom didn't say who he thought might have been the culprit; I figured later that he, too, must have forgotten that Stevenson practically pin-pointed who it was.

I'm not going to say the name here either. This morning I expected to read something about the incident on the Post-Crescent's web site, but I was surprised to find that it was if it never happened. Here's the article written by Behnke. It left me scratching my head.

Were Stevenson's remarks newsworthy? They certainly were judging by the reaction of the 30+ people attending the forum; that is, total silence and riveted attention. Would reporting those remarks in the newspaper have qualified as gossip or libel? I can't believe it would. The entire forum will be broadcast five separate times in the coming 10 days. Anyone in the world may watch it and figure out for himself just who Stevenson referred to.

The simplest explanation, I suppose, is that it was the news editor who removed any reference to Stevenson's remarks that Behnke made in his piece. It just seems odd that the identity of the person will remain unspoken...but I'm also affected by the reticence that has gripped everyone else.

Stevenson said that Mayor Scherck had apologized for that person's remarks before the forum. Scherck himself apologized during his response to the first forum question and again during his concluding remarks. So it wasn't as if Stevenson was relating unsubstantiated hearsay.

So, what is it that causes us to refrain from saying the name after we've figured out just who it must have been?

You may view the entire debate on Time Warner cable public access channel 2 at these times:

3:00pm Saturday March 27th
8:00pm Sunday March 28th
12:00pm Wednesday March 31st
5:30pm Saturday April 3rd
8:00pm Sunday April 4th.

The bombshell at the Mayor's Forum

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 01:36:00 GMT

Tonight the Neenah Mayor's Forum, sponsored by the League of Women Voters, took place at City Hall. Mayor George Scherck and Council President Todd Stevenson answered a load of interesting questions from the audience.

The answers to those questions were over-shadowed by the introductory remarks made by Stevenson. I present them here in full:

I had planned to give a general background of myself, documenting my lifelong committment to this area and to confirm the passion I continue to feel towards the people of my home town. However, events of the past couple days compel me to spend this time defending my qualifications and responding to comments made about my abilities to think straight.

Scott Rosenow's letter to the Post-Crescent

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:27:00 GMT

Scott Rosenow, the first declared candidate for Mayor of Neenah in 2010, permitted me to share this with you as it currently resides on his Facebook page and only Facebook users can read it. It's his first statement of his reasons for running for Mayor:

Let me start by explaining what aren’t reasons I’m running for mayor of Neenah. My campaign is not for my personal ambitions; the ego stroke; the cushy, overpaid job; the prestige; the name recognition; nor is it for the short-sighted goal of actually getting elected.

First, I am running to provide the people of Neenah a choice. No offense to any other candidates, but people are forced to vote for the “lesser of two evils” in almost every election. My candidacy will provide an alternative to the false dilemma of the two-ideology system.

How to change the sidewalk plan

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:07:00 GMT

Ever since March I've wanted to get a definitive answer to a question. The question is: How can city property owners get the master sidewalk and trail plan changed?

In my last aldermanic campaign, I had quite a lot of support from the residents on Baytree Lane and Westbreeze Drive for one main reason: I supported their opposition to having sidewalks built on their streets.

I went to the Neenah Common Council meeting last night to follow through on my promise to those folks who voted for me to help them petition the Council to do something about sidewalks. I transcribed the recording I made of the Public Forum segment of the meeting, including the comments made by Council members on this topic.

Over that span of 17 minutes I was satisfied that the master plan could be amended in a relatively straightforward manner, one that didn't involve a city-wide referendum. It all depends on how much and what kind of political pressure is brought to bear by the citizens most affected (I wrote on this topic at that time here and here).

So here is the transcription of the Public Forum at last night's meeting. I will say right off that I did make an error in my remarks: the streets north of Breezewood running up to the high school are not neighborhood subcollector streets. If Deputy Public Works Director Kaiser had been at the meeting, he could have pointed that out right away. No sidewalks are planned for those streets nor are there any ordinances or statutes requiring sidewalks for those streets. My comments:

Steve Erbach, 1017 Babcock St. I am following up on some research and some questions I asked at end of March -- particularly at the Public Services & Safety Committee meeting on March 24th -- dealing with sidewalks.

I attended the Council meeting several years ago when it was held in the library before this Council chamber renovation was completed. At that meeting, the Sidewalk and Off-street trail map and plan was approved. There was a big easel...the map was there with all the very detailed information of the proposed sidewalks and trails for the next...well, there isn't a time limit. But there is a differentiation between sidewalks planned in the current Capital Improvements program and then sidewalks and trails planned for beyond that point.

I received the most recent map from Deputy Public Works Director Kaiser a few weeks ago and I brought it with me in case anybody wants to look at it [witness holds up rolled-up map].

When I was campaigning at that time in the area of the city south of Breezewood Lane -- particularly on Westbreeze, Baytree, Meadowbreeze Circle, that area -- people were not aware that a sidewalk was planned to be constructed in 2011, subject to approval of the budget for that purpose. I brought along a copy, while I was campaigning, of the 5-year plan and pointed out the line item that laid out the budget for the sidewalks to be built on Baytree, Shaggy Bark, Meadowbreeze Circle, and Westbreeze. On Westbreeze the plan is for two sidewalks, one on each side. So the residents of that street would be facing a special assessment of about $2100 based on the budgeted amount in the Capital Improvements Plan.

