Shorelines

It seems that the Wilson makeover is something of a controversy --- wider, narrower, two lanes, four lanes, stop signs, parking, etc... and from reading responses from the Village Officials, it seems that all is open for discussion, except that which they have already decided to do. Though it would be refreshing if there is some real consideration given to the opinions of the residents.

Steve Koczela's blog regarding Stop Signs is very informative, and hopefully will be considered as to its Green impact.

Another consideration that may or may not apply, is what is underneath Wilson. Since we are planning on tearing up the entire street anyway --- what kind of sewers are there --- storm and sanitary, or just sanitary ? Are the any opportunities here for tweaking our defective sewer system ?

Unfortunately as we read several times a year about Shorewood dumping raw sewage into the river* --- is there an opportunity here for working with MMSD ---- perhaps a "mini deep tunnel" to help with Shorewood's sewage overflows ? Maybe MMSD would help with the reconstruction costs ?

Hopefully our Village officials will look at all these aspects --- and once the Conservation Committee is up and running, they can also provide some guidance as to the Green alternatives in rebuilding Wilson.


* April 7, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "A spring storm Tuesday morning that poured more than 2 inches of rain in several hours on communities throughout metro Milwaukee led to the dumping of an unknown volume of sewage and storm water from combined sewers in Milwaukee and Shorewood to local rivers and Lake Michigan. The overflows had not abated by evening"

The success of Annette Ziegler in her bid for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice had to be the most disturbing election result of the April 3rd elections. This was an election for a “non-partisan” office, that was anything but non-partisan. The Republicans openly backed Ziegler, while the Democrat’s candidate was Linda Clifford.

Ideology aside, there was a serious question of ethics with disclosures that Ziegler often ruled on cases in which she or her husband had a financial interest --- without disclosing that interest to the parties involved in the judicial proceeding.

As announced today in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Wisconsin State Ethics Board has filed a complaint against Ziegler for improperly deciding cases in which she had a conflicting interest.

It is especially noteworthy that the independent Ethics Board has never before filed a complaint against a sitting judge.

The disturbing part of all this, is that the voters gave Ziegler 58% of the vote, despite the widespread knowledge of her actions, prior to the election. This was not a case in which the facts came to light after the election, it was all well known to the electorate long before they entered the voting booth.

Prior to the election, the State Journal reported that Ziegler presided over at least 22 cases involving companies in which she owned $50,000 or more in stock and 46 cases involving a bank where her husband is on the board of directors without withdrawing or revealing a possible conflict of interest.

Prior to the election, as reported by the State Journal, Ziegler even acknowledged that she had not followed the law.

“In two campaign stops, Supreme Court candidate Annette Ziegler repeatedly defended her choice as a circuit judge to preside over dozens of cases involving a bank with which she had personal and financial ties.

Ziegler said she uses a "gut check" to decide if she has a conflict of interest. Her husband's position on the bank's board of directors didn't affect her judgment in the cases, she said.”

As reported in the In Dodgeville Chronicle,

“The most pointed questioning came from Elsa Greene, of Barneveld, a former deputy of the agency that regulates attorney conduct. She held a copy of the Supreme Court rules.

Said Greene: "Do you consider the rule applicable to you?

Ziegler responded, "I am a good judge."

Greene repeated the question.

Ziegler responded, "I do the best I can to be fair and impartial."

On Monday, the newspaper also reviewed five cases handled by Ziegler involving United Healthcare of Wisconsin. Ziegler owns more than $50,000 in stock in United Healthcare. The files, which covered cases heard between 2002 and 2006, also showed no evidence that Ziegler notified the parties of a potential conflict of interest.

Ziegler declined to answer questions about the United Healthcare cases, saying she would have to review them to determine whether she had a conflict of interest. Alexander, of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, said Monday the test is whether the investment is significant to the judge, significant to the company issuing the stock or would "raise reasonable question as to a judge's impartiality." “

Now that the voters have elected Ziegler to the Highest Court in the State, despite her acknowledged violation of the law, the following questions come to mind:

1) Do the voters care enough to learn about the issues and candidates prior to casting their vote?

2) Is partisanship so hardened that voters will hold their noses and vote for the candidate their party supports ?

3) With all the money put into the race by special interests, party supporters and the candidates themselves (this was the most expensive race for the Wisconsin Supreme Court ever), is this just an example of the “best government money can buy ?

Lastly, if we as voters choose to leave our morals and ethics at home when we go out to vote --- don’t we deserve the kind of government we get ?

What do you think ?

Please e mail your opinion to me and I will publish it in this blog.

When I posted my comments on the SHS incident and police involvement, I invited readers to send their comments for publication. Here is one I received from Nancy Darrow. What is YOUR opinion ? Please feel free to join in the discussion.

