Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Contributed by: shors
I have learned much from taking a stand regarding the proposed children's fishing pier which is proposed to be constructed in the middle of Miller's Bay. I'm starting to feel like Miller's Bay has been for sale...........purchased by the Otter Street Fishing Club. Doug Mosher, Club President, owner of Noffke Lumber is supplying the wood........the club is apparently using club monies to support members of the club. While at the meeting regarding the pier which was held at the Otter Street Fishing Club headquarters, there were boxes there that said Castle-Pierce. Has the Otter Street Fishing Club been using the services of Mayor Castle's printing company? Mayor Castle repeatedly states "I voted for the pier." Are there some conflicts of interests going on here?
Another thing: Why is C.R. Meyer getting so much work? They too changed the pier design for this project recently. Are there any club members who work for C.R. Meyer?
Esslinger thought he was trying to rise to the occason and get the Otter Club to compromise with the pier location--their compromised location was vindicative--located at the Pump House where Chuck Williams lives--the location makes no sense as it is even farther from facilities such as restrooms and parking. It too, is in the middle of Miller's Bay.
Now Esslinger has called up selected concerned residents and told them "the pier will happen." He appears to be in favor of the Otter Street Fishing Club. Turns out Mayor Castle does plan to run again and Esslinger will probably run---he's thinking ahead because the Otter Street Club has a track record of voting in local elections. Has the Club now purchased Esslinger?
Esslinger says the Otter Club has done nothing wrong. They went through the proper hoops. He must have a memory problem because the Stephany and the Council ingnored the entire Parks Plan which did not include changes to Miller's Bay. There was no citizen input..........seems to me that ignoring the Park Plan started this issue off on the wrong foot and it has now unraveled corruption and conflicts of interest.
Granted, this issue is pennies compared to the huge river front condo project. I wonder what that project will tell us about our city government? Notice how they want citizen input now?
Teri Shors
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 08:56 PM MDT
Ms. Shors:
I have to say I’m very disappointed in your letter regarding the fishing pier/dock.
Your assertions and your possible slanderous statements I think are really out of character for a person of your stature.
You referenced that I called up some “selected” residents and told them that I said “the pier will happen.” Your correct, I did call up residents that were affected (I thought that is what I was supposed to do as an elected official) and I did say that the pier will happen; that is of course unless the DNR denies the application which doesn’t seem likely.
I ask you, did I make a huge mistake in trying to get a compromise in this situation? I had thought that a compromise could be struck and everybody could walk away from this with a little satisfaction. I’m sure the Otter Street Fishing Club isn’t happy with me, because as you know, I was the one that wanted the city staff to set up this meeting in the first place. I’m sure that the fishing club wasn’t exactly thrilled with that idea. And now you’re upset because you didn’t seem to get the pier completely eliminated. You stated that the Otter St. Fishing Club’s compromise location was vindictive; how so? Do you have any proof to substantiate that claim? You also claim that I’m “in favor” of the fishing clubs plan. Really? If I was in favor of the club, why would I go through the trouble of having a meeting with both sides to work out a compromise, and upset both sides in the end?
You also inferred that the Otter Street Fishing Club may now have “purchased” me. This is both disrespectful, and very close to being slanderous. As an elected official I try VERY hard to be open to all ideas, and I have abstained on occasions when I have had a conflict of interest, or even the appearance of a conflict. Your inference that I may have been “purchased” should be retracted at once.
You go on to say that Mayor Castle is in fact running again and that I will probably run again. Have you had a conversation with Mayor Castle where you can substantiate this claim? If so, please enlighten the readers of this website. Mayor Castle is about seven months into his term with about a year and a half to go before he is up for re-election; I’ve never seen a local elected official announce a year and a half before an election that they’re running again. As for me, I haven’t made up my mind if I’m running for election in April of ’06 let alone if I’ll run for mayor again.
