Speaking of Public Input Sessions in Muskego
While some may not feel their voices are being heard or they need more information, this is the perfect platform for your comments...so speak up and get informed.
You know you've achieved some objectivity when two opposing sides accuse you of being in favor of the other. Case in point, the proposed development on the lake.
I've said I'm in favor of getting more information on the land and that is what the current process is about.
I've also said if the price isn't right, and the parties can't reach an agreement, I do believe Muskego will still exist as a city.
Tuesday night (Jan 24) represents the fifth time a public input session is being made available on this topic, and those with an opinion, any opinion, is allowed to speak. You can also air your opinions on the stories we've run on this. This will be held at Muskego Lakes Country Club to accommodate the expected crowds, beginning at 7pm. The resolution, which represents $3.55 million in spending, before the Common Council is also on the city's website for people to view.
Need info? Search this site using the tag 'Little Muskego Lake development' for any stories we've run. You can also get a wealth of information on the city's website. Just scroll down on the home page and it's under the "What's New" section.
What's not going to happen is for someone to call you or knock on your door to hand you a ream of documents on the subject. You do have to do some homework, or call your alderman, or read through the information on the website. This information isn't being hidden and the aim is to get the information (what can be available on a property Muskego hasn't even purchased yet) out to as many people in as efficient a manner as possible.
Many of you prefer the 'email the editor' route, but I'm asking you to share your thoughts directly on our site, especially if you have the facts to back them up. Every article offers an opportunity to comment, so please do so. Teach us all something about this.
This is your dime....what would you like to say?
Tell us in the comments.
Aaron S. Robertson
2:20 pm on Monday, January 23, 2012
Thanks for posting this great information, Denise.
As someone who supports the lake park development proposal for a number of reasons, I respectfully ask opponents of the proposal: where have you been?
Tomorrow evening will mark the fifth opportunity for public input on the matter, and the plans were first unveiled back in August. Since that time, numerous news articles and commentaries have appeared on Patch, NOW, and in the Chronicle.
There exists audio, written, and video records of all of these proceedings.
It's far from the truth to assert that these discussions have been carried on in secrecy.
Denise Konkol
2:47 pm on Monday, January 23, 2012
Some have asked us why people aren't aware of these meetings or this vote, and I can only say that we do post meeting previews on these and nearly every meeting the city holds, keeping in mind that the board of review may not garner a lot of interest for many readers, so we might skip that one. Information is available, but it may not always be delivered to people's laps. Some responsibility is always on the electorate to stay informed. The city has now also begun to include every page of what an agenda will cover for Common Council, and plans to roll this out for other meetings as well. Those are also found on the city's website, www.ci.muskego.wi.us under Government - Boards and Committees. Recordings and minutes are also posted there when possible.
Scandihovian Lady
7:03 am on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
All matters that the Common Council deals with are open to the public and you can call the clerk’s office to find out if it is on the agenda. And, you can call your alderman for more information on the issue. We elect our aldermen to be the voice of the constituents in their district. Aldermen set policy for the city. They discuss issues at a common council meeting and then items are placed on an agenda for public input at a future meeting, At that time, any individual living in the city can speak before the common council and voice their opinion. It is up to each and every citizen to learn how our local, state and federal government functions and to research information. But in general, we citizens just don't understand how our government works or take the time to educate ourselves about political issues and rely on hearsay. Unfortunately, when there is no case that can be supported by logic and facts, it leads to mudslinging, fear tactics, and denegation of individuals and sadly, that is what has happened with the opposition to the lake park.
Simple Bacon
9:55 am on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
I'll refer you to the recently discussed topic of public input at Council meetings. It was determined that public input will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker up to 30 minutes total. If a speaker has already makes comments similar to your's you are only allowed to refer to that person's comments not repeat them. I'm not sure how much more direct an attack on public input could be made than that clause alone.
The best...verbatim from the January 10 COW meeting minutes:
"Discussion centered on whether the public be allowed to comment on a closed session item and if there should be a time limitation...Consensus was that the procedure would proceed to Council to not allow comments on closed sessions".
Since many of the Council discussions, to date, have occured in closed session the public is technically not allowed to address that agenda item. That of course hasn't stopped the Mayor from allowing Muskego Proud to address closed session agenda items. Also,the rules state that public input is at the discretion of the Mayor.
This is all in the public record if the Patch would like to look it up.
Any mudslinging has come from MP. They stood up one after another at Council and refererred to the mean people on the lake trying to keep everyone else away. The have's versus the have-nots was the thread common to much of their rhetoric. Pretty sad and a diversion from the real issue of the cost / benefit analysis of this park.
Simple Bacon
10:02 am on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
And to be clear so I'm not accused of misrepresenting the facts. I would ask that anyone interested in this topic take the time to listen to the recordings of the Council meetings where the lake park has been discussed. I may have missed one but I can't hear any comments from the citizens voicing concern about this project that makes any personal attack on the proponents of the park. There are, and you can listen for yourself, proponent after proponent personally maligning their fellow residents..thier neighbors...as being against access to the lake. It's all on the record. There's not much to be proud about with people that shout down legitimate questions and questioning the character of citizens who are nothing more than skeptical of the value of the lake park as it is currently proposed.
And good luck calling your Alderman. He (they) do not return phone calls. That again is fact.
Suzi Link
12:08 pm on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
OFFICIAL CLAIRIFICATION:
The term "public input" has been seriously misused by the Mayor and the supporters of this proposal.
Approx. 120 seconds at a few meetings with total comments on all agenda items not to exceed 30 minutes IS NOT THE SAME AS HOLDING A LEGAL FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING.
There has NOT been a Public Hearing on this property-owner's proposal since the Muskego High School (approx. 50-to-1 AGAINST, if you recall).
The difference between what the Mayor rather generously describes as "public input" and a "Public Hearing" is that by state law, Public Hearings":
1. must be published in the news papers at approx. 10 days in
advance
2. There is NO time limit on how long an individual can speak.
3. There is NO limit on the number of speakers
4. There is NO limit on the overall time speakers are allowed--in other words, the meeting continues until the citizens are done talking.
I do not want to publicly speculate on the Mayor's refusal to a formal Public Hearing a subject well known to be controversial. I just hope she reconsiders her current course of action.