"Dear Dave,

My opinion? Your insouciant attitude is unwarranted and contributes to an unfortunate lowering of community standards.

It's easy to be dismissive of the perceptions of teachers who are caught between angry adult-sized students trading barbs or swings. We don't know the specific circumstances that caused the SHS administration to call the police regarding a “shouting match.” And who wants to live in a community where the police dispatcher doesn't send a squad car to investigate a report of an altercation on the city streets involving 20 students? Or where officers breaking up a brawl don't issue disorderly conduct tickets? I choose to give the administration and police the benefit of the doubt.

Furthermore, yes, many years ago, in what you dub “the good old days,” schoolboys resolving a dispute with fisticuffs was considered a harmless, “boys will be boys” behavior (although I'm sure that even then, kids caught on the wrong side of a fist or intimidated by their classmates' behavior would disagree with your flippant attitude toward school violence). Times have changed, thank goodness. Most would say that respect matters, even among “mere” schoolchildren, and that allowing children to resolve disputes with violence is not exactly good character training for adult life in the workplace, the community, or the international scene. As a community, we should hold ourselves and our children to higher standards of behavior than brawling in the mud, even if you find such behavior “refreshing.” Surely teenage boys who have the language skills to handle the academic curriculum at our high achieving high school have the language skills to negotiate a resolution to a dispute over an unpaid loan.

Your reasoning reminds me of the ridicule that Mayor Giuliani and Police Chief Bratton received when New York City first began cracking down on quality-of-life crimes, including clearing the streets of menacing squeegee men. As soon as you say the little stuff is “no big deal,” erosion of public behavior begins, and when you address it in a measured way, you see improvement in quality of life. I don't laugh off young people eagerly goading others into fighting, teenagers resorting to fistfights, or weaponless assaults. I think what happened at the high school should lead to making sober assessments, paying attention to what messages we're sending our kids about conflict resolution and what we expect them to do when they see trouble brewing, and thinking again about whether or not we're teaching children the skills they need to be good citizens. I'm glad to hear that the administration is doing just that.

Yours,
Nancy Darrow"

Well --- did that headline get your attention ? If it did, then I succeeded in doing what the Village Board is so successful at – only in reverse.

I had maintained throughout the recent trustee campaign that the Village Board was overly obsessed with “business” in Shorewood, to the detriment of the “residential” component of the Village.

Focusing on business makes the Village Board look good. We all traverse the main streets of the Village --- and the business facades are prominent and easy to visualize. In contrast, there is not the same visualization factor of the residential infrastructure --- which is actually the Backbone of Shorewood.

In Steve Koczela’s critique of the Legion Post debate, in his blog he posted ( in part):

“While Michael Phinney insisted that he has been a champion of business in Shorewood, Eckman pointed to her vote against the smoking ban as evidence of her pro-business stance…..

Eckman also claimed credit (somewhat dubiously) for some of the new businesses in Shorewood, at least one of which is actually located in a building owned by Dave Tatarowicz.”

Knowing that *Success has many Fathers, but Failure is an Orphan* --- I thought it would be interesting to note the businesses that have recently closed, and/or left the village, and/or moved and the landlords have not been able to quickly fill the spaces. With the loud rhetoric emanating from the Village Board on how well it is doing for business, through its own actions and vis-a-vis the BID ---- I wonder who will offer to adopt the following Orphans !

4517 N Oakland Stone Age Jewelers
4144 N Oakland Carriage Cleaners
4522 N Oakland ???
3575 N Oakland 8,000 SF Street Level Retail
1808 E Capitol Cajun Food
1926 E Capitol Irish Dance Studio (moved to larger quarters, space still vacant)
1522 E Capitol Phone Store
3801 N Oakland Coffee Café
4013 N Oakland Shorewood Wine Bar
4022 N Oakland Red Rock Café

The BID does have an excellent section on its website, under the Business Opportunities Section, for Space Available --- but it has never listed any of these spaces for potential businesses to find !

PLEASE NOTE: I am not advocating that there is really a lot that the Village or the BID can or could do in relation to these businesses closing, or the spaces that remained vacant so long. Actually, just the opposite --- businesses will come and go, when it is in the best interests of the business owners, landlords, and patrons. And the effect of Village government in exactly how those dynamics work out, is extremely limited.

Unfortunately, as long as there is the “wow” factor involved in such highly visual projects as the Streetscape Program, the BID, and now the threatened diminution of Wilson – that is where the efforts and our taxes will go.

Almost daily, it seems, there is a news story about some kid bringing a gun to school, or a student being shot or shooting someone. And when a discussion of these incidents comes up, it is not unusual for someone to say “ in the Good Old Days --- we had our fistfights, but nobody was shooting at anyone”.

Yessiree --- in the Good Old Days ! We kind of looked at kids getting into fights in the way that Ole Sheriff Taylor, would have,.