In regards to my statement about the Otter Street Fishing Club not doing anything wrong in this situation. I stand by that statement because it’s a fact. Again, if you can come up with any facts that will dispute that, I’d be happy to see/hear them. And just because there was no mention of a pier/dock in the parks comprehensive plan does not mean one can’t be constructed. Please remember, comprehensive plans are derived by a set of people at a given time. As time goes on, comprehensive plans can and do get revised.
I would like to also say that you have criticized the Otter Street Fishing Club for not compromising. May I point out that they were willing to compromise; it is you who will not compromise.
In closing, I would just like to say that I would not have expected a professor that holds a Doctorate to write such a letter. It’s no wonder why it’s tough to get people to run for elected office with behavior like this.
Regretfully,
Paul Esslinger
Oshkosh Common Council
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: shors on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 03:00 AM MDT
All I did was put the questions out there. A scientist questions and
observes. I hope what I said is not true but something is fishy about
this whole situation. I've put this out there. Let the residents who read
this think about it. There is nothing wrong with questioning. Clearly I
have struck a nerve. Any time anyone makes a stand, they risk being
scrutinized.
Teri
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:38 AM MDT
Ms. Shors:
Yes, you did hit a nerve. When I get accused of being “purchased,” I get angry, for obvious reasons. And if your objective was to “hit a nerve” you succeeded; congratulations.
You said a scientist “questions and observes,” tell me, is it one of the objectives of scientists to throw out accusations, and lies and “observe” what happens?
You’re correct Ms. Shors, there is nothing wrong with questioning, but lying and accusing someone of being “purchased” without any proof is not only childish, but disrespectful and beneath you.
I will let the folks who read this website come to their own conclusions. But I would appreciate it if you deliver facts and not lies.
I ask you again to retract your statement that I’ve been “purchased.”
Paul Esslinger
Oshkosh Common Council
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: shors on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:27 PM MDT
I asked the question if you were purchased by the OSFC. I never
stated you were purchased. I think you are overreacting.
The title of this venue is Rants and Raves.
Chill.
Teri
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: doseofreality, October 10 2005 @ 04:58 PM MDT
I see Teri Shors goes to the same political school as Jef Hall. Don’t exactly come out and say Paul was purchased, come out and say something stupid like “has the club now purchased Esslinger.” Excuse me Mrs. Shors, but this is just dumb, if not downright slimy. Jef Hall did this stupid technique with the racist garbage.
I would expect a slime ball like Jef Hall to stoop to those levels, but as Paul stated, I wouldn’t expect a college professor with a doctorate to do something that childlike.
Why don’t you grow up? You lost the fight with the Otter Street Fishing Club, and quite frankly, you should be happy Paul was there to see if a compromise could be reached.
And “chill” is your response??? How old are you??
It’s no wonder some of the products that come out of college can barely tie their shoes; they probably have had you for a professor.
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: L Schaffer on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 09:28 PM MDT
What is the big deal about putting a fishing pier where the Otter Street Club wants to put it, it is in park that has little use, it is about time the people that live in that part of the city come to grips with it once in for all. It is a park and not their front yard. It is time to use all of the park. The main part of Menominee Park is getting to crowded because of the zoo expansion. I agree the process that was used needs to be better, the the anger towards one person is not exceptable, the anger should go towards our city officials like Tom S. and our city manager, they should know better.
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: OshRocks! on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 03:04 PM MDT
The main part of the Menominee Park is not getting too crowded because of the expansion of the zoo. That 'expansion' was completed about three years ago and took up an extra few acres (I believe it was around 4, but could be as much as 8) - on the back side of the park that was NEVER used.
Actually, back behind the zoo would be a PERFECT place for the fishing pier -
People writing contrary to Dr. Shors (and neighbors' opinions) about the fishing pier constantly say that those living along Menominee drive think that they have more rights to that part of the park than others. I disagree - as I am one of those neighbbors. But please look at it from their angle, in that, they paid a premium for a clear lake view at some time in the past. Additionally, their tax bills reflect that value - and because of that tax difference - I do believe that those people should be allowed to have a say in this whole discussion. Do not for one minute think that these people are taxed equally to non-waterfront property.
