Note to the, “not-in-my-back-yarders,” who oppose the Millers Bay fishing pier
Contributed by: fmc6338
The controversy of the millers bay pier reminds me of the classic nimbi struggle against the community. The choice is clear, either construct a fishing pier that many working class people can enjoy, or be pushed around by people who do not want their view obstructed. The argument put forth by Teri Shore and company is a simple strong-arm tactic designed to prolong and confuse the construction of a simple fishing pier. The argument that ice flows will wreck the pier does not take into account the existing pier structures that have weathered many a Wisconsin winter. The argument that seagulls will take over the pier ignores several simple technologies available such as a simple device called a Bird Spider, which can be used to deter seagulls from calling the pier home. I have been an environmentalist for 25 years and have fought many a battle against numerous foolhardy endeavors and I do not believe building a simple fishing pier for all to enjoy is one of them. The simple truth is, the opposition to the pier at millers bay is based on a “not in my back yard “, mentality.
Frank Mcandless
Progressive and long time Green Party supporter.
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Note to the, “not-in-my-back-yarders,” who oppose the Millers Bay fishing pier
Authored by: Jim B. on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 03:21 PM MDT
I am not so sure this is as cut and dry as you say. As I stated in a previous post I think there is definitely somewhat of a "not in my backyard" mentality. However, many against this "gift" do not even live near the proposed site. Below are questioins that I think are relevant to this issue:
1. Who came up with this as a site for the pier? Why is this the best place for this? Who is pushing for this pier other than Otter Street? Is the public pushing for this pier?
2. Why is this all of a sudden so important since it is not included in the long term Menominee Park plan?
3. How does the proposed pier change from a 100 feet long with 100 feet "T" to 120 without any further discussion?
4. Should parking have been a consideration in the approval process?
5. How does the Council give their approval without seeing design proposals?
6. Is it logical to accept every "gift" to the city as is?
7. Why not involve the neighboring citizens in the process?
8. If this is such a good fishing spot, why don't we see people already fishing from the shore?
9. Is it necessary to add a structure to a part of the park that has been kept relatively the same for many years?
10. Is a pier designed for children and the disabled without proper lighting, railings(wires only), and no close bathroom facilities a good idea?
Jim B.
Note to the, "not-in-my-back-yarders," who oppose the Millers Bay fishing pier
Authored by: fmc6338 on Thursday, September 22 2005 @ 11:41 PM MDT
I think it is human nature to fuss over things we have control over. For example, we have control over smokers not SUV’s and coal fired power plants. So in order to deal with air quality issues we ban smoking and never deal with the health effects of our energy use. I do not think it was smokers, which caused the DNR to put out a critical air quality alert for southern half of Wisconsin the week of the 12th of September.
I agree the local council is filled with greedy buffoons only out to further their own resumes, but I think with this fishing pier it’s a simple issue of home owners not wanting their view obstructed. Many of these people claim green space issues, or split hairs about railings and ice flows. Railings, and ice flow issues, are all problems with simple solutions. The green space issue is a little more complex and I would propose looking at the urban sprawl growth on the west side is the real culprit behind the loss of green space. But, like I mentioned earlier banning smoking under the guise of air quality improvement belies the real culprit our energy usage. The same hold true with green space issues it is easier to split hairs on a simple fishing pier than to deal with urban sprawl, Little piss-ant issues such as not building a pier gives us a sense of control over issues we care about, but it does not benefit any of us to constantly squabble over simple problems, while the bourgeoisie in this town run roughshod over all the critical issues facing this community
---
War Is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
---
Authored by: admin on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 03:54 PM MDT
I understand what you are saying, Frank, but I think that many of the arguments these folks have presented make sense. It doesn't matter if those arguments were the impetus for their arguments or not. The fact is they have concerns.
In addition, the neighbors should have been notified about this project, just as so many neighbors to other proposed projects in this city are. But even if they would be concerned solely with this being in their neighborhood, so what? They have purchased property in a pristine area with a view and with some expectation that the view will remain there unaltered. In the event that view changes, so might the value of their property. That alone is valid cause for neighbors to be concerned.
- Cheryl
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: shors on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 06:31 PM MDT
Thank you for your post Cheryl,
I have only lived in Oshkosh for 8 years. This is the first city issue in
which I have chosen to voice myself. I'm trained as a scientist---a
linear thinker. I have been quite surprised by the urgency expressed
by Tom Stephany and Terry Wohler -- that there is only one possible
location for this pier (off of New York Ave).
Terry Wohler, a member of the Park's Advisory Board commented at
the Common Council meeting that the pier could not be located off of
Melvin Street (which would be nearer to restroom facilities and
parking--a location suggestion by Atty. Chuck Williams) because the
residents in the Melvin street neighborhood "have guns." What is that
all about? Isn't this inappropriate language and thought for a Parks
Advisory Board member? What is this suppose to mean in relationship
to residents on Menominee Drive? I found Mr.Wohler to be a loose
cannon who is not functioning appropriately in his role as a Parks
Advisory Board member.
Teri Shors
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: admin on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 08:39 PM MDT
Thank you for your words, Teri. I agree that Terry Wohler did not present himself very well. He referred to people on the "opposite end of the pier" by their last names only, and in a very sarcastic, almost deparaging manner at that. It is obvious he has a difficult time separating his position as a Parks Advisory Board member from his position as a member in the Otter Street Fishing Club.
I have maintained all along that the Otter Street group has done wonderful things for this community and I, for one, am grateful for those contributions. But Mr. Wohler needs to take off his fishing club hat and put on that of an advisory board member when he is acting in that capacity - and vice versa.
Speaking of that, I am in the process of trying to secure minutes from the June 13 Parks Advisory Board meeting to see whether or not Mr. Wohler abstained from the vote on the fishing pier. Under state law, he would not have to unless he has a financial interest in the project; but perception is everything. He is a member of a group making a donation of tens of thousands of dollars to the city and serves on the very board that advises the city council on whether or not to approve proposed parks projects. Financial interests notwithstanding, from an ethical and moral standpoint Mr. Wohler should have abstained and it will be interesting to see if he did or not.
By the same token, Mayor William Castle should have abstained when the item came before the city council. After all, he lives in the very area where this fishing pier has been proposed. As with Mr. Wohler, Bill Castle may not have a direct financial interest in this pier, but one could argue that inasmuch as his property values could potentially be affected by it, there is a financial interest of sorts that exists. At a minimum, like with Mr. Wohler, Mr. Castle should have abstained for ethical and moral reasons. But then again, since when do matters of ethics and morals seem to matter to Mr. Castle. After all, this is the same man who discussed city business on the golf course with his close friend and owner of a construction company that was later given a contract by the city - without going through the bid process - and Castle never abstained on that vote either. Go figure!
One final note, Mr. Wohler told the city council last night that the people on Menominee Drive don't own the park and he wanted the city to tell them that they don't own it. Newsflash: the Otter Street Fishing Club doesn't own the park either, regardless of how much money and sweat equity they may have put into it (and other parts of the city) over the years.
- Cheryl
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: Jim B. on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 07:48 AM MDT
Has the DNR approved the permit yet? I have seen nothing about the status of that.
Also, a question I raised earlier in this thread. Other than Mr. Wohler(Otter Street), who is in favor of this pier? I have not seen a huge public outcry to get this done!!
Jim B.
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: admin on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 10:08 AM MDT
Jim B, the DNR has not yet approved the construction permit, but I think we can probably assume they will. As I understand it, there is then a period for appealing that decision.
You asked who, besides Mr. Wohler, is in favor of this pier. I think it's obvious the entire Otter Street Fishing Club is in favor of it. It's also pretty apparent that Tom Stephany is in favor of it.
