Wow, important meeting and a close vote. Good story to follow.

Dustin, this vote is always the same 4-3 with the same four people voting together. Their minds have already been made before they take the vote. Like one lady said tonight, it's a million dollars an acre and who wouldn't want to feather their nest for that kind of profit?. Plus the city will condemn the lands so the landowners can be a MMINIMUM of $25K each plus moving expenses. Wouldn't you like a sweet deal like that in this booming economy? There is no cost figured for demolition, insurance, roads and trails, beach work and reconstruction of whatever buildings. Plus a fella figured is would cost $600K/per second to view the lake going 35MPH on Janesville Road. Brilliant work Common Council. Welcome to Harper Valley!!!!

Agreed, Flash - the vote is generally a given. Costs going forward if a purchase is agreed upon will actually be up to the public, as Parks Director Craig Anderson said the plan will depend on your public input, and costs will depend on what the public wants in the plan for the park. As far as the calculation, I don't think the idea was to be able to drive past the lake, but to access it from the main thoroughfare downtown.

There was a massive crowd there tonight that gave INPUT against this purchase because there is NO PLAN and if there is, it's not shared. It was an obvious vocal majority for a NO vote.

I cannot imagine purchasing a home for myself without knowing IF I can afford it, how I will finance it and what the costs would be to l maintain the home....like utility bills and taxes etc. What we witnessed by this Common Council was reckless abuse of power and a whole lot of deception. It should have been tabled until facts and figures were collected and verified and put into an actual plan for consideration. The total cost of this could go to 10-15 million and the bottom line is this city does not take care and maintain the park we do have. Either we are not spending our money wisely or someone in charge isn't doing their job keeping the parks and baseball diamonds in acceptable condition for use by the taxpayers. It's an embarrassment compounded tonight not to mention the taxpayers are already looking at a potential 5% tax increase coming from the Muskego-Norway School District next year. Suffice it to say, in this economy, this purchase is ridiculous to most.

It would be interesting to hear from people who use the baseball fields. I know Park Arthur has two or three club leagues waiting for the large field to open. Is there that much of a space issue for baseball/softball leagues (if you're a parent whose children are in MAA or an elite league). Obviously this isn't a baseball park, but I was surprised to hear that the parks are perceived as neglected. If I could vote one off the island, I think I'd pick Lions Park, which lost 'traffic' it seems when the road was changed to a no-through street.

Hope the mayor enjoys her one term!

One thing to keep in mind is not all ball diamonds are the same. Kids play on 3 sizes of fields, 60', 70' & 90' base lengths. Most of the fields we have are able to acomadate 60' bases only. So yes, it can be difficult to find enough playing surfaces for demand. I know that the 2 main baseball organizations (Jr. Warriors and MAA/storm) have been working with the city to improve and maintain the existing surfaces as well as develop new fields at Park Arthur. Once those come on line it should help quite a bit.

Not sure what this has to do with the proposed lake park, as I doubt there would be enough room at that park for playing surfaces for any sports.

Let's not divert attention from the real issue here, Denise, because I am sure you were in attendance and heard mention a number of times how poorly our parks are kept, with weeds growing from tennis court, poop on the beach at Idle Isle. Since there was a public demonstration on Sunday, covered by FOX 6 and on their 10PM news about it and I saw nothing in the Patch about the group except Muskego Proud I see your obvious lean on this issue. And to answer the question about the school taxes a gentlemen who had attended Monday evening's school board meeting brought that information up for discussion. A school board member in the audience last night did not refute the possibility of the 5% increase.

Some did ask since alderwoman, Naomi Schaumberg, defended her yes vote for this saying it would bring business to Muskego, why are there empty spaces at the Racine Ave strip mall, where were the business offices in Muskego for wealthy Cherek, Dilworth and Guardetto property owners. And, for Ms Snead who also voted yes for this, District 1 taxpayers who overwelmingly against this going forward.

Thank you to the Alderman of Muskego who realize it was much more than just a purchase of 4.5 acres of land. This was Muskego's opportunity to purchase public access to 506 acres of a Wisconsin natural resource, our beautiful Little Muskego Lake.

I really feel that this vote is going to cost some elected people thier jobs. Its a sad day for Muskego.

The President of the Chamber of Commerce made a statement in which she claimed SHE speaks for all the businesses in MUskego. Most businesses owners stay neutral in politics so as not to offend their clients and lose customers. We are currently asking the Chamber membership to explain why their President could make a statement the way she did drawing all of them into her opinion on this matter. I think what she did last night was a power grab and harmful to the business base of this community. To be contrary to the obvious majority is dangerous to say the least. Look at the results of your own poll.