Additionally, it is not just about obstructed views - what about parking? What about restroom facilities? What about garbage (there are no garbage cans in the park now - are you aware of that?). What about the quality of the fish - no one is going to want to fish for carp. It's the whole package - not just a few people complaining about their obstructed views.
Please don't be so rash to judge Dr. Shors and others about what you THINK they have issue with in regards to the fishing pier.
Have a great day!
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: admin on Wednesday, October 12 2005 @ 01:45 PM MDT
Some points that I wish to make:
1. I agree there are probably better places for this fishing pier.
2. I believe that the DNR representative already has her mind made up and the activity of late is probably nothing more than exercises in futility. At the meeting last week, she almost seemed "bothered" by the whole thing.
3. I do not believe Paul Esslinger has been bought by anyone. While I disagree with his reasoning in not being willing to vote against accepting this pier in the location it was, his points are well taken. Besides, he could not bring this matter back before the council anyway, because he was not there when it was originally voted on.
4. While the Otter Street Fishing Club has done wonderful things for this community, its member and spokesperson Terry Wohler has displayed a complete lack of disrespect for those who are opposed to the pier or who even dare ask questions about it. This behavior is not very becoming for a spokesperson of a club that is in the public eye like theirs is, but it is certainly not something the city should tolerate from a parks board member. Mr. Wohler has acted and spoken in both capacities in this matter.
5. In that regard, I believe Mr. Wohler should have abstained from voting when the matter was before the parks board. His vote, while not illegal, certainly calls his ethics into question with respect to the fishing pier.
6. I also believe that Mayor Bill Castle should have abstained from voting on this matter on the council floor. Based on boxes present at the fishing club's meeting place, it appears Castle's printing company does work for the fishing club. It seems to me that when the line between votes and one's professional activities becomes blurred, it is best to err on the side of caution and not give the impression that you're giving preferential treatment to a group that helps pay your bills.
7. The people along Menominee Drive have a vested interest in this project - that interest is their property. We all know that waterfront property and/or property with a view costs more and comes at a premium. If that view changes, so might the property values for those people. But at the same time, thought the park does not belong just to those people, it is a public park and therefore, belongs to all of us. That is why there have been others, who don't live along Menominee Drive, who have spoken out on it.
8. There needs to be stop measures put in place so projects do not sail past the council like this one does and projects need to receive greater scrutiny. Far too often I do not see enough questions asked of parks director Tom Stephany or community development director Jackson Kinney. They may be the fulltime staff members, but that does not mean the council should just accept what they say and give it the green light "just because." When enough questions are not asked, this city has a history of finding itself in one kind of trouble or another. More questions and answers just might stop at least this kind of history from repeating itself.
- Cheryl Hentz
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: shors on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 06:03 PM MDT
All good points Cheryl.
Here's a thought......if City Council terms were 3 instead of 2 years,
maybe there would be more consistency in decision making? My logic
is that maybe if terms were longer in the case of the fishing pier,
someone would have questioned or looked at the Park Plan regarding
the vision for Menominee Park? (My guess is that it really should have
been Mr. Stephany to check the plan first before he suggested this
project but he didn't and the Council didn't question it. Maybe this was
due to inexperience?)
I have no idea if this is a good idea or would matter. It could be that
the same people run for Council and there is very little turnover.
Therefore most council members would remember the history of the
city, including prior decisions etc. I have not lived here long enough
to know the history of whose all been on the Council and for how long.
Teri
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: Jim B. on Wednesday, October 12 2005 @ 10:02 AM MDT
Why do we have to put a pier in "where Otter street wants to put it"? What gives them more clout than other taxpaying citizens?
Although I don't buy into the fact that Menominee Drive residents pay more taxes so should have a say, I agree with OshRock that the shoreline in front of the zoo is a good spot. You certainly see more people fishing there than Millers Bay.
Jim B.
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: shors on Wednesday, October 12 2005 @ 04:25 PM MDT
The arguments against putting the pier near the zoo or beach area is
because the area is not protected from the damage caused by ice
shoves. The only locations that seem to work for this would be places
behind Monkey Island or the OSFC suggest the NY avenue location.