I asked several questions at the Public Services & Saftey Committee meeting on March 24th about sidewalks; particularly those sidewalks that are planned to be put in on neighborhood subcollector streets. Baytree is a subcollector; so are the streets that are in that area. I got some decent answers. I know that the residents of Baytree submitted a petition to the city to have the construction of the sidewalk on Baytree be moved off by two years to 2011. That put the construction squarely into the time frame when the other sidewalks were proposed to be built in 2011. Those plans were already there, so the Baytree sidewalk is now to built in that same year.

As Council President Stevenson pointed out at the Public Services & Safety Committee meeting, whether to build a sidewalk or not is a political decision. I note that there are no proposed sidewalks on the map for Baytree north of Breezewood Lane, nor for Pinehurst, Inverness, Wedgewood, or Mulberry Lane. All those streets are subcollectors [Note: see above.] and are closer to the high school than Baytree south of Breezewood and all the streets in that area.

The main question I would like to have answered is this: what would it take for the lines [witness holds up the map] that are drawn on this map for that area of the city -- or, indeed, for any area of the city where there are proposed sidewalks in neighborhood subcollector streets -- what would it take to have those erased from the map? So that the sidewalks are NOT proposed in the budget and the residents of those streets would NOT have to submit petitions every time the budget cycle came back around for approval for the money for those sidewalks.

Must a city-wide referendum be placed on the ballot to have those lines erased? Or can the Council act during a regular Council meeting and, with a simple majority, direct that the map be altered to remove the proposed sidewalks for that area.

The Public Forum was then closed by Council President Stevenson and he made some introductory remarks:

Council President STEVENSON: I know the Public Services & Safety Committee did review the very map that Mr. Erbach brought up. I guess my opinion would be that, if the Committee chose and asked for that modification to be made to that map, that that would have to come to the Council, I would think. The Committee reviewed it -- that is a working document. That's a document that's not ever written in stone, but is subject to Council review with every budget that's submitted on an annual basis. Larry, do have any comments regarding that?

Public Works Director WETTERING: My only comment would be that, from a technical standpoint, there is a need there for the sidewalks, but, of course, Council can direct us to remove those at any time and we would do so. So, as Mr. Erbach said, it comes down to a political decision.

Alderman PIERGROSSI: I was just going to opine that that map is approved by the Council, so, in the end, it comes down to a Council decision whether or not [the sidewalks] are on there. Year after year statistics change for given areas. The traffic counts change, and so I think it's always open to review. Just because it's simply removed does not mean it's removed in perpetuity.

So, Stevenson, Wettering, and Piergrossi all attest that changing the sidewalk map is a matter of a Council vote...a political decision. At this point, my question had really been answered.

Now Alderman Juday Zaretzke stuck her oar in the water. I was given tacit permission to respond, though, normally, the speakers at a Public Forum only get to go the microphone once:

Alderman ZARETZKE: I guess I would like to ask Mr. Erbach why we would want it erased. Is it because "Don't put the sidewalk in my back yard or my front yard"? I guess I'm questioning why you would want that erased.

ERBACH: I imagine, since I'm not affected by those sidewalks -- I don't live in that area -- but I was researching a question for the people that live there, that did submit petitions to the Council to have the sidewalk construction delayed. They were not aware of any way to have the lines removed other than what seemed obvious, which was to submit a petition signed by all the residents of the street -- almost all residents of the street.

Why would they want the line removed? To not have a sidewalk built. Their own reasons...I can only speculate, the same as you. But is it so terrible to NOT want to pay, as the residents of Westbreeze would have to pay about $2100 per home to have sidewalks installed on both sides of the street? Is that so terrible NOT to want to pay that?

So, I imagine that if it was known that the Council was considering removing the lines entirely and that this, pardon the reference, but this Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads...that some year if they aren't paying attention and the Council passes the budget for the year and the sidewalk is built, that...well, they can't STOP it once the budget is approved and construction is...and the saw horses are put up. Why would any citizen want to have something changed on a semi-permanent basis? Again, I can only speculate, but their reasons are their reasons. Why are their reasons less valid than others'?

Which left a couple things un-said. Mainly that it would be hard cheese to tell tax payers that their reasons for not wanting a sidewalk built aren't good enough.

Alderman AHLES: Sidewalks, in my term on the Council and in discussions prior to being on the City Council, have always been a very interesting debate, in my opinion. When I moved into my neighborhood we were effectively isolated from pedestrian routes into the city, because there was no sidewalks on County Trunk A or on South Park Avenue, a town road at that time -- it still is a town road -- at that time, and it's interesting living in that subdivision for a number of years with no pedestrian routes into the city -- anything that would be considered safe to travel in on -- basically just gravel roads and ditches to go in there. So, I actually sat in on the discussions that led up to the initial design of the pedestrian routes and plans that would have the city back-filled with sidewalks by around 2010 or 2011. This was back in probably the 2000 time frame, 1999; sat in on a lot of meetings to go through that. It was an interesting learning experience about the design and the routes that were established and to understand that.