The Chamber is governed by a board of directors, who approve what is publicly stated on their behalf. Business owners are nervous to speak, not neutral necessarily, because they are afraid of retaliation, which has been a method statewide and nationwide as a consequence for expressing an opinion.

Jeff,
It was my understanding that three appraisal were to be done, but only one actually was-sounds shady too me!

The mayor must be getting her pockets lined, why else would this waste of time mayor be pushing such crap. Has she taken a look at the scenery on Janesville rd, we live in a ghetto, Pick N Save's strip mall need to be updated and bring in some food venues along that route,not talking fast food either. Muskego is known for no places to eat. She also can pay me to leave for 3 millions dollar and she can do what ever she want with my property.
she made the dumbest comment on tv, beside being so excited about this project. She mentioned that no one knows the lake is there because it is blocked by homes. So does that mean we should tear down all the houses down around the Lake so she and her friends can see it. I think she should give all those people 3 million each for every home on the lake out of her own pocket just so she can see that lake. And while were at it, Lets rip down the Condos and rebuild Dandelion Park too. She would have a beautiful view of the lake on top of the Roller Coaster. Or better yet, build a skyscraper so she can charge visitors to view our beautiful lakes. Wow, I bet you will be able see more than one lake. What it comes down to, is we have no say. Next we will be doing a recall on our mayor. What a waste of tax payers money. In my book Muskego is known as home of the political losers where the people have no say. Dictatorship at its best.

It is clear some Alderman and the Mayor do not represent the will of the people. Recall time!

Where do I sign!!!

Being a lake resident for 28 years and remembering how Idle Isle used to be the place where many lake residents would go to socialize. Then the parks department decided to line the shores with rip rap making it imposible to pull up to which essentially killed the park. This is where some resources need to go. Matty's or some other resturant would rent the pavilion and serve food and make it a destination again. This new park doesn't have any of that! wouldn't it be nice to go uot on the lake and get a burger? Remember the crime issues also that closed down Sandy beach, Denoon beach and Amans is that what we are to expect?

The above article seems to indicate that the "PETITIONS FOR DIRECT LEGISLATION" will have "no impact" on the Common Council's vote to purchase the properties.

I do not believe that is correct. What I heard the City Attorney say last night was that he had not seen the petition, and that the timing and wording of the petition would have to be reivewed before he could answer that question.

Given that the petition was formally filed and certified by the City Clerk last Friday, I was rather surprised that no one at City Hall had provided it to the City Attorney so that he could offer the Common Council an informed opinion.

I hope that, by taking a vote to purchase the properties without a qualified legal opinion will not end up getting the City involved in another developer lawsuit (at least until the tree farm lawsuit is taken care of.)

I'm glad that the Common Council members that voted "yes" were looking ahead in the future of our great city. Many of the people who are saying "no" are not looking at the plethora of positive impacts this park will have for the city. Instead, they have their blinders on, only looking at the cost.

Sometimes it costs money to make investments, but in this community lately, the "naysayers" seem to always want to be louder than the people who support these projects (ie: Walmart, new elementary schools). Fortunately, the council was looking ahead to the future. This $3.55 million dollar investment now will have so many positive impacts in the future, in the form of new businesses. People who have wanted more restaurants or a Starbucks in this city now have a better chance due to this project being moved forward. Having more businesses in the downtown district will help Muskego gain an identity as a "true, welcoming lake community."

Imagine walking up and down the newly tree-lined Janesville Road with your Starbucks in one hand, and a shopping bag in another. You then want to relax by the lakeside, watching the boats zip by or the kids playing in the sand. I can picture this, because I believe that having a lakeside park in our downtown district will only make Muskego a much, much better community. I look forward to seeing this park turn from a once-in-a-lifetime dream into a reality for everyone to enjoy.

Bryan

JC,

I'm not comparing Muskego to Lake Geneva. You're right that we will never be that way. However, Muskego is the closest lake community to Milwaukee, so residents from surrounding cities would come here to enjoy a day at the beach. Also, the park will definitely spur business along the Janesville Road corridor. Right across the street from this is an empty lot (last home to Spitfires). That could be a great place for a ice cream shop or coffee shop once this is built. Nothing is going in to the Parkland Mall site until the lawsuit is settled, so technically we don't have a "middle of the town." I assume that traffic is one of the "problems" that you are talking about. Janesville will be four lanes by the time this opens, so any potential traffic problems would be resolved just by having the expanded road. Also, I would assume the city would put a stoplight in there because the entrance to the park would be in line with Pioneer Drive. While you call this a "burden" and talk about Muskego in a negative fashion, I will continue to love the community I call home, and it will be even better with this park in our downtown.