The NY location isn't directly behind Monkey Island but they say that
ice shoves don't happen there.
Other locations for the pier not in Menominee Park have been
suggested but the OSFC is not interested in those sites. Their one
compromise was across from the pump house on Nevada Street which
is even farther from facilites.
Someone mentioned to me that the OSFC seemed receptive to a
location change until more residents came forth and this started to get
controversial. Some say it may be a power struggle. There are more
women than men that have been opposed to this location. Maybe that
is part of the struggle as well? Anyone who went to the meeting at
the OSFC headquarters could feel the sense of animosity towards
women vs.men but hey--nobody cares about that.
I am not sure if real estate tax information is open information
anywhere but I can tell you that I paid $2900 in 2004 for a modest
1200 sq.ft.home on Menominee Drive. It is more than my colleagues
with bigger homes in other locations in Oshkosh pay but I don't have
that many comparisons. Maybe Oshkrocks knows more?
All in all, the OSFC are in this position because of Terry Wohler and
Tom Stephany. The pieri has been their idea from day one. The Club
is trying to support them.
Teri
The Bottom Line
Authored by: shors on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 04:31 AM MDT
Mr. Dose of Reality:
The bottom line is that residents simply want to preserve the largest
open green space in Oshkosh. It's the hallmark of Oshkosh. Why
should this scenic beauty be altered in any way? Adding a large pier
will change this area in many ways, forever.
There are secondary problems with putting a pier in a location with no
lighting, restrooms etc.
Teri
The Bottom Line
Authored by: doseofreality on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 08:07 AM MDT
OK, good points, but what's up with the sexism charge?
It seems you are free and easy with throwing out accusations. First Paul is bought off by the Otter Street Fishing Club, and now the Otter Street Fishing Club is full of women haters. I think both accusations are frivolous, and you should apologize for both of them.
I don't agree with Paul all the time, and I'm not necessarily in favor of the pier, but let's stop with the goofy accusations.
[ Reply to This | Delete ]
The Bottom Line
Authored by: shors on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 08:47 AM MDT
Did you attend the meeting at the club headquarters?
The Bottom Line
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 09:02 AM MDT
No, but what relevance is that to anything?
The Bottom Line
Authored by: Jim B. on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 10:10 AM MDT
Dose,
Interesting how you busted my chops in another thread for not being at the meeting, but for you it is irrelevant?
Jim B.
The Bottom Line
Authored by: doseofreality on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 10:19 AM MDT
I didn't ask how the meeting went; you did.
You're busted!
And by the way Mr. B, you've busted people's chops for being anonymous, but your name isn't really Jim B. Hypocritical Mr. B???
The Bottom Line
Authored by: Jim B. on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 10:43 AM MDT
If you actually read those posts, I asked that people attach a name or moniker rather than post by anonymous. That way we can all track who is saying what. You can still remain anonymous.
So now when ever I see a Dose post I will simply ignore it as you seem more interested in flaming than adding to the discussion.
Jim B.
PS Can't get anything past you Dose!!!
The Bottom Line
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 10:46 AM MDT
B:
If you can't take the heat, remove yourself from the kitchen!
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: Kent Monte on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 12:06 PM MDT
I must concur with Paul. You, Ms. Shors, owe him an apology and a retraction of your statement. Mr. Esslinger was correct in calling it slanderous. This whole situation is unnecessary. The pier is a good idea for those who do not have, nor can afford a boat. I have a boat and do not need the pier, but there are alot of people here in town that will use it. I haven't followed the whole saga (mainly because I have a boat and wont use it) but you can rest assured that no laws have been broken to this point so any statement to the contrary is a lie.
The correct thing is to swallow your pride and retract your comments. They were not viewed as questions, but as being vindictive. If you don't like Paul or his collegues, then don't vote for them. Lets not throw mud, especially if it is unsubstantiated.