In my term on Council here I've always been supportive of what our traffic engineers lay out as either safe school walking routes or pedestrian corridors. It's one of the things I find myself looking at when we deal with subdivision plans and when we look at what a new development would bring to the city and how it'll move pedestrians as well as vehicles out of that subdivision and into the municipality.

If I'm correct, that corridor that you're talking about for this one in particular originally was planned as a walking route as well as a neighborhood subcollector for the potential school being planned over in that area. Of course, that school hasn't materialized, but I don't think that would warrant us removing that possibility from that map; because if the school district would put something in in that area, whatever, we would need a corridor to bring students into that school area.

With all that being said, the flip side to that coin is basically what do you do with the sidewalks that are in the city in places that don't meet the guidelines or the current standards for sidewalks...do we go back and remove those sidewalks? People that have shovelled their sidewalks and maintained them and had 'em there for 50 or 60 or 70 years, it becomes a very tricky question very quickly as to what to do. There would be those probably present in the audience here that would say that a sidewalk is a destination into a place within the city instead of a nuisance to have in their front yard.

The only way to solve the sidewalk debate for this Council or future Councils or any other Council in my opinion -- this is just my opinion, not Council's position on this -- but the only way to solve it would be to do what Appleton has done and make 'em required everywhere in the city and strive for that goal and put 'em in there and then they would be fair for everyone; that there'd be no discussion or debate over 'em, because the minute we start changing our policies and backing off on what is correct for that, it becomes very UNfair to the people that had 'em for a number of years and becomes unfair for areas that, you know, under any current standards wouldn't have 'em. A cul-de-sac, for example, or something like that that currently has sidewalks in place.

From a more personal level, every year at Christmas time I'm reminded of a fatality that occurred in the city of Neenah. As I look out at a statue memorializing a 14-year-old girl that is no longer with us because there was not a sidewalk for her to be walking on one evening within the city of Neenah.

It's an item that I take very serious and I follow the recommendations of our Public Works Department on where sidewalks are recommended and where they do belong within the city.

Alderman Ahles' comments are a preview of the feelings of most of the Council members towards the sidewalk plan. That is, let the pros tell us what's needed. Public Works Director Wettering alluded to that professional perspective when he said, "from a technical standpoint, there is a need there for the sidewalks". So it'll boil down to whether the pros, the planners know best and whether citizens should just sit back and let the pros handle it.

But Ahles' comments highlight a non-issue: that to be "fair" the city would have to consider what to do about all of those sidewalks that have been in place for decades. Suggesting that the city might consider removing those sidewalks to be "fair" is, not to put too fine a point on it, absurd. As Mayor Scherck reminded everyone a while back when there was a discussion about clearing snow from trails, the city has changed its level of service and its policies at various times throughout its existence. For example, garbage used to be picked up twice a week and the sanitation workers would actually carry the cans to and from residents' garages.

The point is that not only are services and policies not "cast in stone", but things already bought and paid for are what's known as "sunk costs". It simply isn't prudent, practical, or even logical to consider ripping out sidewalks as a matter of being "fair".

Alderman Ahles' point about the death of the girl is an appeal to pity; that is, sidewalks should be built so that no one ever again dies because of missing sidewalks. If that is to be accepted as a valid reason for building the sidewalks in the area we talked about, then the city had better be ready to build sidewalks everywhere that they're missing, whether the street is a subcollector or no. For example, on those streets north of Breezewood leading to the high school. I've heard from a number of people living there that kids drive their cars like maniacs up and down those streets. Is that not a higher priority area in which to provide pedestrian protection?

Council President Stevenson made some additional, wandering remarks about the issue:

STEVENSON: I think the issue of sidewalks today is at the same level that it always is for the Council, where you have to weigh the public benefit for the all versus the private investment of the individuals. I'll summarize the, that the trouble that Council and the trouble that the issues that the Council has to weigh; and I think it would be, I think with all the elements that's out there now regarding criteria for sidewalks that exists for that area I think it would be...we should have to tread slowly before we consider taking those off the map. Considering that school district owns property there and it's been very public about the fact that some day a property could be built there or a school could be built there. So I think it would be...before we started thinking that way, it's wise to be more communicative about the potential versus removing it then that's starting...interjecting questions as to if and when.

So the school district may build a school out that way. Might it not be more "fair" to have those people that live there when the school is built pay for sidewalks? Why should current residents pay for sidewalks that lead to a "potential" school that may never be built?

Finally,

AHLES: One other item on there, a few weeks back I had dropped off a letter to the Public Works Director Wettering that I had found interesting, an article written about ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements for sidewalks and how municipalities if they don't...one of the interpretations of that ADA requirement was that if you're not providing equal pedestrian corridors the ADA items can apply. There was one I gave Director Wettering just to review the engineering firm that was discussing it had recommended that cities actually do an audit of their pedestrian corridors looking not only for ADA requirements in accesses, for example, the ramps and that that we put in at intersections and things like that but to look for obstructions or issues that would occur that would prevent people with disabilities from having equal access to the pedestrian corridor. So even if we tend not to like the ideas of sidewalks, there is things out there such as the ADA requirements that could apply even if we decided that as a Council, as a political decision, that we didn't like it then maybe in a case where there'd be a requirement under those statutes.