In fact, someone privately commented to me that the pier was actually Mr. Stephany's idea and that he approached the fishing club. They also thought a couple other things were pretty fishy - no pun intended. Those things were: (a) Why was this project worded so weirdly on the meeting agenda (i.e., calling it a fishing deck instead of a fishing pier)? Was that done intentionally so as not to arouse any suspicions? (b) Who else other than Tom Stephany would have known how to push this through the political process within a 25 or 26 hour window? It is doubtful the members of the fishing club would know the technical ins and outs of the process and the nuances involved with the timing of this item, the person suggested to me.
When these things were first mentioned to me, I had to admit I had not thought much about them previously. But their questions/concerns do have some merit.
One concern I have with Tom Stephany is that councilman Paul Esslinger publicly asked city manager Dick Wollangk to have Mr. Stephany set up a meeting between the two parties - I would assume those parties would be Terry Wohler and Chuck Williams. Mr. Stephany later asked Paul if he still wanted him to do that and Paul answered in the affirmative. To date that meeting has not happened. Mr. Wohler himself mentioned this proposed meeting during his comments to the city council Tuesday night, but it is not Mr. Williams who is supposed to be calling him; it's parks director Stephany. So why hasn't that happened? What has Tom Stephany been waiting for? It doesn't take much to pick up a phone and make a couple phone calls. Had that meeting already occurred perhaps some of this animosity and bitterness could have been avoided. Now it almost seems like a futile effort.
But for what it's worth, I have invited Chuck Williams to appear on Eye on Oshkosh and he is willing to have a discussion with Mr. Wohler in that venue. Our intent is not to promote a verbal fisticuffs on the set, but rather a good discussion whereby the parties might reach a common understanding. Several attempts to reach Mr. Wohler last night only resulted in getting repeated busy signals. I will keep trying to reach him, however, and see if we can't get a dialogue going between the two sides.
- Cheryl
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: Jim B. on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 12:11 PM MDT
Thanks for the insight Cheryl! For clarification, putting Otter Street Fishing club in parenthesis after Mr. Wohlers name meant that he represents them and they support this. Besides Mr. Stephany and Otter Street, who else thinks this is a good idea? That was were I was going with that question. We have seen both Mr. Stephany and Otter Street, but that is it on the Pro side.
Anyway, one thought that came to mind is Otter Street wants this for their Winter Fisheree. It is purely speculation, but that area is somewhat of a staging area for that event.
As far as Castle, he has been very quiet on this issue one way or the other. I agree he should have abstained! Wonder if he really wants that pier there literally in his front yard???
Jim B.
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: shors on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 12:31 PM MDT
During his comments to the Common Council, Terry Wohler referred
to me as "that woman on Bay Shore Drive" who wrote the letter to
the Editor of the Northwestern regarding the fishing pier. I'm that
woman but I do have a name and credentials and I don't live on Bay
Shore Drive. I assume I must have rattled his cage. Perhaps I have
not been here long enough for his acknowledgement as a person with
a name?
I think a civil discussion presented on Eye On Oshkosh is an excellent
idea. Chuck Williams has been diplomatic throughout this
controversial issue. His support of the preservation of green space in
Menominee Park and preserving the Coles Bashford House in Oshkosh
is admiirable. I hope Terry Wohler can collect himself. Frankly, I will
be surprised if he shows up.
Teri Shors ("that woman")
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: DRR on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 02:02 PM MDT
Mr. Wohler often conducts himself in the same unprofessional manner during parks committee meetings. He resorts to name calling and sarcasm when things do not go his way.
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: Spartanman on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 12:23 PM MDT
Mr. Terry Wohler represents the "Otter Street Fishing Club". This is a very political powerful group in the city of Oshkosh. I do believe that for local elections, they put out a "voters guide" on whom to vote for in their eyes. Remember, that Terry Wohler is "typical Oshkosh" he might be a little crude and rough, but a powerful political voice in the city of Oshkosh. You had better pay him respect or you'll pay the price.
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: DRR on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 12:43 PM MDT
You earn respect based on actions and behavior. You don't get respected based on the fishing club you belong to.
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: admin on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 01:13 PM MDT
Excellent point, DRR. Indeed, the group does wonderful things for the community and probably has a fair amount of political clout. But that is never a reason for someone to compromise their principles or beliefs. That is simply not what self-respecting public and elected officials who have integrity do. Besides, there should be a distinction between political clout and political muscle.
As a side note, I spoke with Terry Wohler yesterday about coming on the show with attorney and park neighbor Chuck Williams to discuss the fishing pier issue. He declined, saying he works shift work and would be unavailable that evening. I offered him the opportunity to have someone else from the club come on, but he said no one else would be interested and that he is the one who usually speaks on issues.
I would think the club president could be just as good a spokesman, but Wohler indicated he didn't even need to ask anyone else. He also said that he didn't think it would make for a very good show, anyway, because he felt it would just get nasty. That wouldn't be the case as long as both parties could control themselves. But he can't appear and has chosen not to ask anyone else. As a result, the Otter Street Fishing Club will not have their position represented on this particular show, despite our efforts.
- Cheryl
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 02:45 PM MDT
It appears Mr. Wohler either has something to hide, or is afraid the other gentleman that will be on the show for the other side will tear him limb from limb.
Mr. Wohler likes to point out that the people that live near the park don't own the property, and therefore somehow shouldn't have a say what happens in the park. I would like to remind Mr. Wohler that neither he nor the Otter Street Fishing club own the park either.
Both sides should be heard, and a decision should be made on where the pier/dock should go based on logic and rational thinking. It appears Mr. Wohler wants to throw around the weight of the Otter Steet Fishing Club, but not explain why they want it in that particular location.
Mr. Wohler should show a little more respect for the neighbors near the park. And for that matter, he should show more respect to people in general.
I wonder how Mr. Wohler would feel if something was brought to the Parks Board, passed, sent to the Council, and passed in a matter of 25 hours that was detrimental to the Otter Street Fishing Club? I bet he'd be singing a different tune!
Where is George Curtis?
Authored by: shors on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 08:40 PM MDT
I attended the open DNR hearing regarding the fishing pier. Atty
George Curtis started the comment period. He said he represented
the Otter Street Fishing Club and mentioned all of the wonderful
things the club had done and then turned to the DNR representative
and said "can I leave now?" He left without fully appreciating the
location choice and design of the pier which Stephany rifled (pun
intended) through the Park's Advisory Board and Common Council
without any notification to area residents. He had no idea that
Stephany and the Club had not done their homework.
Where is George Curtis now? He silence tells us much. This
"children's fishing pier" has not been designed to be safe for children
and handicapped individuals and the location choice is a selfish one
with no rational justification. Instead Wohler states it has to be there
there because the residents on Melvin street have guns and they don't
want a pier in their front yard. The Club nor the residents own the
park. This is a public park with a proposed privately built structure.
The City Council needs to step up to the plate on this one. They
should not wait for the DNR to make their decision.
Teri Shors
Where is George Curtis?
Authored by: admin on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 09:00 PM MDT
I will be promoting this in another section of this site, but for all those interested, in addition to Chuck Williams coming on the show, City Councilor and parks board member Bryan Bain has agreed to come on the show and speak about the issue as well. And because my co-host Tony Palmeri has professional obligations that evening, another city councilor, Paul Esslinger, has graciously agreed to fill in for him. So we will have two council members to shed some light on this during that show. I encourage folks to send me questions to ask. Please send them to me ASAP so I have time to get them all together for that evening (Oct. 6).
- Cheryl
Meeting Questions
Authored by: shors on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 04:24 AM MDT
1. Residents have suggested other locations for the proposed pier
such as across from Melvin street (near parking and restroom
facilities), near the water filtration plant (area where the giant Schur
statue is), Rainbow park etc. Why have these locations not been
considered and what are the arguments against a pier in these
alternative areas?