Kent Monte
I have learned much from taking a stand regarding the proposed children's fishing pier which is proposed to be constructed in the middle of Miller's Bay. I'm starting to feel like Miller's Bay has been for sale...........purchased by the Otter Street Fishing Club. Doug Mosher, Club President, owner of Noffke Lumber is supplying the wood........the club is apparently using club monies to support members of the club. While at the meeting regarding the pier which was held at the Otter Street Fishing Club headquarters, there were boxes there that said Castle-Pierce. Has the Otter Street Fishing Club been using the services of Mayor Castle's printing company? Mayor Castle repeatedly states "I voted for the pier." Are there some conflicts of interests going on here?
Another thing: Why is C.R. Meyer getting so much work? They too changed the pier design for this project recently. Are there any club members who work for C.R. Meyer?
Esslinger thought he was trying to rise to the occason and get the Otter Club to compromise with the pier location--their compromised location was vindicative--located at the Pump House where Chuck Williams lives--the location makes no sense as it is even farther from facilities such as restrooms and parking. It too, is in the middle of Miller's Bay.
Now Esslinger has called up selected concerned residents and told them "the pier will happen." He appears to be in favor of the Otter Street Fishing Club. Turns out Mayor Castle does plan to run again and Esslinger will probably run---he's thinking ahead because the Otter Street Club has a track record of voting in local elections. Has the Club now purchased Esslinger?
Esslinger says the Otter Club has done nothing wrong. They went through the proper hoops. He must have a memory problem because the Stephany and the Council ingnored the entire Parks Plan which did not include changes to Miller's Bay. There was no citizen input..........seems to me that ignoring the Park Plan started this issue off on the wrong foot and it has now unraveled corruption and conflicts of interest.
Granted, this issue is pennies compared to the huge river front condo project. I wonder what that project will tell us about our city government? Notice how they want citizen input now?
Teri Shors
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 08:56 PM MDT
Ms. Shors:
I have to say I’m very disappointed in your letter regarding the fishing pier/dock.
Your assertions and your possible slanderous statements I think are really out of character for a person of your stature.
You referenced that I called up some “selected” residents and told them that I said “the pier will happen.” Your correct, I did call up residents that were affected (I thought that is what I was supposed to do as an elected official) and I did say that the pier will happen; that is of course unless the DNR denies the application which doesn’t seem likely.
I ask you, did I make a huge mistake in trying to get a compromise in this situation? I had thought that a compromise could be struck and everybody could walk away from this with a little satisfaction. I’m sure the Otter Street Fishing Club isn’t happy with me, because as you know, I was the one that wanted the city staff to set up this meeting in the first place. I’m sure that the fishing club wasn’t exactly thrilled with that idea. And now you’re upset because you didn’t seem to get the pier completely eliminated. You stated that the Otter St. Fishing Club’s compromise location was vindictive; how so? Do you have any proof to substantiate that claim? You also claim that I’m “in favor” of the fishing clubs plan. Really? If I was in favor of the club, why would I go through the trouble of having a meeting with both sides to work out a compromise, and upset both sides in the end?
You also inferred that the Otter Street Fishing Club may now have “purchased” me. This is both disrespectful, and very close to being slanderous. As an elected official I try VERY hard to be open to all ideas, and I have abstained on occasions when I have had a conflict of interest, or even the appearance of a conflict. Your inference that I may have been “purchased” should be retracted at once.
You go on to say that Mayor Castle is in fact running again and that I will probably run again. Have you had a conversation with Mayor Castle where you can substantiate this claim? If so, please enlighten the readers of this website. Mayor Castle is about seven months into his term with about a year and a half to go before he is up for re-election; I’ve never seen a local elected official announce a year and a half before an election that they’re running again. As for me, I haven’t made up my mind if I’m running for election in April of ’06 let alone if I’ll run for mayor again.
In regards to my statement about the Otter Street Fishing Club not doing anything wrong in this situation. I stand by that statement because it’s a fact. Again, if you can come up with any facts that will dispute that, I’d be happy to see/hear them. And just because there was no mention of a pier/dock in the parks comprehensive plan does not mean one can’t be constructed. Please remember, comprehensive plans are derived by a set of people at a given time. As time goes on, comprehensive plans can and do get revised.
