From: "Hale, C. Kate" <HALECL@uwec.edu> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 20:32:02 -0600 Subject: FW: In Tom Giffey's Opinion Message-ID: <6DCE403B991434499E60901A1A1EC1625F89FB4E6A@CHERRYCOKE.uwec.edu>
Since Ken does not have access to the SFPJ listserve, I'm forwarding this e
mail he sent to me.
Kate
________________________________________
From: ken@fulgione.net [ken@fulgione.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 6:18 PM
To: Hale, C. Kate
Subject: RE: In Tom Giffey's Opinion
Kate,
I do not have access to the listserve but I did write to Tom this morning
about his very mis-informative editorial > see below.
Ken
Dear Tom,
Your editorial in Sunday's paper was wrong & miss leading.... in fact it wa
s
an example of very bad journalism as it now creates a more mis-informed
public at a crucial point in time.
The City Council (that is that body of elected officials who represent the
best interests of the city of Eau Claire - you know the ones who have
public input on Mondays and face their constituents on a regular basis) -
the City Council will have to re-zone the area that the county wants to
build on... The Plan Commission will also have to take up the matter of
changing the Comprehensive Plan to allow for the construction of a Jail &
other future county plans in the Courthouse district in opposition to the
comprehensive plan as it now stands and it's intent. When will you mention
those points????
You asked the question of where was the public during all of the county's
march toward placing the jail across the street from the bike trail ...(is
that better?) on the riverfront? Well, most of Eau Claire was listening to
the city talk about a new commitment to our river front development. They
were attending Phoenix park events, hanging out at a restaurant downtown &
watching the debate over when new projects would begin to make better use o
f
the riverfronts. They were getting excited about a new commitment to liven
up our waterfronts with restaurants, music venues, boutiques and unique
shopping experiences. Some of them may have either been involved with or
heard about the city's 2 year effort to develop an award winning
comprehensive plan that also promoted those same efforts. Unless they were
directly involved in the development of that plan for the city, they may no
t
have noticed that the county had refused to attend and turned its back on
the city's invitation to attend the comprehensive plan community sessions.
So Tom, maybe you should really be asking where has the county been the pas
t
3 or 4 years? The downtown direction has been clear. The intent was
documented and the effort was begun ..... but the county has not been payin
g
attention to what the members of the city of Eau Claire have been saying..
The location they will be asking the city to re-zone for their future growt
h
plans, the 4 to 5 story expanding jail, the new courthouse and the 3 story
parking ramp, was not intended to hold all of that. The public read the
plan, saw the direction the city was going and "assumed" the county would
have heard this as well. You put the onus on the public when you should
actually put it on the county. Where have they been?
I believe you need to correct the facts of your editorial. First of all we
did not have a "protest" march on the county board. I helped organize it
Tom. It was clearly stated as an AWARENESS RALLY. We were trying to put
the focus on this issue as it will approach the city council in the near
future. Then, your question of the week about referendums clouded the
issue. Sure it was a disgrace that they would not give the taxpayers a
change to vote on this.... but that was not what people were talking about
the most. It was the focus the LT decided to follow. Either you don't ge
t
it or you were intentionally mis-directing the discussion.
How many letters you have received about the jail issue that you have not
yet published? And now your bogus editorial has done another dis-service
to your readers by mis-informing, mis-accusing and mis-directing the issue
once again. . If you can't figure out what is going on right now ..... how
can you expect the public to stay abreast?
Not once have you reported the procedures that still need to occur with
regard to the construction of the jail. You have not reported that the cit
y
will eventually be taking up this question and will need to re-zone this
property before it can continue. Without the re-zoning of this land, the
jail can not be built. You have not reported about the possibility of a
protest petition from the public around the re-zoning of the land that coul
d
force a required super majority vote on the council. Now who is falling
down on their job and will later say that the public should have been there
to stop this when they could have?
You have a responsibility to keep people informed. Something is clouding
your vision,,, maybe too many late night Woody Allen flicks.... remember
Woody loved the underdog....
Ken Fulgione
-----Original Message-----
From: Hale, C. Kate [mailto: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
been 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 other
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
courthouse, 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
passed 17-10.) Jail opponents complain the jail is too costly, that its
location 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
secret.
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
government decisions? Typically, we only pay attention when something is
either going to happen in our backyard or hit us in the pocketbook - both
the case 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
August 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
Second Avenue from the courthouse - exactly the spot it will be built. Over
the ensuing years, dozens - if not hundreds - of public events have been
held to discuss the project, including community forums and public meetings
of the County Board and its committees. In addition, scores of media report
s
detailed the planning process both before and after the board's approval of
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 dashing
breathlessly into a church and trying to stop a wedding after the vows have
been exchanged. It's a dramatic but ineffective gesture.
Nonetheless, the anti-jail contingent makes some worthy points. For
instance, various maps have shown various footprints for the building and
its parking areas, leading to uncertainty about which neighborhood building
s
will be bought and demolished by the county. This puts some small businesse
s
- particularly Just Local Food Co-op, the downtown's only grocery store - i
n
difficult positions.
Protesters also are correct to point out that it's unfortunate the voters
won't be able to approve or reject the jail spending via a referendum, as
they do for school projects. However, it's worth noting that any referendum
would have been nonbinding anyway. If taxpayers believe referendums should
be held for such spending, they should complain to the state Legislature,
which 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
downtown. The word "riverfront" implies it will be built at the water's
edge. This is certainly not the case: The structure will be separated from
the Chippewa River by several hundred feet of shoreline, trees, green space
,
street and sidewalk. Certainly, it will be visible from the other side of
the river, but so is the current jail. Keeping public buildings and the job
s
they provide in the downtown will, on balance, help the neighborhood, not
harm it.
- Tom Giffey, editorial page editor