2. Given that on a previous show, Esslinger admitted what happened
with this issue was tragic, why doesn't the City Council rescind their
vote and reconsider other locations and options for pier design?
3. Apparently the club has changed their pier design to be a flat pier
with bumpers (I believe reasoning is that this would be less
obstructive visually). Have they changed their stand on this being a
children's fishing pier?
4. Where is George Curtis? (see prior thread)
5. Is the city liable for accidents which occur on the pier? My
impression is that the city has immunity from playgrounds. But do
they have immunity from a child getting hurt on this pier in a public
park? This is a confusing issue and one that several residents brought
up at the DNR hearing. Who is liable?
6. If this pier is built in Miller's Bay, will the city add lights, railing,
reflectors? Have these costs been calculated? Have maintenance costs
for the pier been determined? Even if the pier is not damaged, it will
need to be power-washed to reduce seagull guano from accumulating
on it (Cheryl--please observe the sailboat pier at any time you will
find it full of seagull guano. Stephany says it is power-washed weekly.
I've never seen a clean pier and I walk the Park nearly every day).
This should be enough to get their neurons firing. :)
Teri Shors
Another Meeting Question
Authored by: shors on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 05:30 AM MDT
Thank you for organizing this meeting Cheryl. It is the perfect
opportunity to inform the residents of Oshkosh about a controversial
issue.
I have one more question for the meeting. I realize that you will ever
have time for the questions I have sent but at least it informs you on
some of the issues. I've been following this for some time and this
may help you gain a better understanding for what has happened.
This should be directed to Bryan Bain. Is the reason why the Council
backed off on rescinding their vote beccause they found out prior to
the meeting that the wood for the pier had been purchased. For this
reason, they were concerned that they would be sued for any costs
already occurred with this project (the wood purchase)? Why would
this be an issue? The Club required a DNR permit. Therefore, the
wood was purchased prematurely.
Teri
Seagull droppings are not funny.
Authored by: shors on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 06:10 AM MDT
Mayor Castle and Burk Tower found the issue of seagull guano rather
humorous when I commented on this at the Common Council meeting.
Since I have seen no plans for the originally proposed pier, I assume
it would be similar to the sailboat pier and we do know it will be made
of wood (which seagulls love, they stay away from metal). The pier
is likely to be another gull attractant, like the sailboat pier.
I wonder if they would be willing to sit and eat and play on the
sailboat pier like a child would? I sincerely doubt any parent would
allow their child to fish on a pier laden with droppings. This pier may
never be used by humans.
Seagull droppings contain E. coli and other microbes. Avian influenza
has been isolated from seagulls for over 40 years. Given the world
news is loaded with stories on avian flu creating the next pandemic, I
would hope they can appreciate and recognize this. The chances of
avian flu from the park seagulls is remote but not impossible. E. coli
is the larger threat. E. coli infections in children can be life-
threatening.
Adult Gulls are monogamous and will breed for up to 15 years of their
lifespan returning to the same spot every year to nest. Each year they
are capable of raising three young. At 3 years old the young
themselves are able to breed and will return to their birthplace and
fight their parents for the same nest site. Do the maths ! Over 15
years it is possible for a pair of gulls to replicate themselves 22 times
over. All of these gulls will grow up and remain in your local area with
very few natural predators to keep them in check.
Mr. McCandless suggests trapping these birds which will require a
speciial permit. Does he then propose trapping gulls each year and
killing them? This sounds like an expensive way to maintain the
fishing pier. Is it ethical and is it a stand an enironmentalist would
take? Kill the birds so you can fish?
Trapping and killing the seagulls requires: a permit (because gulls are
protected by a 1918 treaty) traps, people, disposal etc. every year.
This means higher maintenance costs for the city. How much money
does our city have to maintain the Parks projects?
This issue is largely ignored but it is still out there for people to
ponder.
Teri
Seagull droppings are not funny.
Authored by: Jim B. on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 06:28 AM MDT
Cheryl,
Between Teri Shors questions and mine in the above thread, I think you have more han enough for a whole shows or segments worth.
I am still curious how this pier is not part of the long range plan but was ram rodded through????
If it is true that wood has already been purchased for this project, I think someone has put the cart before the horse.
I have never considered the Otter Street Fishing Club a voting bloc, but based on how many people actually vote in Oshkosh they could be influential. Does anybody know the membership numbers for the club?
Jim B.
Seagull droppings are not funny.
Authored by: shors on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 06:41 AM MDT
600 members and it seems to be a secret club. As somewhat of a
newbie to Oshkosh, I have found it impossible to learn who is a
member of this club. Wohler is their only spokesperson. I did find an
old web page pertaining to the club at:
http://otterstreetfishingclub.com/about.htm
I don't knwow if their newsletter is made available to nonmembers or
if it is still being produced.
Teri
How did it get past the City Council?
Authored by: shors on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 06:50 AM MDT
Jim,
The resolution for the pier was carefully worded. It was so vague and
probably appeared as no threat---it was called a deck/pier and a
generous gift. I assume this was Stephany's proposal?
The resolution can be found at this site:
http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/weblink/index.asp?DocumentID=407296&
FolderID=407102&SearchHandle=0&DocViewType=ShowImage&
LeftPaneType=Hidden&dbid=0&page=1
NOTE: the link doesn't necessarily work with Internet Explorer. It does work with
Netscape.
Teri
How did it get past the City Council?
Authored by: Jim B. on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 11:19 AM MDT
I wouldnt call it a secret club. Just go down to Jerry's Bar on Ceape, and Iam sure you can find some members any time of day. The owner, Scott Engel is often quoted in the Northwestern as a spokesman for Otter Street. Although I don't know him personally, he has always been accommodating and open for discussion.
Jim B.
How did it get past the City Council?
Authored by: admin on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 11:27 AM MDT
Because he has been quoted as a spokesman for the group, I wonder why Terry Wohler wouldn't even ask him to come on the show since he personally couldn't make it.
Incidentally, for those interested parties, there is a meeting at Jerry's Bar on Ceape Street Monday night at 6 p.m. between the Otter Street Fishing Club, the neighbors and the city council members. Why it is being held where the club meets and not on some neutral ground is beyond me, but inasmuch as this is a public meeting to discuss an issue concerning a public park, I would encourage any interested citizens to show up if they can make it.
- Cheryl
Fishing Pier Meeting held in the Club house next to Gerry's Bar Monday night, October 3rd 6 pm
Authored by: shors on Sunday, October 02 2005 @ 11:44 AM MDT
Just a quick note, I believe the scheduled meeting between the
Council, Otter Street Fishing Club and concerned residents will be in
the Club house next to Gerry's Bar.........not Gerry's Bar. I hope to
see some you there. I've heard it announced in either place but I
think it's suppose to be in the Club house.
Teri
Fishing Pier Meeting held in the Club house next to Gerry's Bar Monday night, October 3rd 6 pm
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 02 2005 @ 07:52 PM MDT
On the night of a Packer game-- great timing
---
Nate Josephson
Fishing Pier Meeting held in the Club house next to Gerry's Bar Monday night, October 3rd 6 pm
Authored by: shors on Monday, October 03 2005 @ 06:53 AM MDT
Maybe it'll be a fast discussion since it is Packer night?
Teri
How did it get past the City Council?
Authored by: shors on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 12:40 PM MDT
Well, that is good to know. Wohler has been telling some individuals
that he is the only spokesperson for the Club. It's hard to find out
who belongs to the Club. Right now I know Wohler, Mosher and Engel
are members. Do they let women join?
Teri
How did it get past the City Council?
Authored by: Jim B. on Tuesday, October 04 2005 @ 10:04 PM MDT
Can someone give us a review of the meeting on Monday night? The Northwestern had a story without much substance.
Jim B.
How did it get past the City Council?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 05 2005 @ 08:13 AM MDT
Maybe if you were at the meeting Jim B, you'd have a clue of what's going on.