Putting aside the fact that I think that the ADA is an atrocious example of overweening government, here is an appeal to fear of federal lawsuits, the same sort of fear that moved the city council in New Haven, Connecticut to disregard the firefighter exams as qualification for advancement because the city might be the target for discrimination lawsuits. Again, if Alderman Ahles expects that argument to hold water, the City Council had better be ready to build sidewalks all over the place in case lawsuits are filed claiming that the city isn't doing enough to meet the requirements of the ADA.

So, the upshot is that the residents of the Baytree / Shaggy Bark / Meadowview Circle / Westbreeze sidewalk corridor can work towards having the Council amend the city's master sidewalk plan.

Forget about Favre, wouldja?

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:15:00 GMT

It's time for a real race in Neenah! The 2010 Neenah Mayoral contest has suddenly become far more interesting. From today's Appleton Post-Crescent:

College student Scott Rosenow files candidacy papers for Neenah mayor

By Duke Behnke
Post-Crescent staff writer

NEENAH — Scott Rosenow has a year left of college, but he already has his sights set on a prominent job upon graduation.

He wants to be the mayor of Neenah.

The 21-year-old Rosenow last week filed his declaration of candidacy for the 2010 mayoral election. He is the first person to do so, but he is not the only one interested in the position.

The cause of "market failure"

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:02:00 GMT

I've been reading The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future by Randal O'Toole. The book gets my highest recommendation.

The chapter I'm reading now is titled "The Planning Profession". This chapter falls in Part Four: "Why Planners Fail". If you're a city planner, you're not going to like this section.

O'Toole begins Part Four with a rip-snorting quote on liberty by former U. S. Supreme Court Justice (1916 - 1939), Louis Brandeis:

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when government's purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

O'Toole then follows that with his observation of the profession of planner:

"We shape our cities," planners love to say, "and then our cities shape us." If the pronouns are a bit vague, planners hope that the "we" who shape the cities consist of architects and planners while the "us" who are shaped include everyone else. ...Planners want to use urban design to shape human behavior.

O'Toole then goes on, in "The Planning Profession" chapter, to compare developers with planners:

The contrast between planners and developers is stark. Developers can easily judge the success or failure of their projects by the bottom line: did they make or lose money? Developers generally must put up their own money to finance at least part of each development, so if it fails, they pay much of the cost. This gives them a powerful incentive to get it right, as determined by what potential buyers and renters want. As Joel Garreau observes, developers' "unshakable observation was this: if they gave the people what they wanted, the people would give them money."

Developers can rapidly learn from their mistakes because they carefully watch how projects by other developers fare in the marketplace. The development world quickly evolves in response to changing tastes, changing costs, and changing regulations. While developers may grumble about government regulation, in the end those rules are just a part of the development environment. Most regulations passed by a city council apply to all developers in that city, so they simply pass the costs onto the buyers or renters.

In contrast, planners working for government agencies don't have to back up their plans with their own money. This means that success or failure is not determined by whether the plans can make or lose money. If the regulations written by planners force developers to do projects that would lose money, the developers, of course, won't do the projects.

Now here is the point that made me sit right up and rush to the keyboard to relate what I read. City councils and planners pass and administer regulations regarding what sorts of projects can be built on what sorts of land. When developers refuse to do projects that they know will lose money based on these regulations (emphasis added),

Planners tell themselves this is a market failure and respond by looking for tax breaks or other subsidies that they can offer the developers to entice them to do the projects. The projects may get built, though at a net loss when the subsidies are subtracted from any benefits they produce.

"Market failure"...how many times have you heard or read that expression voiced by a government figure? When do they say it? When people that actually have to earn a living refuse to cooperate with the grand vision of the legislators and bureaucrats.

The L's and the B's are terrific at packaging and selling their vision with politically attractive language, studies, fanfare, and smiling faces on TV. But those darned developers (and the public in general) just don't cooperate sometimes. That certainly doesn't mean that the laws or the regulations are at fault, oh, no! We must support our vision and see to it that it comes true by offering tax breaks and subsidies.

From zoning and land use to boosterism for light rail; from a city-owned steam plant to ever-expanding TIF districts; from subsidies for public transportation to planning for sidewalks...we are in the grip of planning fever.

Even the U. S. Supreme Court got into the act with its Kelo decision a few years ago that opened the way for cities to declare that neighborhoods were "blighted" so that they could give over that land to developers to erect commercial buildings and malls. I think that Brandeis would have justly codemned that decision.

So when you hear the phrase "market failure" again, consider this: how much of that "failure" was caused by governmental bodies getting frisky with land use and zoning, legislation and regulations?

In Neenah, our new Community Development Director is a great fan of regulation; while he was Chief City Planner, his most notable quote was "Anything not specifically permitted is forbidden." I look forward with great anticipation to hearing the phrase "market failure" from him many times in the near future.

Regime satori - epiphany - revelation

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Sun, 10 May 2009 16:43:00 GMT

Writing in March about my meeting with the Realtor's Association of Northeast Wisconsin, I couldn't quite figure out their angle. I think I finally did.