I would like to also say that you have criticized the Otter Street Fishing Club for not compromising. May I point out that they were willing to compromise; it is you who will not compromise.
In closing, I would just like to say that I would not have expected a professor that holds a Doctorate to write such a letter. It’s no wonder why it’s tough to get people to run for elected office with behavior like this.
Regretfully,
Paul Esslinger
Oshkosh Common Council
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: shors on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 03:00 AM MDT
All I did was put the questions out there. A scientist questions and
observes. I hope what I said is not true but something is fishy about
this whole situation. I've put this out there. Let the residents who read
this think about it. There is nothing wrong with questioning. Clearly I
have struck a nerve. Any time anyone makes a stand, they risk being
scrutinized.
Teri
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:38 AM MDT
Ms. Shors:
Yes, you did hit a nerve. When I get accused of being “purchased,” I get angry, for obvious reasons. And if your objective was to “hit a nerve” you succeeded; congratulations.
You said a scientist “questions and observes,” tell me, is it one of the objectives of scientists to throw out accusations, and lies and “observe” what happens?
You’re correct Ms. Shors, there is nothing wrong with questioning, but lying and accusing someone of being “purchased” without any proof is not only childish, but disrespectful and beneath you.
I will let the folks who read this website come to their own conclusions. But I would appreciate it if you deliver facts and not lies.
I ask you again to retract your statement that I’ve been “purchased.”
Paul Esslinger
Oshkosh Common Council
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: shors on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:27 PM MDT
I asked the question if you were purchased by the OSFC. I never
stated you were purchased. I think you are overreacting.
The title of this venue is Rants and Raves.
Chill.
Teri
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: doseofreality, October 10 2005 @ 04:58 PM MDT
I see Teri Shors goes to the same political school as Jef Hall. Don’t exactly come out and say Paul was purchased, come out and say something stupid like “has the club now purchased Esslinger.” Excuse me Mrs. Shors, but this is just dumb, if not downright slimy. Jef Hall did this stupid technique with the racist garbage.
I would expect a slime ball like Jef Hall to stoop to those levels, but as Paul stated, I wouldn’t expect a college professor with a doctorate to do something that childlike.
Why don’t you grow up? You lost the fight with the Otter Street Fishing Club, and quite frankly, you should be happy Paul was there to see if a compromise could be reached.
And “chill” is your response??? How old are you??
It’s no wonder some of the products that come out of college can barely tie their shoes; they probably have had you for a professor.
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: L Schaffer on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 09:28 PM MDT
What is the big deal about putting a fishing pier where the Otter Street Club wants to put it, it is in park that has little use, it is about time the people that live in that part of the city come to grips with it once in for all. It is a park and not their front yard. It is time to use all of the park. The main part of Menominee Park is getting to crowded because of the zoo expansion. I agree the process that was used needs to be better, the the anger towards one person is not exceptable, the anger should go towards our city officials like Tom S. and our city manager, they should know better.
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: OshRocks! on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 03:04 PM MDT
The main part of the Menominee Park is not getting too crowded because of the expansion of the zoo. That 'expansion' was completed about three years ago and took up an extra few acres (I believe it was around 4, but could be as much as 8) - on the back side of the park that was NEVER used.
Actually, back behind the zoo would be a PERFECT place for the fishing pier -
People writing contrary to Dr. Shors (and neighbors' opinions) about the fishing pier constantly say that those living along Menominee drive think that they have more rights to that part of the park than others. I disagree - as I am one of those neighbbors. But please look at it from their angle, in that, they paid a premium for a clear lake view at some time in the past. Additionally, their tax bills reflect that value - and because of that tax difference - I do believe that those people should be allowed to have a say in this whole discussion. Do not for one minute think that these people are taxed equally to non-waterfront property.