How did it get past the City Council?
Authored by: Jim B. on Wednesday, October 05 2005 @ 10:02 AM MDT
Maybe if I didnt have prior commitment I would have been there. But thanks for calling me out!!! Not that it is any of your business Dose, but my commitment was taking part in the City Academy. This is a nine week program to learn more about the workings of the city and its infrastructure. Since I commited to that in August, I didnt think it would be appropriate to miss a week.
Thanks again for adding your useful comments to the discussion!!
Jim B.
Overview of the Monday Fishing Pier Meeting
Authored by: shors on Wednesday, October 05 2005 @ 06:16 PM MDT
Jim,
If anyone has offered their re-cap of the meeting, I am sorry for
being redundant.
I attended the meeting. Meredith Scheuermann acted as a mediator.
Esslinger, Bain and Mayor Castle were also there. A local radio station
person was there and Amanda W.,a Northestern reporter.
This basically turned into an information meeting and open discussion.
Wohler, Stephany, Engel and Mosher were there. Wohler was his usual
self: rude and disrespectful, especially toward women. The Otter
group sat in front, often snickering and not paying attention to the
concerns of residents. They began by stating the NY location was the
only possible location for the pier. They stated Miller's Bay was in
their backyard and they wanted this fishing site in their backyard.
They are using the idea of it as a children's fishing pier to justify this
cause.
Residents voiced their concerns over a number of safety issues
including lack of lighting, restrooms and parking, the effect the pier
would have on the scenic beauty of Millers Bay, seagull invasion
etc.etc. They voiced their opinions on many issues. Everyone should
recognize that Mr. Wohler is unprofessional and should resign from the
Parks Board. He has a conflict of interest. Does anyone know why he
has a tatoo of an elderly woman on his arm?
One resident asked Mr.Wohler if the donation money was the result of
a swearing cup.
It was evident that the pier location and idea was created by
Stephany and Wohler. There is no documentation of need. They just
want it, plain and simple.
Chuck Williams and a local fisherman made many good points why the
pier should not be located at the NY site. Wohler didn't want to hear
it. It's already been built in their minds.
Toward the end of the meeting, Esslinger asked the main Otter Street
Fishing members if they would compromise on another location. Some
said no or they would want to put it across from Nevada street (which
would also block the scenic view and be even farther away from
facilites and parking etc.). It was a rather vindictive suggestion.
Bain said nothing. He must play it safe since he voted for it via the
Parks Board and Common Council.
Scheuermann tried hard to maintain focus and keep the meeting
cordial and informative.
Castle said he did not see the new design of the pier from C.R.Meyer.
How could he? He approved a pier with no plans.
Cheryl Laatsch, DNR Water Management Specialist was there. She
was very informative and stayed neutral. She stated the DNR had not
made a decision to regarding the permit and was hoping to make the
decision by the end of the month.
Since fall is approaching, it appears that the pier may not go in this
year. Even if the permit is granted, residents will appeal their
decision.
So---all in all, not much really happened other than the fact that
there has been much time and effort put into this ---all because the
citiizens were never allowed any input. Stephany slyly pushed it
through and the Council will not rescind their vote because the Otter
Club has already purchased the wood. They do not want to be sued
for this expenditure. It seems premature to me that they would
purchase the wood before the permit was granted---I'm not a
lawyerbut it seems to me that they purchased the wood at their own
risk and wouldn't be liable but maybe since they passed the pier
resolution, it meant they could buy the wood.
So--that's the scoop. Cheryl Hentz was there. She may also re-cap
this. Everyone views the world through their own eyes and ears so I
would suggest you get more than one re-cap of the meeting. I'm a
scientist and try to be straightforward but others may not interpret the
meeting as I have.
All of the Council members will probably admit that denying the
residents an opinion regarding the pier was tragic. None will amend
their mistakes. They are waiting for the DNR to make a decision for
them. Cheryl Laatsch has the burden of denying or approving the
permit. If she denies it, she will be breaking new ground with the
DNR. I think it is safe to say her decision is an unknown but Wohler
and Co. are determined to get it in as soon as possible. They are on
a mission.
Teri
Overview of the Monday Fishing Pier Meeting
Authored by: Jim B. on Thursday, October 06 2005 @ 06:53 PM MDT
Thanks for the review Teri. Can the neighbors appeal the decision by the DNR if it is approved?
This thing seems like it has been a boondoggle from the beginning. Why are council members not making a bigger effort to rescind this vote? This seems like a perfect example of a special interest group attempting to push their agenda on everyone else.
Jim B.
Overview of the Monday Fishing Pier Meeting
Authored by: admin on Thursday, October 06 2005 @ 11:54 PM MDT
Jim, the DNR's decision can be appealed, and most liekly will be - at least if the decision is to approve the pier. I cannot speak for what the Otter Street Fishing Club may do.
As far as the city council rescinding the vote, they surely could, but after talking to both Bryan Bain and Paul Esslinger during last night's show taping, it does not sound like that is going to happen. Paul has said he does not feel that the Otter Street Fishing Club has done anything wrong and has gone through all the necessary steps to get the pier approved. He and Bryan both said, however, that they felt the notification process and hastiness of the approval process was handled very poorly and measures need to be taken to safeguard against this kind of thing happening in the future.
It was brought up on the show that the Otter Street Fishing Club has perhaps already purchased wood for the pier and might have a claim against the city if the council rescinded its vote - to which I replied that the club should never have purchased wood, nails or anything else until the DNR granted the permit. Any purchases they made prior to getting the approval (on which we're still waiting for a decision) would have been premature. Attorney Chuck Williams agreed with me by saying that is a very good argument.
The show was very informative and I hope people will get something out of it. I would also like to say that it would be wonderful if the two sides could come to some kind of agreement - something they each could live with, but such a compromise does not seem likely. That is the other unfortunate piece to this issue: to have adults who are so hell-bent in their own beliefs that they refuse to bend even just a little to meet each other halfway for the betterment and enjoyment of everyone in the community.
Overview of the Monday Fishing Pier Meeting
Authored by: shors on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:06 AM MDT
Even though the wood has been purchased, it can be returned. This is
an old boys network and these guys are trying to give themselves
business. I believe Noffke Lumber is providing the wood (How
convenient for the club president, Doug Mosher who owns or works at
Nomke's). Anyone ever notice that C.R. Meyer does much of the
building for the City? They created the 2nd pier design for the Otter
Club. Remember there was a group of people upset that bids did not
go out for the Water Park and C. R. Meyer got the job.............
There were boxes of printing materials at the Otter Street Club Fishing
Club which said Castle-Pierce Printing--------another conflict of
interest for Mayor Castle?
Perhaps only the good that may come out of this is that readers here
will not vote for some of these individuals again and they can be
phased out of city government and lose their power.
This just gets sicker....................
Teri
Overview of the Monday Fishing Pier Meeting
Authored by: shors on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:20 AM MDT
The best compromise would be either the Melvin Street proposal by
Williams or other locals in the city of Oshkosh outside of Millers Bay
mentioned by other residents. These sites shouldn't have ice shove
problems. Wohler says no to the Melvin street location because
neighbors across from Melvin have guns. I don't see what the big deal
is---neighbors across from that area look into the high activity area.
The view is already obstructed. This site offers restrooms and parking.
That is the best compromise if it has to be in Menominee Park.
Brian Poeschel commented at the last city council meeting that when
he served on the Parks Board, there were no plans to add more to
Menominee Park because it was too full already. Also---there is
nothing in the Park Plan regarding addition of structures to Miller's
Bay---that should be something Bain and Esslinger should also be
reminded of----no one pulled out the Park Plan. The Council should
be aware of the Parks Plan. Stephany pushed it through wrongly in
many ways.