During my meeting with them, the theme was Affordable/Workforce Housing: what did I think about Affordable/Workforce Housing, what would I do as Alderman to ensure Affordable/Workforce Housing?

I had the feeling during that meeting that lots of cards were being held close to their vests. They talked a bit about the cost of city infrastructure and fees for city services. What they did not talk about was zoning.

Congrats, Nick!

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:13:00 GMT

The Appleton Post-Crescent reported this morning that Alderman Nick Piergrossi was elected by members of the Neenah Public Services & Safety Committee as its new chairman, replacing outgoing Alderman Bruce Rhoades. Congratulations, Nick!

More on the Appleton Tea Party

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:47:00 GMT

A friend of mine in Minnesota exhorted me to do a better job reporting on the Appleton Tea Party. As parital recompense for the luke warm job I did yesterday, here is a small exchange I had with an e-mail friend of mine, Jim L. Jim is from Candada and has a bit of a different take on events in these United States.

I started off in the e-mail discussion with:

Speaking of the Appleton Tea Party:

story: http://tinyurl.com/ctl5g2

pictures: http://tinyurl.com/cp7x54

I wrote a bit about it here:

NeenahPolitics.com

The Appleton Tea Party

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:27:00 GMT

I went to the "Tea Party" last night at Fox Banquets in Appleton. A very nice venue, perched atop the Kimball St. embankment overlooking the Fox River. It was a nice rally, too. Lots and lots of polite folks, I'd say 1500. One thing the Post-Crescent didn't mention is that after the event the parking lot was spotless!

I saw one fellow wearing an Obama t-shirt walking through the crowd with a small video recorder, smiling and shaking his head. He, of course, was in no peril from this crowd.

I enjoyed the history teacher (professor?) the most as he was the best speaker. Jerry Bader may know how to handle a microphone but he needs to practice his public speaking.

The event was nifty in that a lot of frustration and discontent had a public outlet; but it was unfocused. Better to have this kind of rally during an election year. Political action needs to be more focused and consistent. "Throw the bums out" sounds good but it'll take that consistent, focused effort.

After the rally, as people were politely queued up to sign the huge banner that the organizers are going to send to Washington, DC, I spoke to a fellow who runs a cleaning business. He had the same reaction I did regarding the unfocused nature of the event. He told me that when he trains a new hire and shows him the ropes on the first night, everything's fine. The real question is not just whether the new guy will do as good a job the 2nd night, but whether he'll even show up!

Will we continue to "show up" when it comes to registering our dissatisfaction with the new "status quo"? Write your Congress critters. Help people get elected to office that will work towards reducing spending, reducing taxes, reducing regulation, reducing government. Donate money to their campaigns.

Better yet, run for office yourself so that you'll know what it means to commit yourself to tangible political action. Politics is almost as important as your own breathing.

Video of the Candidates Forum

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:03:00 GMT

The League of Women Voters Candidates Forum was broadcast on the cable local access channel last night, April 2nd. Here is the link to the Neenah city web site page that contains the video:

http://www.ci.neenah.wi.us/meeting_20090326.html

The aldermanic forum makes up the first 45 minutes of the video while the Board of Education forum takes up the remainder.

I'd appreciate hearing what you think about it.

The essential fact about political pressure

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:45:00 GMT

In making my rounds today, talking with people in the 3rd district about the upcoming elections, I had a real-time opportunity to expand on the topic of political pressure. The essential fact of it is this: the pressure needs to be constant.

For example: sidewalks. If a neighborhood subcollector street is slated for sidewalk installation in the 5-year plan or in next year's proposed budget, the property owners can circulate a petition to oppose it. Then they bring it to City Hall, contact their aldermen with their concerns, appear at the budget hearing when sidewalk budgets are discussed, and make presentations before the entire Common Council. The pressure is more effective and directly proportional to the percentage of people in a neighborhood that sign the petition. Also, the more neighbors that show up at a public hearing or a committee meeting, the greater the impact on the aldermen.

But one petition doesn't do it. The city, in this respect, acts like an amoeba surrounding food: if the food is a bit too hot to handle, the amoeba -- acting on the old stimulus-response survival mode -- flows past it...but it'll send out a pseudopod later to see if the food has cooled down.

Well, maybe that wasn't the greatest metaphor in the world, but the point is: once a sidewalk is drawn on the neighborhood map, it tries to become an actual sidewalk over and over again. Therefore, property owners that don't want to see a sidewalk in their neighborhood have to keep up the pressure on their aldermen and the Council to postpone the installation time after time.

There is no civic political decision that can be made once and for all. Citizens must remain vigilant and keep pumping, sometimes every year, sometimes every other year...but it's never-ending. That amoeba is ready to flow back and engulf the neighborhood again sometime in the future.

Sidewalks -- must they go in?

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:24:00 GMT

I had a very stimulating time talking with a couple of folks on Baytree Lane while I was making my rounds last weekend. I followed up my visit with an email detailing the portion of the March 24th Public Services & Safety Committee meeting as well as e-mail correspondence with the City Attorney and the Deputy Public Works Director. Here's what I wrote:

The sidewalk issue is big. It's also convoluted. I did a bit of research before the Tuesday night Public Services & Safety Committee meeting and I came prepared to ask for more information. Here's what I said before the committee:

When I was out knocking on doors in the Baytree Lane area the other day, I talked with a couple of people that had signed a petition asking the city not to build sidewalks on their street for the possible construction of the school out in that area. I talked with them for about half an hour, and it was a measure of how steamed they were about it, and you know as well as I do how steamed people can get about sidewalks.