If little Opie got into a scuffle at school, Andy would have been mostly concerned about whether the fight was fair, and he might even have talked to the school principal or teacher about the situation --- not as a Sheriff, but as a Parent.

It was almost refreshing a couple of weeks ago when two students at Shorewood High School turned to fisticuffs to resolve a dispute. No guns, knives, bottles, sticks or stones --- and it seemed (from the video) that both guys were about the same size --- probably not a “bully” thing.

Yep refreshing --- versus the continuous reports of guns and shootings, right next door in Milwaukee at MPS schools.

But wait --- some kid had a video camera, so the scuffle became a news lead on probably every TV channel for days. At the same time that there was real violence going on in Milwaukee, with people dying, our news channels thought two teenagers rolling in the mud was worthy of countless re-showings as a “major” news story.

Additionally, this Non-Event-Phenomena-News-Sensation however, got the Shorewood Police Department involved. Apparently the school officials felt the scuffle was a criminal issue, that needed to be dealt with by the legal system.

It is hard for me to imagine police involvement in an occurrence of this nature 40 years ago when I was in high school in the 60’s. And I don’t imagine that back then, the police in Shorewood would have normally been called for something of this nature.

Nowadays, though, it seems that the high school officials turn to the police for almost all disciplinary situations. According to my information, the police have even called to the high school to issue tickets for disorderly conduct to students involved in a shouting match --- no hitting or physical contact involved --- 100% verbal !

Why ? Why do we now involve the police in school disciplinary matters now, when we didn’t do so years ago ? Is it because of a new racial mix in the high school … are our school officials now lacking in skills necessary for dealing with such situations … have our laws tied the hands of school officials ?

What? What does this tell the kids in school ? Break a school rule and you will be punished in the school system --- and have to go to court too ! Break a school rule and we will call someone with a badge and a gun to deal with you … proportionality to the infraction does not apply !

Should kids fight in school (or off school property) --- NO. Will kids sometimes fight --- YES. Is it a situation for the Police --- sometimes --- but in my opinion, probably not this time.

Of concern to me about this fight, was when some of the onlookers decided to get involved by kicking the fighters. I still believe that the best venue for discipline and counseling for the fight is at the school level, and I believe that the four or so “kickers” deserve as much or more discipline than the actual combatants --- at least under the rules of the “Good Old Days”, that would be normal.

Perhaps we need a boxing program at the high school. In the “Good Old Days”, it was not unusual for the school coach to take the fighters to the ring, put the gloves on, and have them duke it out --- usually to end up shaking hands when it was all over. Besides, from the video that I saw, neither one knew how to throw a punch --- about all they were capable of hurting was their pride!

WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ?

Please e mail your opinion for publication: datdave2000@yahoo.com

I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to the 596 citizens who cast their vote for me for Village Trustee.

I hope that my campaign for Trustee raised awareness in the Village about some very important issues; IE. New Sreetscaping Program without a Post Mortem as to why the last Sreetscaping was such a Disaster, Bid District Expenditures, Unsecured Loans to Businesses, Consideration for the Needs of our Senior Population, Ecology Consciousness and Awareness in Government Actions, and the Overall Emphasis on Shorewood Business (hi visibility sizzle) with a Decided Lack of Attention to our Residential Infrastructure (low visibility steak).

As the voter turn out for this election was quite low, I do not think it reflects a mandate for the status quo, and I have to wonder if I could have / should have, done more to get the message out.

These issues and others I believe, are very important, and suffer the lack of attention they deserve, by a Village Board that values consensus and status quo, more than introspection and questions. Hopefully, through continued publication of this blog, more deserving questions will ultimately be addressed.

Ironically after all the fuss in the media about the Shorewood Village Board spending $225,000 to “market Shorewood”, the same Village Board has decided that it should save an estimated $2,350 by not publicizing its actions in any newspaper.

Per Village Resolution 2007-6, the Village Board unanimously voted NOT to publish any public notices, ordinances, minutes of proceedings, or other notices, unless required by law.

In lieu of publishing in a newspaper, the Board decided that it would simply post them on bulletin boards in the Village, and also put them on the Village’s website (which is notoriously out of date). In their action, the Board even rejected a suggestion by me, that they at least put out a “free” Press Release to area publications, to alert the media to actions by the Village.

I believe that this new policy by the Board goes in exactly the opposite direction of more OPEN government, that citizens are increasingly demanding of their elected officials.

Such a policy of going “stealth” with the actions of the Village Board, makes an even greater mockery of the Marketing Shorewood plan, that will cost Village Taxpayers $225,000, and which the Board received much derision from “talking head” types like Jessica McBride. Or maybe, with this new policy, they are hoping that such actions do not get the light of day they deserve – and keep them off the Hot Seat !