Teri
The controversy of the millers bay pier reminds me of the classic nimbi struggle against the community. The choice is clear, either construct a fishing pier that many working class people can enjoy, or be pushed around by people who do not want their view obstructed. The argument put forth by Teri Shore and company is a simple strong-arm tactic designed to prolong and confuse the construction of a simple fishing pier. The argument that ice flows will wreck the pier does not take into account the existing pier structures that have weathered many a Wisconsin winter. The argument that seagulls will take over the pier ignores several simple technologies available such as a simple device called a Bird Spider, which can be used to deter seagulls from calling the pier home. I have been an environmentalist for 25 years and have fought many a battle against numerous foolhardy endeavors and I do not believe building a simple fishing pier for all to enjoy is one of them. The simple truth is, the opposition to the pier at millers bay is based on a “not in my back yard “, mentality.
Frank Mcandless
Progressive and long time Green Party supporter.
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Note to the, “not-in-my-back-yarders,” who oppose the Millers Bay fishing pier
Authored by: Jim B. on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 03:21 PM MDT
I am not so sure this is as cut and dry as you say. As I stated in a previous post I think there is definitely somewhat of a "not in my backyard" mentality. However, many against this "gift" do not even live near the proposed site. Below are questioins that I think are relevant to this issue:
1. Who came up with this as a site for the pier? Why is this the best place for this? Who is pushing for this pier other than Otter Street? Is the public pushing for this pier?
2. Why is this all of a sudden so important since it is not included in the long term Menominee Park plan?
3. How does the proposed pier change from a 100 feet long with 100 feet "T" to 120 without any further discussion?
4. Should parking have been a consideration in the approval process?
5. How does the Council give their approval without seeing design proposals?
6. Is it logical to accept every "gift" to the city as is?
7. Why not involve the neighboring citizens in the process?
8. If this is such a good fishing spot, why don't we see people already fishing from the shore?
9. Is it necessary to add a structure to a part of the park that has been kept relatively the same for many years?
10. Is a pier designed for children and the disabled without proper lighting, railings(wires only), and no close bathroom facilities a good idea?
Jim B.
Note to the, "not-in-my-back-yarders," who oppose the Millers Bay fishing pier
Authored by: fmc6338 on Thursday, September 22 2005 @ 11:41 PM MDT
I think it is human nature to fuss over things we have control over. For example, we have control over smokers not SUV’s and coal fired power plants. So in order to deal with air quality issues we ban smoking and never deal with the health effects of our energy use. I do not think it was smokers, which caused the DNR to put out a critical air quality alert for southern half of Wisconsin the week of the 12th of September.
I agree the local council is filled with greedy buffoons only out to further their own resumes, but I think with this fishing pier it’s a simple issue of home owners not wanting their view obstructed. Many of these people claim green space issues, or split hairs about railings and ice flows. Railings, and ice flow issues, are all problems with simple solutions. The green space issue is a little more complex and I would propose looking at the urban sprawl growth on the west side is the real culprit behind the loss of green space. But, like I mentioned earlier banning smoking under the guise of air quality improvement belies the real culprit our energy usage. The same hold true with green space issues it is easier to split hairs on a simple fishing pier than to deal with urban sprawl, Little piss-ant issues such as not building a pier gives us a sense of control over issues we care about, but it does not benefit any of us to constantly squabble over simple problems, while the bourgeoisie in this town run roughshod over all the critical issues facing this community
---
War Is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
---
Authored by: admin on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 03:54 PM MDT
I understand what you are saying, Frank, but I think that many of the arguments these folks have presented make sense. It doesn't matter if those arguments were the impetus for their arguments or not. The fact is they have concerns.
In addition, the neighbors should have been notified about this project, just as so many neighbors to other proposed projects in this city are. But even if they would be concerned solely with this being in their neighborhood, so what? They have purchased property in a pristine area with a view and with some expectation that the view will remain there unaltered. In the event that view changes, so might the value of their property. That alone is valid cause for neighbors to be concerned.
- Cheryl
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: shors on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 06:31 PM MDT
Thank you for your post Cheryl,
I have only lived in Oshkosh for 8 years. This is the first city issue in
which I have chosen to voice myself. I'm trained as a scientist---a
linear thinker. I have been quite surprised by the urgency expressed
by Tom Stephany and Terry Wohler -- that there is only one possible
location for this pier (off of New York Ave).
Terry Wohler, a member of the Park's Advisory Board commented at
the Common Council meeting that the pier could not be located off of
Melvin Street (which would be nearer to restroom facilities and
parking--a location suggestion by Atty. Chuck Williams) because the
residents in the Melvin street neighborhood "have guns." What is that
all about? Isn't this inappropriate language and thought for a Parks
Advisory Board member? What is this suppose to mean in relationship
to residents on Menominee Drive? I found Mr.Wohler to be a loose
cannon who is not functioning appropriately in his role as a Parks
Advisory Board member.
Teri Shors
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: admin on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 08:39 PM MDT
Thank you for your words, Teri. I agree that Terry Wohler did not present himself very well. He referred to people on the "opposite end of the pier" by their last names only, and in a very sarcastic, almost deparaging manner at that. It is obvious he has a difficult time separating his position as a Parks Advisory Board member from his position as a member in the Otter Street Fishing Club.
I have maintained all along that the Otter Street group has done wonderful things for this community and I, for one, am grateful for those contributions. But Mr. Wohler needs to take off his fishing club hat and put on that of an advisory board member when he is acting in that capacity - and vice versa.
Speaking of that, I am in the process of trying to secure minutes from the June 13 Parks Advisory Board meeting to see whether or not Mr. Wohler abstained from the vote on the fishing pier. Under state law, he would not have to unless he has a financial interest in the project; but perception is everything. He is a member of a group making a donation of tens of thousands of dollars to the city and serves on the very board that advises the city council on whether or not to approve proposed parks projects. Financial interests notwithstanding, from an ethical and moral standpoint Mr. Wohler should have abstained and it will be interesting to see if he did or not.
By the same token, Mayor William Castle should have abstained when the item came before the city council. After all, he lives in the very area where this fishing pier has been proposed. As with Mr. Wohler, Bill Castle may not have a direct financial interest in this pier, but one could argue that inasmuch as his property values could potentially be affected by it, there is a financial interest of sorts that exists. At a minimum, like with Mr. Wohler, Mr. Castle should have abstained for ethical and moral reasons. But then again, since when do matters of ethics and morals seem to matter to Mr. Castle. After all, this is the same man who discussed city business on the golf course with his close friend and owner of a construction company that was later given a contract by the city - without going through the bid process - and Castle never abstained on that vote either. Go figure!
One final note, Mr. Wohler told the city council last night that the people on Menominee Drive don't own the park and he wanted the city to tell them that they don't own it. Newsflash: the Otter Street Fishing Club doesn't own the park either, regardless of how much money and sweat equity they may have put into it (and other parts of the city) over the years.
- Cheryl
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: Jim B. on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 07:48 AM MDT
Has the DNR approved the permit yet? I have seen nothing about the status of that.
Also, a question I raised earlier in this thread. Other than Mr. Wohler(Otter Street), who is in favor of this pier? I have not seen a huge public outcry to get this done!!
Jim B.
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: admin on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 10:08 AM MDT
Jim B, the DNR has not yet approved the construction permit, but I think we can probably assume they will. As I understand it, there is then a period for appealing that decision.
You asked who, besides Mr. Wohler, is in favor of this pier. I think it's obvious the entire Otter Street Fishing Club is in favor of it. It's also pretty apparent that Tom Stephany is in favor of it.