The reason I'm speaking now is: I looked through the Sidewalk and Trail Construction and Repair ordinance in the municipal code and, seeing as how the Public Works Director and the Deputy Public Works Director and the former Public Works Director are here, I thought possibly I could get some authoritative information.

Is Baytree a "neighborhood collector" or a "subcollector" street?

Gerry Kaiser answered, "It's a neighborhood subcollector."

It is a subcollector, OK. Then, according to the ordinances, a subcollector street shall have sidewalks or trails installed if any of the following criteria are met; there are three simple ones:

The first one is: designated by the city at the time of plat approval

Second is: when unsafe conditions are determined by the city

And the third is: when the combined vehicle and pedestrian counts warrant sidewalk or trail installation

There isn't any detail in the ordinances, of course, about what the threshold is for the combined traffic and pedestrian count; the definition of "unsafe conditions" is not defined; and what I'm curious about is: this section of town -- that whole area south of Breezewood, where all the houses have been built within the last 15 years or so -- none of them or very few of them have sidewalks in front of them. So here are all these houses and they're facing...every single one is facing having a sidewalk built in front of it because of some designation.

What I'm curious about is: what criteria have been met in that area? I'm presuming that the plat had sidewalks sketched in in the approved plat. I'm not going to ask for a really definitive answer now; but I'm trying to follow up to see, is there anything that these folks can do?

It appears, with the school budgets as unsettled as they are and, possibly, remaining so for some time, that the construction of a school is only a question mark at this point; it isn't set in concrete like the Breezewood interchange on highway 41 is. So it might be a moot point if that school is not built or if it's pushed way off into the future.

I'm curious about what the status of sidewalks are: is it going to be like Alexander and Bruce last November at the Council meeting where the budget was approved, where a petition is signed by every resident on this little street, and they do a survey of how many kids actually walk on that street. In that case it was one kid who walked to a bus to go to a different school than Lakeview which is the closest one to that street.

On Baytree, neighbors were told that that is, more or less, a corridor to get to Neenah High School. They're riled. Right now it's fine because a year ago they submitted the petition and the sidewalk construction was deferred until 2011. In the ordinance the statement is made that compliance with the state guidelines will be met by 2010; so that makes me curious, too. If it's pushed off by a couple of years but the guidelines have to be met by 2010...whoops! Where are we? What's the definitive answer? Can these people say (makes slashing motion across throat) to sidewalks? Can a petition be effective for them? That's what I'm trying to find out.

Gerry Kaiser was asked by chairman Zaretzke to give an answer:

Well, I'll touch on a couple points quickly. The guidelines you mentioned, those aren't mandates. Basically, what we're looking at, what we developed back when that ordinance was prepared, was a city-wide network of trails and sidewalks to connect, basically, every neighborhood by sidewalk. So the arterial streets, collector streets, and then the neighborhood subcollectors would penetrate into those individual neighborhoods and are used by all the residents in those neighborhoods, in an effort to provide the pedestrians with the same opportunity that the motorists have.

The pedestrian element is one that we need to keep in mind in all of these neighborhoods. We don't want to have everyone have to get around by car; it's not sustainable, if you want to use the current parlance.

So that ordinance change was a) an effort to clear up what, prior to that, was a very nebulous, kind of muddy ordinance; and then, from that, the sidewalk and trails map was developed and reviewed by the Council. In the capital improvements budget we've been identifying segments that we can fill in on that sidewalk and trails map, so that we can get that network built out.

That's where Alexander and Bruce came into play. Current budget conditions will certainly dictate how aggressive we can be with any of that sidewalk and trail installation.

Chairman Zaretzke asked me if that answered my question. I replied, "Not really, but it's a start!"

Then the Mayor contributed:

I think the general answer is that as with any CIP (Capital Improvement Project) issue or project, "the Mayor proposes and the Council disposes." And so, certainly a petition can be considered by both entities, by the Mayor and by the Council; but I guess the legitimate question would be: Has the area clearly, for example, met safety concerns?

But people that live there say, "Well, we just don't want a sidewalk because we don't want to have to shovel and we don't want to have to do all this and that", then you have to balance those. I think that it's not always as simple as just taking a head count; because you can have, today, a small number of residents that drive on the street, you can have a small number of pedestrians that use the street...in a few years the neighborhoods change over, younger families might move in, now all of a sudden you've got a fairly large number of kids using the area. So I think there's all kinds of factors that have to enter into making a decision about any capital project, but especially sidewalks because, oftentimes, residents don't want them for reasons that are different than what the city has considered. They don't want them because they're inconvenient, they're a lot of work -- you've got to maintain them, you've got to shovel them, all kinds of things.

Those are all factors that we look at; but the CIP budget has not been released yet; it will be on Friday, and then the Council will deliberate -- not just on Alexander and Bruce, but Baytree and all the other ones that are included in that five-year plan.