Bryan

I have never been more proud of my common council than after the due diligence done on research and vote to purchase the land on little Muskego Lake. If all the people there did the research that the people supporting it did we would all be much better informed. I didn't recognize 90 % of the people I saw there last night, strange since I have lived here since 1973. I think the people I know were afraid to show up. Who are all these other people? Where have they been for the last 28 years. I educated myself on this project. I attended all meetings and learned everything I needed to know, every question answered to my satisfaction. I am not among the "no nothings" and that feels good. I don't intend to just drive past this park view, I intend to be in this park. Stop complaining and join with the rest of us and contribute ideas on how to re-use the buildings for our city volunteer groups and how to use the space. That's a much better use of your "intelligence" than "recall, recall". The only thing that can bother me is if our great community is once again held up to be a laughing matter to other communities with a stupid recall bid. It's not easy running our city, it sounds a lot like running our state. Once again Common Council keep up the good work, the "silent" majority is with you.

Ms. Ingold, for your information I have lived in Muskego for 38 years and I too am educated on all the aspects of this subject. I attended the meeting in 2010 when two Plans were proposed for this park. I believe there were over 300 people in attendance at one of the rooms in the high school. The people also spoke overwelmingly against this project. At that time the projected costs was 16 million as I recall. We also heard about Mr. Werner making repeated weekend calls to a certain family attempting to convince them of the need to sell to the city so he could put a feather in his cap for Mayor Johnson or perhaps himself. I think someone, trained in interrogation techniques, repeatedly coming at a family is a strong arm technique. I have been aware Mayor and Werner have told constituents this park deal was dead in the water when asked while they were campaigning. But since our current Ms. Mayor is such a personal friend of ex-Mayor Johnson, it does not surprise me at all this has been brought to life again. Or did they lie? What concerns me is the obvious look of conflict of interest between the attorney for these wealthy landowners and his position on Park and Rec. I have followed along the progress of Bring Back the Lake to Muskego Proud. The naysayers are more educated with how they spend their money than you think.

Suzi,
Tempers flared last night and I do apologize for that. I know better.

Here is my perspective and opinion:

You appear to have a complete aversion towards people who not only disagree with you but stand up to you and defeat you in the court of public opinion.

From the political candidates you have backed, I see a pattern of lies, personal attacks all followed up by their defeat. Everything you touch turns to black. Why?

Do you really think others conspire against you and those you support? Crony-ism? Because others have banded together for a common cause you oppose and fought a good fight and won? Is it like I said last night: egos have gotten in the way of common sense and the ability to work together?

That said, I would welcome an opportunity to sit down with you face to face. No more blogs; no more internet. Maybe we can learn to just agree to disagree without all the animosity. Let me know. It's a serious offer.

Matt Johnson

Suzi, I tried. I don't hold you personally responsible for everything but you represent what is wrong with our local politics. I spoke the truth and I am good with it. The apology is real and still stands. One bone of contention though: "near physical assault." Really? You make my case by writing that.

As for the Lake Park, it is a good idea. People are drawn to a lake in a community like ours. The developer has a good track record. The lake is a natural center of our new downtown and it is located next to the soon-to-be rebuilt Janesville Road. That part of the lake holds the best water quality and beaches. I did not the support the school referendum (it was too much; contained the wrong list of things in it and would not improve education one bit) but that is separate from this. The city and school system are separate entities. I did not support the last lake proposal (it was too much; contained the wrong the wrong things and was not in the best interest of Muskego). This time, the developer got it right. The city acted responsibly. If it had not, something would have been developed there and it would not have been as good for the city and certainly not for the lake itself. My belief is the opposition to this on the lake is this: "Not on my lake." The financial questions and alike are subterfuge to that sentiment.

Matt, I'm directing this to you because you just brought it up. If it's only a park, why do we need a developer ? So far all that's been proposed is buying two properties for a park. So, what's the plan after we buy two properties? What are the future promises and commitments?

You also said something would have developed there and it would not have been good for the city. How? What is the current zoning? If the property is zoned residential, how else could something have been developed? What would be developed there?