In fact, someone privately commented to me that the pier was actually Mr. Stephany's idea and that he approached the fishing club. They also thought a couple other things were pretty fishy - no pun intended. Those things were: (a) Why was this project worded so weirdly on the meeting agenda (i.e., calling it a fishing deck instead of a fishing pier)? Was that done intentionally so as not to arouse any suspicions? (b) Who else other than Tom Stephany would have known how to push this through the political process within a 25 or 26 hour window? It is doubtful the members of the fishing club would know the technical ins and outs of the process and the nuances involved with the timing of this item, the person suggested to me.
When these things were first mentioned to me, I had to admit I had not thought much about them previously. But their questions/concerns do have some merit.
One concern I have with Tom Stephany is that councilman Paul Esslinger publicly asked city manager Dick Wollangk to have Mr. Stephany set up a meeting between the two parties - I would assume those parties would be Terry Wohler and Chuck Williams. Mr. Stephany later asked Paul if he still wanted him to do that and Paul answered in the affirmative. To date that meeting has not happened. Mr. Wohler himself mentioned this proposed meeting during his comments to the city council Tuesday night, but it is not Mr. Williams who is supposed to be calling him; it's parks director Stephany. So why hasn't that happened? What has Tom Stephany been waiting for? It doesn't take much to pick up a phone and make a couple phone calls. Had that meeting already occurred perhaps some of this animosity and bitterness could have been avoided. Now it almost seems like a futile effort.
But for what it's worth, I have invited Chuck Williams to appear on Eye on Oshkosh and he is willing to have a discussion with Mr. Wohler in that venue. Our intent is not to promote a verbal fisticuffs on the set, but rather a good discussion whereby the parties might reach a common understanding. Several attempts to reach Mr. Wohler last night only resulted in getting repeated busy signals. I will keep trying to reach him, however, and see if we can't get a dialogue going between the two sides.
- Cheryl
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: Jim B. on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 12:11 PM MDT
Thanks for the insight Cheryl! For clarification, putting Otter Street Fishing club in parenthesis after Mr. Wohlers name meant that he represents them and they support this. Besides Mr. Stephany and Otter Street, who else thinks this is a good idea? That was were I was going with that question. We have seen both Mr. Stephany and Otter Street, but that is it on the Pro side.
Anyway, one thought that came to mind is Otter Street wants this for their Winter Fisheree. It is purely speculation, but that area is somewhat of a staging area for that event.
As far as Castle, he has been very quiet on this issue one way or the other. I agree he should have abstained! Wonder if he really wants that pier there literally in his front yard???
Jim B.
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: shors on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 12:31 PM MDT
During his comments to the Common Council, Terry Wohler referred
to me as "that woman on Bay Shore Drive" who wrote the letter to
the Editor of the Northwestern regarding the fishing pier. I'm that
woman but I do have a name and credentials and I don't live on Bay
Shore Drive. I assume I must have rattled his cage. Perhaps I have
not been here long enough for his acknowledgement as a person with
a name?
I think a civil discussion presented on Eye On Oshkosh is an excellent
idea. Chuck Williams has been diplomatic throughout this
controversial issue. His support of the preservation of green space in
Menominee Park and preserving the Coles Bashford House in Oshkosh
is admiirable. I hope Terry Wohler can collect himself. Frankly, I will
be surprised if he shows up.
Teri Shors ("that woman")
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: DRR on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 02:02 PM MDT
Mr. Wohler often conducts himself in the same unprofessional manner during parks committee meetings. He resorts to name calling and sarcasm when things do not go his way.
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: Spartanman on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 12:23 PM MDT
Mr. Terry Wohler represents the "Otter Street Fishing Club". This is a very political powerful group in the city of Oshkosh. I do believe that for local elections, they put out a "voters guide" on whom to vote for in their eyes. Remember, that Terry Wohler is "typical Oshkosh" he might be a little crude and rough, but a powerful political voice in the city of Oshkosh. You had better pay him respect or you'll pay the price.
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: DRR on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 12:43 PM MDT
You earn respect based on actions and behavior. You don't get respected based on the fishing club you belong to.
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: admin on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 01:13 PM MDT
Excellent point, DRR. Indeed, the group does wonderful things for the community and probably has a fair amount of political clout. But that is never a reason for someone to compromise their principles or beliefs. That is simply not what self-respecting public and elected officials who have integrity do. Besides, there should be a distinction between political clout and political muscle.
As a side note, I spoke with Terry Wohler yesterday about coming on the show with attorney and park neighbor Chuck Williams to discuss the fishing pier issue. He declined, saying he works shift work and would be unavailable that evening. I offered him the opportunity to have someone else from the club come on, but he said no one else would be interested and that he is the one who usually speaks on issues.
I would think the club president could be just as good a spokesman, but Wohler indicated he didn't even need to ask anyone else. He also said that he didn't think it would make for a very good show, anyway, because he felt it would just get nasty. That wouldn't be the case as long as both parties could control themselves. But he can't appear and has chosen not to ask anyone else. As a result, the Otter Street Fishing Club will not have their position represented on this particular show, despite our efforts.
- Cheryl
Terry Wohler's pier defense
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 02:45 PM MDT
It appears Mr. Wohler either has something to hide, or is afraid the other gentleman that will be on the show for the other side will tear him limb from limb.
Mr. Wohler likes to point out that the people that live near the park don't own the property, and therefore somehow shouldn't have a say what happens in the park. I would like to remind Mr. Wohler that neither he nor the Otter Street Fishing club own the park either.
Both sides should be heard, and a decision should be made on where the pier/dock should go based on logic and rational thinking. It appears Mr. Wohler wants to throw around the weight of the Otter Steet Fishing Club, but not explain why they want it in that particular location.
Mr. Wohler should show a little more respect for the neighbors near the park. And for that matter, he should show more respect to people in general.
I wonder how Mr. Wohler would feel if something was brought to the Parks Board, passed, sent to the Council, and passed in a matter of 25 hours that was detrimental to the Otter Street Fishing Club? I bet he'd be singing a different tune!
Where is George Curtis?
Authored by: shors on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 08:40 PM MDT
I attended the open DNR hearing regarding the fishing pier. Atty
George Curtis started the comment period. He said he represented
the Otter Street Fishing Club and mentioned all of the wonderful
things the club had done and then turned to the DNR representative
and said "can I leave now?" He left without fully appreciating the
location choice and design of the pier which Stephany rifled (pun
intended) through the Park's Advisory Board and Common Council
without any notification to area residents. He had no idea that
Stephany and the Club had not done their homework.
Where is George Curtis now? He silence tells us much. This
"children's fishing pier" has not been designed to be safe for children
and handicapped individuals and the location choice is a selfish one
with no rational justification. Instead Wohler states it has to be there
there because the residents on Melvin street have guns and they don't
want a pier in their front yard. The Club nor the residents own the
park. This is a public park with a proposed privately built structure.
The City Council needs to step up to the plate on this one. They
should not wait for the DNR to make their decision.
Teri Shors
Where is George Curtis?
Authored by: admin on Friday, September 30 2005 @ 09:00 PM MDT
I will be promoting this in another section of this site, but for all those interested, in addition to Chuck Williams coming on the show, City Councilor and parks board member Bryan Bain has agreed to come on the show and speak about the issue as well. And because my co-host Tony Palmeri has professional obligations that evening, another city councilor, Paul Esslinger, has graciously agreed to fill in for him. So we will have two council members to shed some light on this during that show. I encourage folks to send me questions to ask. Please send them to me ASAP so I have time to get them all together for that evening (Oct. 6).
- Cheryl
Meeting Questions
Authored by: shors on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 04:24 AM MDT
1. Residents have suggested other locations for the proposed pier
such as across from Melvin street (near parking and restroom
facilities), near the water filtration plant (area where the giant Schur
statue is), Rainbow park etc. Why have these locations not been
considered and what are the arguments against a pier in these
alternative areas?
2. Given that on a previous show, Esslinger admitted what happened
with this issue was tragic, why doesn't the City Council rescind their
vote and reconsider other locations and options for pier design?