Additionally, it is not just about obstructed views - what about parking? What about restroom facilities? What about garbage (there are no garbage cans in the park now - are you aware of that?). What about the quality of the fish - no one is going to want to fish for carp. It's the whole package - not just a few people complaining about their obstructed views.
Please don't be so rash to judge Dr. Shors and others about what you THINK they have issue with in regards to the fishing pier.
Have a great day!
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: admin on Wednesday, October 12 2005 @ 01:45 PM MDT
Some points that I wish to make:
1. I agree there are probably better places for this fishing pier.
2. I believe that the DNR representative already has her mind made up and the activity of late is probably nothing more than exercises in futility. At the meeting last week, she almost seemed "bothered" by the whole thing.
3. I do not believe Paul Esslinger has been bought by anyone. While I disagree with his reasoning in not being willing to vote against accepting this pier in the location it was, his points are well taken. Besides, he could not bring this matter back before the council anyway, because he was not there when it was originally voted on.
4. While the Otter Street Fishing Club has done wonderful things for this community, its member and spokesperson Terry Wohler has displayed a complete lack of disrespect for those who are opposed to the pier or who even dare ask questions about it. This behavior is not very becoming for a spokesperson of a club that is in the public eye like theirs is, but it is certainly not something the city should tolerate from a parks board member. Mr. Wohler has acted and spoken in both capacities in this matter.
5. In that regard, I believe Mr. Wohler should have abstained from voting when the matter was before the parks board. His vote, while not illegal, certainly calls his ethics into question with respect to the fishing pier.
6. I also believe that Mayor Bill Castle should have abstained from voting on this matter on the council floor. Based on boxes present at the fishing club's meeting place, it appears Castle's printing company does work for the fishing club. It seems to me that when the line between votes and one's professional activities becomes blurred, it is best to err on the side of caution and not give the impression that you're giving preferential treatment to a group that helps pay your bills.
7. The people along Menominee Drive have a vested interest in this project - that interest is their property. We all know that waterfront property and/or property with a view costs more and comes at a premium. If that view changes, so might the property values for those people. But at the same time, thought the park does not belong just to those people, it is a public park and therefore, belongs to all of us. That is why there have been others, who don't live along Menominee Drive, who have spoken out on it.
8. There needs to be stop measures put in place so projects do not sail past the council like this one does and projects need to receive greater scrutiny. Far too often I do not see enough questions asked of parks director Tom Stephany or community development director Jackson Kinney. They may be the fulltime staff members, but that does not mean the council should just accept what they say and give it the green light "just because." When enough questions are not asked, this city has a history of finding itself in one kind of trouble or another. More questions and answers just might stop at least this kind of history from repeating itself.
- Cheryl Hentz
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: shors on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 06:03 PM MDT
All good points Cheryl.
Here's a thought......if City Council terms were 3 instead of 2 years,
maybe there would be more consistency in decision making? My logic
is that maybe if terms were longer in the case of the fishing pier,
someone would have questioned or looked at the Park Plan regarding
the vision for Menominee Park? (My guess is that it really should have
been Mr. Stephany to check the plan first before he suggested this
project but he didn't and the Council didn't question it. Maybe this was
due to inexperience?)
I have no idea if this is a good idea or would matter. It could be that
the same people run for Council and there is very little turnover.
Therefore most council members would remember the history of the
city, including prior decisions etc. I have not lived here long enough
to know the history of whose all been on the Council and for how long.
Teri
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: Jim B. on Wednesday, October 12 2005 @ 10:02 AM MDT
Why do we have to put a pier in "where Otter street wants to put it"? What gives them more clout than other taxpaying citizens?
Although I don't buy into the fact that Menominee Drive residents pay more taxes so should have a say, I agree with OshRock that the shoreline in front of the zoo is a good spot. You certainly see more people fishing there than Millers Bay.
Jim B.
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: shors on Wednesday, October 12 2005 @ 04:25 PM MDT
The arguments against putting the pier near the zoo or beach area is
because the area is not protected from the damage caused by ice
shoves. The only locations that seem to work for this would be places
behind Monkey Island or the OSFC suggest the NY avenue location.