I'm not against a park. But so little has been made public about the "developing the project". I'm afraid the "park" is an end-around to a development that we know nothing about.

Is it only a "park"?

Flash:
I was at the meeting you referred to along with my husband. When we arrived there were no seats close to the front. (stacked?, Hmmm) We were in the back and heard a lot of comments, loud in front, mostly quiet ones in back because most people in favor were afraid to speak up. We are a quiet community after all. Nice quiet sensible people. Idon't picket for what I want, I contact my friends and neighbors and explain my case. When I finish they are still my friends, understand everything and yes I know just how educated the nay-sayers are. They have been around for all of my 38 years of residency. And they haven't added much to the community in that time. For people worrid about developers, the lake will be developed by the city and it's citizens, That land will have no developer once we purchase it. There is a difference in case you missed it.
Incidently, my math was wrong and I too, have lived here for 38 years. I came here for the lake but for a very long time have not been able to see much of it. I just
can't wait to WALK into our postage stamp park and enjoy the view.

"For people worrid about developers, the lake will be developed by the city and it's citizens, That land will have no developer once we purchase it. There is a difference in case you missed it."

I'll admit, I missed it. When was that discussed or even mentioned?
Will the two adjoining homes remain single family residences? Or will they be rezoned multi-family- commercial?

Development along Janesville....I'm all for it.
Development of the two adjoining properties, I'm not so sure. I need more information.

My apology is real and still stands. Enough said and I have nothing else to say to you.

The plans presented include a beach, and a park. Anything commercial after that will have to bargain with the city. The developer is developing something he owns and you know it will be something will enhance the whole area including the park and beach. I trust his judgment to make wise decisions for his developments in our Downtown.

obtw: Who did you think was going to do it if the city owns it. We have a fine Park & Rec Dept that is very co-operative with the city and it's citizens and more than capable of doing the plans for the best use of the land.

Listening to the audio tape, I am wondering how many in attendance also camped out at the Capitol building last spring. OK, that was kind of a cheap shot, but let's compare the two situations:
1) A legally elected body voted (and approved) a controversial measure.
2) During the proceedings, opposition to the measure felt that throwing decorum and established rules out the window would help their cause.
3) An unelected group equaling less than one-tenth of one percent claimed to be speaking for the citizenry.
4) Claims that democratic rules were not followed. Remember, we live in a republic, not a democracy. If we did, we have have to vote on everything and nothing would get accomplished.
5) Mob rule lost.

Now to be fair, the city was voting to spend some money while the state was trying to bring it's fiscal house in order. However, we have elected representatives to make these decisions for us. Not all of us have the time or desire to read through all the facts to make a decision. And, unlike the Milwaukee County pension scandal, the city representatives were not lining their pockets. If the city leaders really did not do what the desire of the city was, it will become apparent at the next election.

Where did you get 90%? Did you do some exit polling? As I said before, It sounded like about 70 people or so.
Still, if we use your estimate, 90% of 400 is still only 360 people out of the 23,000 in the city. I don't believe in mob rule. We live in a republic, not a democracy. I don't have time to run to the polls to cast a vote for every thing happening in Muskego. Something like the recent school referendum is different since we were actually asked to add to the tax levy.

I also take the time to research issues that affect me. Not every one does, as is evident by the arguments being used by those who want to recall Governor Walker.

We have elected officials to handle many of those decisions. Yes, our Aldermen should listen, but disregarding the established rules, the anti-Lake Park crowd actually hurt their cause. Just like the Capitol Campers, they came across (at least on tape) as a loud, petty minority trying to bully the common council.

If this is such a bad move it will reflect in the next election.

Anti-alinsky makes the most sense. After we are trying to recall a Gvoernor after only one year and we let Obama hang in there for three-plus at this time. A new road is coming and lots of people have their head in the sand over that too. the landscape will dramatically change even after they are done with the first segment. it will join the eastern part of Muskego with the western part and then some. picture sidewalks all the way to Racine Ave. (if you can)that's what it will be. If you don't have ay idea, get it because it's coming and that's something done by much more powerful people than your elected council. (You didn't attend those meetings either either I bet!!!!!!!!) So get used to it, the dusty ol country road of yore is no more, the cornfield, silo decorated landscape is or will be gone...and there's nothing you can do about it. Don't blame your council members, they are thinking forward for those of you who can't

What a waste of our hard earned money. Honestly would anyone here pay to go to that park? Probably not

how much tax revenue is being lost annually from those two properties?