3. Apparently the club has changed their pier design to be a flat pier
with bumpers (I believe reasoning is that this would be less
obstructive visually). Have they changed their stand on this being a
children's fishing pier?
4. Where is George Curtis? (see prior thread)
5. Is the city liable for accidents which occur on the pier? My
impression is that the city has immunity from playgrounds. But do
they have immunity from a child getting hurt on this pier in a public
park? This is a confusing issue and one that several residents brought
up at the DNR hearing. Who is liable?
6. If this pier is built in Miller's Bay, will the city add lights, railing,
reflectors? Have these costs been calculated? Have maintenance costs
for the pier been determined? Even if the pier is not damaged, it will
need to be power-washed to reduce seagull guano from accumulating
on it (Cheryl--please observe the sailboat pier at any time you will
find it full of seagull guano. Stephany says it is power-washed weekly.
I've never seen a clean pier and I walk the Park nearly every day).
This should be enough to get their neurons firing. :)
Teri Shors
Another Meeting Question
Authored by: shors on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 05:30 AM MDT
Thank you for organizing this meeting Cheryl. It is the perfect
opportunity to inform the residents of Oshkosh about a controversial
issue.
I have one more question for the meeting. I realize that you will ever
have time for the questions I have sent but at least it informs you on
some of the issues. I've been following this for some time and this
may help you gain a better understanding for what has happened.
This should be directed to Bryan Bain. Is the reason why the Council
backed off on rescinding their vote beccause they found out prior to
the meeting that the wood for the pier had been purchased. For this
reason, they were concerned that they would be sued for any costs
already occurred with this project (the wood purchase)? Why would
this be an issue? The Club required a DNR permit. Therefore, the
wood was purchased prematurely.
Teri
Seagull droppings are not funny.
Authored by: shors on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 06:10 AM MDT
Mayor Castle and Burk Tower found the issue of seagull guano rather
humorous when I commented on this at the Common Council meeting.
Since I have seen no plans for the originally proposed pier, I assume
it would be similar to the sailboat pier and we do know it will be made
of wood (which seagulls love, they stay away from metal). The pier
is likely to be another gull attractant, like the sailboat pier.
I wonder if they would be willing to sit and eat and play on the
sailboat pier like a child would? I sincerely doubt any parent would
allow their child to fish on a pier laden with droppings. This pier may
never be used by humans.
Seagull droppings contain E. coli and other microbes. Avian influenza
has been isolated from seagulls for over 40 years. Given the world
news is loaded with stories on avian flu creating the next pandemic, I
would hope they can appreciate and recognize this. The chances of
avian flu from the park seagulls is remote but not impossible. E. coli
is the larger threat. E. coli infections in children can be life-
threatening.
Adult Gulls are monogamous and will breed for up to 15 years of their
lifespan returning to the same spot every year to nest. Each year they
are capable of raising three young. At 3 years old the young
themselves are able to breed and will return to their birthplace and
fight their parents for the same nest site. Do the maths ! Over 15
years it is possible for a pair of gulls to replicate themselves 22 times
over. All of these gulls will grow up and remain in your local area with
very few natural predators to keep them in check.
Mr. McCandless suggests trapping these birds which will require a
speciial permit. Does he then propose trapping gulls each year and
killing them? This sounds like an expensive way to maintain the
fishing pier. Is it ethical and is it a stand an enironmentalist would
take? Kill the birds so you can fish?
Trapping and killing the seagulls requires: a permit (because gulls are
protected by a 1918 treaty) traps, people, disposal etc. every year.
This means higher maintenance costs for the city. How much money
does our city have to maintain the Parks projects?
This issue is largely ignored but it is still out there for people to
ponder.
Teri
Seagull droppings are not funny.
Authored by: Jim B. on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 06:28 AM MDT
Cheryl,
Between Teri Shors questions and mine in the above thread, I think you have more han enough for a whole shows or segments worth.
I am still curious how this pier is not part of the long range plan but was ram rodded through????
If it is true that wood has already been purchased for this project, I think someone has put the cart before the horse.
I have never considered the Otter Street Fishing Club a voting bloc, but based on how many people actually vote in Oshkosh they could be influential. Does anybody know the membership numbers for the club?
Jim B.
Seagull droppings are not funny.
Authored by: shors on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 06:41 AM MDT
600 members and it seems to be a secret club. As somewhat of a
newbie to Oshkosh, I have found it impossible to learn who is a
member of this club. Wohler is their only spokesperson. I did find an
old web page pertaining to the club at:
http://otterstreetfishingclub.com/about.htm
I don't knwow if their newsletter is made available to nonmembers or
if it is still being produced.
Teri
How did it get past the City Council?
Authored by: shors on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 06:50 AM MDT
Jim,
The resolution for the pier was carefully worded. It was so vague and
probably appeared as no threat---it was called a deck/pier and a
generous gift. I assume this was Stephany's proposal?
The resolution can be found at this site:
http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/weblink/index.asp?DocumentID=407296&
FolderID=407102&SearchHandle=0&DocViewType=ShowImage&
LeftPaneType=Hidden&dbid=0&page=1
NOTE: the link doesn't necessarily work with Internet Explorer. It does work with
Netscape.
Teri
How did it get past the City Council?
Authored by: Jim B. on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 11:19 AM MDT
I wouldnt call it a secret club. Just go down to Jerry's Bar on Ceape, and Iam sure you can find some members any time of day. The owner, Scott Engel is often quoted in the Northwestern as a spokesman for Otter Street. Although I don't know him personally, he has always been accommodating and open for discussion.
Jim B.
How did it get past the City Council?
Authored by: admin on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 11:27 AM MDT
Because he has been quoted as a spokesman for the group, I wonder why Terry Wohler wouldn't even ask him to come on the show since he personally couldn't make it.
Incidentally, for those interested parties, there is a meeting at Jerry's Bar on Ceape Street Monday night at 6 p.m. between the Otter Street Fishing Club, the neighbors and the city council members. Why it is being held where the club meets and not on some neutral ground is beyond me, but inasmuch as this is a public meeting to discuss an issue concerning a public park, I would encourage any interested citizens to show up if they can make it.
- Cheryl
Fishing Pier Meeting held in the Club house next to Gerry's Bar Monday night, October 3rd 6 pm
Authored by: shors on Sunday, October 02 2005 @ 11:44 AM MDT
Just a quick note, I believe the scheduled meeting between the
Council, Otter Street Fishing Club and concerned residents will be in
the Club house next to Gerry's Bar.........not Gerry's Bar. I hope to
see some you there. I've heard it announced in either place but I
think it's suppose to be in the Club house.
Teri
Fishing Pier Meeting held in the Club house next to Gerry's Bar Monday night, October 3rd 6 pm
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 02 2005 @ 07:52 PM MDT
On the night of a Packer game-- great timing
---
Nate Josephson
Fishing Pier Meeting held in the Club house next to Gerry's Bar Monday night, October 3rd 6 pm
Authored by: shors on Monday, October 03 2005 @ 06:53 AM MDT
Maybe it'll be a fast discussion since it is Packer night?
Teri
How did it get past the City Council?
Authored by: shors on Saturday, October 01 2005 @ 12:40 PM MDT
Well, that is good to know. Wohler has been telling some individuals
that he is the only spokesperson for the Club. It's hard to find out
who belongs to the Club. Right now I know Wohler, Mosher and Engel
are members. Do they let women join?
Teri
How did it get past the City Council?
Authored by: Jim B. on Tuesday, October 04 2005 @ 10:04 PM MDT
Can someone give us a review of the meeting on Monday night? The Northwestern had a story without much substance.
Jim B.
How did it get past the City Council?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 05 2005 @ 08:13 AM MDT
Maybe if you were at the meeting Jim B, you'd have a clue of what's going on.
