From: "Gragert, Jeremy Evan" <GRAGERJE@uwec.edu> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 18:30:37 -0600 Subject: RE: In Tom Giffey's Opinion Message-ID: <DC9F505A4ACB32489179913AE656565940D9E5788F@CHERRYCOKE.uwec.edu>
My response to Tom Giffey:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeremy Gragert <jgragert@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Subject: Your jail editorial
To: Tom Giffey <tom.giffey@ecpc.com>
Hi Tom,
I wanted to point out a few things related to your editorial's theme: that
the public did not object to the county jail project in time, and the publi
c was given plenty of opportunities to have input.
From my perspective, as someone who followed the jail project closely from
summer 2005 to now, the county has been fairly bad at listening to input fr
om the general public. Early in the process the county officials would ofte
n say that input given was coming too prematurely, since the county had not
entered the phase of the process for that type of input yet. Then, at a la
ter point in time, that very same type of input would be brushed aside, whe
n the county would say the input is coming too late, and that particular as
pect of the decision was a done deal. And that is if a citizen managed to a
ttend and speak at two public meetings on the issue -- not an easy task.
The county largely only had an interest in hearing from established groups
and community leaders, such as businesses interests, and failed to take int
o account input from the general public. Often, these presentations only en
couraged questions to clarify what was already planned, rather than input o
n the future or objections to past decisions. Few members of the general pu
blic got presentations or were invited to meetings or serve on committees r
elated to the jail issue. Few if any established organizations were willing
to stand up to the county or felt it was within their purview to comment o
n the jail issue. I saw one presentation in Spring 2007 while on the board
of Downtown Eau Claire, Incorporated, and even a group like that had no int
erest whatsoever in providing official input on the jail plan. I had to app
roach Frank Draxler (Project manager for the jail) in order to get the coun
ty to give a presentation to the Student Senate in spring 2007 – which th
ey would not have done otherwise.
I am a bit surprised that your editorial ignores, just as the county board
did, that over 1,000 signatures were gathered in the summer of 2006 from ac
ross Eau Claire County objecting to the proposed location for the jail. The
Student Senate, while I served on, in November 2005 passed a resolution ob
jecting to the current plans for the project at the time – mainly its loc
ation that would destroy low-income student housing and put area businesses
at risk. I count these are fairly substantial, and early, objections to th
e jail project but your editorial chooses to ignore them.
Finally, I find it disturbing that anyone would call this jail project a "d
one deal" when construction clearly has not even begun. The main strategy
that the county has been using to get this jail through is repeating the th
eme that this jail is a done deal, even when it is not – and that tactic
has been utilized on this project for years.
As the circulation numbers of the Leader-Telegram likely show, many citizen
s of this community would rather cancel the newspaper than read editorials
like the one you just wrote. Who wants to read editorials that tell them th
ey can't make a difference, and discourages them from taking part in furthe
r decision making on this issue? As a result, when something is accurately
reported on or well editorialized in the L-T there are fewer people to read
it.
Volume One, unfortunately, is far more convinced that the jail is a done de
al, to the point of not even caring to meaningfully report on it. So I do t
hank you and the L-T for at least discussing and reporting on the issue.
Jeremy
P.S. Here is a tip-off for a story:
What if citizens want to send their comments about the jail to county board
members directly?
The county's listings of county board supervisors have been consistently in
complete and inaccurate leading to few Eau Claire citizens who actually kno
w who their supervisor is. Indeed, as election time approaches, even curren
t county board members have a hard time figuring out where their districts
are: http://www.co.eau-claire.wi.us/CountyBoardMembers/index.htm
An example of what I mean by inaccurate and incomplete is the following. Lo
ok at the district 20 representative. There is no indication as to what cit
y wards district 20 includes. Then look down at Sue Miller's district 22 se
at. District 22 does list a ward, but only one of the wards she represents.
She also represents ward 24.
These innaccuracies have been pointed out repeatedly for years, and they co
unty has failed to act.