Alderman Hillstrom asked Deputy Public Works Director Kaiser, "We are,Gerry, talking about sidewalk on one side only, right?"

Kaiser responded, "Yeah, with a neighborhood subcollector, it would be on one side."

The Mayor added:

It would be hard, I think, to justify putting a sidewalk in on Baytree if we have no sidewalks feeding into it. That's sometimes been the case. West Cecil Street, for example, has a sidewalk; none of the streets that feed into West Cecil Street have sidewalks. So kids walk in the road until they get to Cecil Street, then they have a sidewalk. At the time I didn't think it was a good thing; now I tend to agree that it was necessary but probably sidewalks -- places like Babcock and Pendleton and maybe some other places -- should be considered as well.

Then Council President Stevenson chimed in:

I'll just chime in that -- the Mayor alluded to it -- the ultimate decision on sidewalks is a political decision. The rationale and justificaiton that the politicians use to make that political decision is based on guidelines that we asked the city to develop and maintain. As politicians, we look to those guidelines to determine whether it's a safe walking route by the school district and the pedestrian crossings; and all the criteria. You can be meeting every criteria but the politicians choose not to put it in for whatever reason. Mr. Schroeder on Baytree is very vocal -- that might be one reason. Or we may meet none of the criteria and we choose to put it in.

My point is: it's a political decision based, theoretically, on rational justification.

I apologize for laying this all out in such detail. I transcribed my recording of the Public Services & Safety Committee so that you could read for yourselves exactly what was said.

I got a couple big points out of all this:

The argument can be made -- quite strongly, I think -- that the cost of sidewalk installation should be borne by those "younger families" that "might move in", as the Mayor said. Yes, neighborhoods grow and change, but, currently, you've only got two high school age kids that live on the street -- and they drive cars to school! Why not defer the building of the sidewalks and have the cost borne by those "younger families"?

There are no state statutes that require sidewalks to be built on neighborhood subcollector streets like Baytree Lane. The city has language in its ordinances that define the basic criteria for making the decision to build sidewalks, but...

The decision to install sidewalks is a political one. That is, the property owners have a say through the petition process and through regular communication with their aldermen. As President Stevenson said, "Mr. Schroeder on Baytree is very vocal -- that might be one reason" not to build sidewalks.

I think that this was very positive. I went further, though, and wrote yesterday to the City Attorney, Jim Godlewski, and to Deputy Public Works Director Kaiser. Here's the text of my e-mail:

Dear Jim and Gerry,

On Tuesday night I asked several questions about sidewalks and began to get an answer to some of them. I would like to follow up to get a better idea of when and where sidewalks are installed.

Specifically:

Is a copy of the map laying out projected sidewalks available to me? Is there one showing school routes?

Are there guidelines or more specific policies that help determine the thresholds for "combined vehicle and pedestrian counts" to support city ordinance 14-57(4)?

Did the plats for the area south of Breezewood Lane have designated sidewalks? If so, why would that one criterion be enough to require the installation of sidewalks?

What agency determines where the school routes are?

If Baytree Lane is a school route, what about Pinehurst, Wedgewood, or Mulberry? I see that all three of those streets have sidewalks installed in small stretches; what happened there? They're all closer to the high school than Baytree south of Breezewood. Would they not be better candidates for school route designation and sidewalk installation? I've talked to people on those streets who shake their heads at the hot-rodding that goes on. Are they not greater safety hazards than Baytree south of Breezewood?

Which criteria under 14-57(4) does Baytree south of Breezewood meet?

Have there been pedestrian and vehicle counts taken on Baytree or the surrounding streets? Are the results available?

I'm sorry to lay this on so thick; however it does seem odd to me that:

If a plat is approved with sidewalks sketched in before anyone has a home built there, why does that trump the interests of the people that actually built homes there? Sorry if that question is confrontational, but when there is a unanimous or near-unanimous desire on the part of property owners not to install sidewalks, it's pretty hard cheese to be told that their wishes are all for naught because of lines drawn on a map before any houses were built. Paragraph a. of ordinance 14-57(4) seems entirely too slanted towards municipal control.

Considering the large number of streets without sidewalks in the city I have to wonder why -- especially in the recent subdivisions -- sidewalks weren't built right away. This type of question would never arise. Why require sidewalks long after the houses are built?

Thank you for your attention and for helping me understand these matters.

Sincerely,

Steve Erbach
1017 Babcock St.
Neenah, WI
920-725-6095

Yesterday afternoon, I received a reply from the City Attorney:
Steve:

Gerry is much more versed on sidewalk policy, so I think he may be best to
respond to your specific questions.

With regard to sidewalks and new plats, typically the projected sidewalks
are shown or noted on the plat and are referred to in the development
agreement that is recorded.  People buying lots in those subdivisions are
therefore on notice that sidewalks will come eventually.  Sidewalks are
planned in accordance with the City's sidewalk policy, which is approved by
the Council.  In my  experience, the vast majority of people would say that
they do not want sidewalks in front of their house.  But the council
considered other factors when developing a sidewalk policy, including the
need for promoting pedestrian safety and encouraging pedestrian activity.
When to put sidewalks in is a political decision that depends on a variety
of factors, ultimately determined by the Council.