The NY location isn't directly behind Monkey Island but they say that
ice shoves don't happen there.
Other locations for the pier not in Menominee Park have been
suggested but the OSFC is not interested in those sites. Their one
compromise was across from the pump house on Nevada Street which
is even farther from facilites.
Someone mentioned to me that the OSFC seemed receptive to a
location change until more residents came forth and this started to get
controversial. Some say it may be a power struggle. There are more
women than men that have been opposed to this location. Maybe that
is part of the struggle as well? Anyone who went to the meeting at
the OSFC headquarters could feel the sense of animosity towards
women vs.men but hey--nobody cares about that.
I am not sure if real estate tax information is open information
anywhere but I can tell you that I paid $2900 in 2004 for a modest
1200 sq.ft.home on Menominee Drive. It is more than my colleagues
with bigger homes in other locations in Oshkosh pay but I don't have
that many comparisons. Maybe Oshkrocks knows more?
All in all, the OSFC are in this position because of Terry Wohler and
Tom Stephany. The pieri has been their idea from day one. The Club
is trying to support them.
Teri
The Bottom Line
Authored by: shors on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 04:31 AM MDT
Mr. Dose of Reality:
The bottom line is that residents simply want to preserve the largest
open green space in Oshkosh. It's the hallmark of Oshkosh. Why
should this scenic beauty be altered in any way? Adding a large pier
will change this area in many ways, forever.
There are secondary problems with putting a pier in a location with no
lighting, restrooms etc.
Teri
The Bottom Line
Authored by: doseofreality on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 08:07 AM MDT
OK, good points, but what's up with the sexism charge?
It seems you are free and easy with throwing out accusations. First Paul is bought off by the Otter Street Fishing Club, and now the Otter Street Fishing Club is full of women haters. I think both accusations are frivolous, and you should apologize for both of them.
I don't agree with Paul all the time, and I'm not necessarily in favor of the pier, but let's stop with the goofy accusations.
[ Reply to This | Delete ]
The Bottom Line
Authored by: shors on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 08:47 AM MDT
Did you attend the meeting at the club headquarters?
The Bottom Line
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 09:02 AM MDT
No, but what relevance is that to anything?
The Bottom Line
Authored by: Jim B. on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 10:10 AM MDT
Dose,
Interesting how you busted my chops in another thread for not being at the meeting, but for you it is irrelevant?
Jim B.
The Bottom Line
Authored by: doseofreality on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 10:19 AM MDT
I didn't ask how the meeting went; you did.
You're busted!
And by the way Mr. B, you've busted people's chops for being anonymous, but your name isn't really Jim B. Hypocritical Mr. B???
The Bottom Line
Authored by: Jim B. on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 10:43 AM MDT
If you actually read those posts, I asked that people attach a name or moniker rather than post by anonymous. That way we can all track who is saying what. You can still remain anonymous.
So now when ever I see a Dose post I will simply ignore it as you seem more interested in flaming than adding to the discussion.
Jim B.
PS Can't get anything past you Dose!!!
The Bottom Line
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 13 2005 @ 10:46 AM MDT
B:
If you can't take the heat, remove yourself from the kitchen!
Fishing Pier Issue Unfolds Many Conflicts of Interest
Authored by: Kent Monte on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 12:06 PM MDT
I must concur with Paul. You, Ms. Shors, owe him an apology and a retraction of your statement. Mr. Esslinger was correct in calling it slanderous. This whole situation is unnecessary. The pier is a good idea for those who do not have, nor can afford a boat. I have a boat and do not need the pier, but there are alot of people here in town that will use it. I haven't followed the whole saga (mainly because I have a boat and wont use it) but you can rest assured that no laws have been broken to this point so any statement to the contrary is a lie.
The correct thing is to swallow your pride and retract your comments. They were not viewed as questions, but as being vindictive. If you don't like Paul or his collegues, then don't vote for them. Lets not throw mud, especially if it is unsubstantiated.
Kent Monte
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 3:00 PM
<< Home