How do they expect people to contact their county board representatives if
citizens are not given accurate or complete information?
________________________________________
From: sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu [sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu] On
Behalf Of Hale, C. Kate [HALECL@uwec.edu]
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 1:14 PM
To: sfpj@listserve.uwec.edu
Cc: 'Ken@Fulgione.net'; De Grave, Jeff R.
Subject: In Tom Giffey's Opinion
You will probably have seen this from today's (Sunday's) Leader-Tel--but in
case not . . .
http://www.leadertelegram.com/story-opinions.asp?id=BFTQFKVEB09
Updated: 3/2/2008
Jail foes' protests too late to matter
The issue: Protesters object to plans for a $59.1 million Eau Claire County
Jail.
Our view: The jail is virtually a done deal; where have these objections be
en over the years while the project was being planned?
Woody Allen is often quoted as saying "80 percent of success is showing up.
" If the goal is to influence government decisions, we'll add that the othe
r 20 percent of success is paying attention.
And it's that missing 20 percent that has doomed recent efforts to prevent
the new Eau Claire County Jail from being built next to the existing courth
ouse, near the Chippewa River.
On Feb. 20, a crowd estimated at between 60 and 80 people marched on the Ea
u Claire County Board, objecting to the board's looming decision to approve
a $25 million bond to begin the $59.1 million project. (The bond measure p
assed 17-10.) Jail opponents complain the jail is too costly, that its loca
tion is wrong, that such a pricey project should require a referendum, and
that the board has ignored their objections.
Their objections also imply that the jail project has been pursued in secre
t.
As one letter to the editor published in local magazine Volume One asked, "
Who knew?"
Perhaps that's a fair question. How many of us know anything about local go
vernment decisions? Typically, we only pay attention when something is eith
er going to happen in our backyard or hit us in the pocketbook - both the c
ase here.
In this situation, however, there's hardly an excuse for not knowing about
the jail project, its location or its cost. More than four years ago - in A
ugust 2003 - the County Board requested a study of the jail's space needs.
The study, presented in June 2005, recommended building a new jail across S
econd Avenue from the courthouse - exactly the spot it will be built. Over
the ensuing years, dozens - if not hundreds - of public events have been he
ld to discuss the project, including community forums and public meetings o
f the County Board and its committees. In addition, scores of media reports
detailed the planning process both before and after the board's approval o
f the project last June.
With these facts in mind, it seems the question shouldn't be "Who knew?" bu
t "Where have you been?" Trying to block the jail project now is like dashi
ng breathlessly into a church and trying to stop a wedding after the vows h
ave been exchanged. It's a dramatic but ineffective gesture.
Nonetheless, the anti-jail contingent makes some worthy points. For instanc
e, various maps have shown various footprints for the building and its park
ing areas, leading to uncertainty about which neighborhood buildings will b
e bought and demolished by the county. This puts some small businesses - pa
rticularly Just Local Food Co-op, the downtown's only grocery store - in di
fficult positions.
Protesters also are correct to point out that it's unfortunate the voters w
on't be able to approve or reject the jail spending via a referendum, as th
ey do for school projects. However, it's worth noting that any referendum w
ould have been nonbinding anyway. If taxpayers believe referendums should b
e held for such spending, they should complain to the state Legislature, wh
ich sets the rules, not the County Board, which has to follow them.
Finally, there's the often-repeated objection that the new jail will be on
the "riverfront" and would thwart efforts to revitalize Eau Claire's downto
wn. The word "riverfront" implies it will be built at the water's edge. Thi
s is certainly not the case: The structure will be separated from the Chipp
ewa River by several hundred feet of shoreline, trees, green space, street
and sidewalk. Certainly, it will be visible from the other side of the rive
r, but so is the current jail. Keeping public buildings and the jobs they p
rovide in the downtown will, on balance, help the neighborhood, not harm it
.
- Tom Giffey, editorial page editor