Jim Godlewski
Neenah City Attorney
PO Box 426
Neenah, WI  54957-0426
920-886-6106
920-886-6109 (fax)
Again, the City Attorney stresses the political nature of the decision to install sidewalks; that is, citizen pressure on the aldermen and on the Council can be used to divert the juggernaut of sidewalk construction.

I will relay to you any further communications I have.

Sincerely,

Steve Erbach
725-6095

The League of Women Voters Candidates Forum

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:47:00 GMT

I participated for the second time last night in a League of Women Voters Candidates Forum. This time there were just two candidates "debating": myself and my opponent, Mr. Hamblin. Gone were the multiple contested races and the full panel of candidates as in '07. At that time, two ex-Neenah police officers were on the ballots for Districts 1 and 2, making for very lively and significant races.

Another change this time: because there were only the two of us, the League allowed each of us two minutes to respond to the questions. That is an enormous difference from the standard one minute. I remember in '07 that I saw the 15-second warning sign frequently. This time, only once or twice.

The city of Neenah will upload the video of the forum very soon. I'm quite interested to see it because of what my brother, Dan, said.

He was sitting in the audience next to my wife, Janet, and he said that he watched the both of us very carefully. He had some very pertinent and revealing things to say about how I and my opponent presented ourselves, sometimes quite surprising things. I will post the address of the video here when it becomes available so that you can judge for yourself.

Here is the text of my opening remarks:

My name is Steve Erbach and I live at 1017 Babcock St.

For the past five years I've written regular pieces for the Appleton Post-Crescent. From reading those pieces you'd know that, in general, I favor smaller, less obtrusive government and more individual freedom. Lower taxes, fewer regulations, and self-reliance rather than reliance on government are my watchwords, too.

Besides serving on the Council in '06 and '07, I was a Cubmaster and Assistant Cubmaster at two Neenah elementary schools for six years. I'd like to adapt the Cub Scout motto -- Do Your Best -- as a theme for my re-election to the Council:

I promise to do my best to keep an eye on the budget as carefully as Council President Stevenson; to guard property rights with as much determination as Alderman Piergrossi; to speak out on issues as clearly as Mayor Scherck; to be as tenacious as Alderman Hemes; to be as fair as Alderman Bates; to be as supportive of the community as Alderman Zaretzke; to be as smart about money as Alderman Lange; to be as down-to-earth as Alderman Ahles; to be as committed to Neenah's well-being as Alderman Hillstrom; and to be as solid a citizen as Alderman Rhoades.

Now, I'm not going to be a pushover. I feel that there are a number of things the city does that could stand a fresh look -- for example, the city planning philosophy that says "anything not expressly permitted is forbidden"; the way new sidewalk installation is handled; the way some city services are delivered; and the continued reliance on TIF to fuel growth.

Neenah has done extremely well. I love living here; and I'd love to listen to what the people of the Third District have to say, and I'd love to represent them to give them the strongest voice possible as Neenah makes its way through these troubled times.

I was able to make eye contact with five of the nine aldermen as well as the Mayor during the time I mentioned them by name.

After the forum I greeted many of the people that were there. I spoke briefly with State Assemblyman, Dean Kaufert, too. He was generous enough to allow me to use the banquet room in his Under the Dome tavern (116 Main St., Neenah) for my election night party (you're all invited!). He was kind enough to say that when people asked him about me he told them that I had energy and was involved and interested and that I asked questions. Very considerate of him to say that, I thought.

I didn't stay for the Board of Education portion of the Candidates Forum as my brother was visiting from Afghanistan and I wanted to spend a little time with him since he came all that way! I was interested in seeing Scott Butler as well as the only non-incumbent candidate, Betsy Ellenberger, but I'll have to content myself with watching the recording of the event. At least there is a recording this time!

Follow-up from Realtor's Association

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:12:00 GMT

I was promised that the Realtor's Association of Northeast Wisconsin would get back to me by Monday to let me know if they supported my candidacy for alderman instead of my opponent's. I got the letter today:

Our Association's Board of Directors has chosen not to endorse your campaign. It is our hope however, that the prevailing candidates will consider our Association's expertise, particularly on issues related to housing, land use regulations and economic development, a valuable tool in solving problems that we'll surely be confronting now and in the future.

What does this mean? Probably very little. The group was very professional and the members were tolerant of what I had to say. But in the end it boils down to whether the voters approve of me, not the Realtor's Association. It would have been nice to add its endorsement to my political resumé, but I don't have a huge PR firm that puts out press releases and such. I have to contact people one-at-a-time.

Application for Sustainable Neenah

steve-erbach@new.rr.com — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:38:00 GMT

I've been to three, maybe four Sustainable Neenah Committee meetings, now, and I've become more interested in their activities. I started going to its meetings when I read an article highlighting the steps the Madison Zoning Board is considering for future zoning law changes to incorporate "sustainability" and "climate change" factors.

So I took the step of applying for membership on the Committee. The "Application for Appointment" asked me to write "a brief statement outlining your interest and qualifications for this appointment". Here's what I wrote:

I am currently a member of the Mayor's Citizen Advisory Committee. In the past (2006-2007) I served on the Neenah Common Council, the Public Services & Safety Committee, and the Waterworks Commission.