How did it get past the City Council?
Authored by: Jim B. on Wednesday, October 05 2005 @ 10:02 AM MDT
Maybe if I didnt have prior commitment I would have been there. But thanks for calling me out!!! Not that it is any of your business Dose, but my commitment was taking part in the City Academy. This is a nine week program to learn more about the workings of the city and its infrastructure. Since I commited to that in August, I didnt think it would be appropriate to miss a week.
Thanks again for adding your useful comments to the discussion!!
Jim B.
Overview of the Monday Fishing Pier Meeting
Authored by: shors on Wednesday, October 05 2005 @ 06:16 PM MDT
Jim,
If anyone has offered their re-cap of the meeting, I am sorry for
being redundant.
I attended the meeting. Meredith Scheuermann acted as a mediator.
Esslinger, Bain and Mayor Castle were also there. A local radio station
person was there and Amanda W.,a Northestern reporter.
This basically turned into an information meeting and open discussion.
Wohler, Stephany, Engel and Mosher were there. Wohler was his usual
self: rude and disrespectful, especially toward women. The Otter
group sat in front, often snickering and not paying attention to the
concerns of residents. They began by stating the NY location was the
only possible location for the pier. They stated Miller's Bay was in
their backyard and they wanted this fishing site in their backyard.
They are using the idea of it as a children's fishing pier to justify this
cause.
Residents voiced their concerns over a number of safety issues
including lack of lighting, restrooms and parking, the effect the pier
would have on the scenic beauty of Millers Bay, seagull invasion
etc.etc. They voiced their opinions on many issues. Everyone should
recognize that Mr. Wohler is unprofessional and should resign from the
Parks Board. He has a conflict of interest. Does anyone know why he
has a tatoo of an elderly woman on his arm?
One resident asked Mr.Wohler if the donation money was the result of
a swearing cup.
It was evident that the pier location and idea was created by
Stephany and Wohler. There is no documentation of need. They just
want it, plain and simple.
Chuck Williams and a local fisherman made many good points why the
pier should not be located at the NY site. Wohler didn't want to hear
it. It's already been built in their minds.
Toward the end of the meeting, Esslinger asked the main Otter Street
Fishing members if they would compromise on another location. Some
said no or they would want to put it across from Nevada street (which
would also block the scenic view and be even farther away from
facilites and parking etc.). It was a rather vindictive suggestion.
Bain said nothing. He must play it safe since he voted for it via the
Parks Board and Common Council.
Scheuermann tried hard to maintain focus and keep the meeting
cordial and informative.
Castle said he did not see the new design of the pier from C.R.Meyer.
How could he? He approved a pier with no plans.
Cheryl Laatsch, DNR Water Management Specialist was there. She
was very informative and stayed neutral. She stated the DNR had not
made a decision to regarding the permit and was hoping to make the
decision by the end of the month.
Since fall is approaching, it appears that the pier may not go in this
year. Even if the permit is granted, residents will appeal their
decision.
So---all in all, not much really happened other than the fact that
there has been much time and effort put into this ---all because the
citiizens were never allowed any input. Stephany slyly pushed it
through and the Council will not rescind their vote because the Otter
Club has already purchased the wood. They do not want to be sued
for this expenditure. It seems premature to me that they would
purchase the wood before the permit was granted---I'm not a
lawyerbut it seems to me that they purchased the wood at their own
risk and wouldn't be liable but maybe since they passed the pier
resolution, it meant they could buy the wood.
So--that's the scoop. Cheryl Hentz was there. She may also re-cap
this. Everyone views the world through their own eyes and ears so I
would suggest you get more than one re-cap of the meeting. I'm a
scientist and try to be straightforward but others may not interpret the
meeting as I have.
All of the Council members will probably admit that denying the
residents an opinion regarding the pier was tragic. None will amend
their mistakes. They are waiting for the DNR to make a decision for
them. Cheryl Laatsch has the burden of denying or approving the
permit. If she denies it, she will be breaking new ground with the
DNR. I think it is safe to say her decision is an unknown but Wohler
and Co. are determined to get it in as soon as possible. They are on
a mission.
Teri
Overview of the Monday Fishing Pier Meeting
Authored by: Jim B. on Thursday, October 06 2005 @ 06:53 PM MDT
Thanks for the review Teri. Can the neighbors appeal the decision by the DNR if it is approved?
This thing seems like it has been a boondoggle from the beginning. Why are council members not making a bigger effort to rescind this vote? This seems like a perfect example of a special interest group attempting to push their agenda on everyone else.
Jim B.
Overview of the Monday Fishing Pier Meeting
Authored by: admin on Thursday, October 06 2005 @ 11:54 PM MDT
Jim, the DNR's decision can be appealed, and most liekly will be - at least if the decision is to approve the pier. I cannot speak for what the Otter Street Fishing Club may do.
As far as the city council rescinding the vote, they surely could, but after talking to both Bryan Bain and Paul Esslinger during last night's show taping, it does not sound like that is going to happen. Paul has said he does not feel that the Otter Street Fishing Club has done anything wrong and has gone through all the necessary steps to get the pier approved. He and Bryan both said, however, that they felt the notification process and hastiness of the approval process was handled very poorly and measures need to be taken to safeguard against this kind of thing happening in the future.
It was brought up on the show that the Otter Street Fishing Club has perhaps already purchased wood for the pier and might have a claim against the city if the council rescinded its vote - to which I replied that the club should never have purchased wood, nails or anything else until the DNR granted the permit. Any purchases they made prior to getting the approval (on which we're still waiting for a decision) would have been premature. Attorney Chuck Williams agreed with me by saying that is a very good argument.
The show was very informative and I hope people will get something out of it. I would also like to say that it would be wonderful if the two sides could come to some kind of agreement - something they each could live with, but such a compromise does not seem likely. That is the other unfortunate piece to this issue: to have adults who are so hell-bent in their own beliefs that they refuse to bend even just a little to meet each other halfway for the betterment and enjoyment of everyone in the community.
Overview of the Monday Fishing Pier Meeting
Authored by: shors on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:06 AM MDT
Even though the wood has been purchased, it can be returned. This is
an old boys network and these guys are trying to give themselves
business. I believe Noffke Lumber is providing the wood (How
convenient for the club president, Doug Mosher who owns or works at
Nomke's). Anyone ever notice that C.R. Meyer does much of the
building for the City? They created the 2nd pier design for the Otter
Club. Remember there was a group of people upset that bids did not
go out for the Water Park and C. R. Meyer got the job.............
There were boxes of printing materials at the Otter Street Club Fishing
Club which said Castle-Pierce Printing--------another conflict of
interest for Mayor Castle?
Perhaps only the good that may come out of this is that readers here
will not vote for some of these individuals again and they can be
phased out of city government and lose their power.
This just gets sicker....................
Teri
Overview of the Monday Fishing Pier Meeting
Authored by: shors on Friday, October 07 2005 @ 04:20 AM MDT
The best compromise would be either the Melvin Street proposal by
Williams or other locals in the city of Oshkosh outside of Millers Bay
mentioned by other residents. These sites shouldn't have ice shove
problems. Wohler says no to the Melvin street location because
neighbors across from Melvin have guns. I don't see what the big deal
is---neighbors across from that area look into the high activity area.
The view is already obstructed. This site offers restrooms and parking.
That is the best compromise if it has to be in Menominee Park.
Brian Poeschel commented at the last city council meeting that when
he served on the Parks Board, there were no plans to add more to
Menominee Park because it was too full already. Also---there is
nothing in the Park Plan regarding addition of structures to Miller's
Bay---that should be something Bain and Esslinger should also be
reminded of----no one pulled out the Park Plan. The Council should
be aware of the Parks Plan. Stephany pushed it through wrongly in
many ways.
Teri
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 11:48 PM
<< Home