I understand there was a meeting of the City Council on Wednesday night. Some people are concerned that it was not "legal" under the open meeting law. As I understand the open meeting law the meeting must be posted in three places 24 hours in advance. As a general rule most meetings are posted 72 hours in advance. It was technically legal. There were 3 people, outside of the council, in attendance. What was discussed?
On a separate topic I am at a loss at how all this benefits the ABA in the long run. They say they want to raise money for their ministries. OK. Once they have this development, in what ever form, will they still have money for operation and maintenance expenses? Or is it just for the ministries? Ultimately it seems only the developer will benefit. It seems as though the ABA will have the same money issues over the next 10 years and then what? We have to revisit this divisive issue again?
Posts
12 years ago
17 comments:
I just looked at the City website and there is a zoning mtg tonight at 6 pm.
You are not the only one at a loss....doesn't anybody understand that the city or town will not see a money (taxes) from these properties until properties are selling and homes built? It is not like this is going to happen overnight. I am not against development - there just needs to be a lot more thought put into this. Thats all. Yes, it is their property and if they want to develop, ok, but people need to be looking at this issue more realistically and try to look at it in the long run....if the city does approve - what happens when all the homeowners decide they want the same benefits as the city gets - plowing, garage pick up, leaf removal - where is that extra money going to come from? Same w/ the police, etc.....More thought really needs to be put into this.
I believe that the real reason the GLCC is developing their beautiful land is to keep the place afloat, not to support world missions as was previously stated. It is a known fact the the GLCC is in financial turmoil, so why wouldn't they want to repair and maintain their property and land? In my opinion, it would be irresponsible of the GLCC to support other missions when they are barely taking care of their own responsibilities here. The entire place is in shambles. I can imagine Victor Lawson rolling over in his grave with outrage over this fiasco.
The GLCC could be a very profitable operation with the right people in charge. The current management obviously is not working, why are they still there? (The definition of "crazy" is when people keep doing the same thing but expect different results.)
The GLCC deserves better. With the current management, they will continue to run at a loss, and any money from the development is not going to save them. It will all have been for nothing. This is very sad for us to watch, tragically sad.
The City of Green Lake should never had involved themselves with the annexation. They should have turned away the proposal immediately,and nurtured a good relationship with the Town of Brooklyn instead. This entire matter could have been avoided. It never made sense to annex 900 acres that was 3 miles away from the city. The matter seemed entirely materialistic on both sides, shallow and greedy.
If the City of Green Lake decides to pursue the annexation, I will be be perplexed to say the least. The election is next week, and I can't imagine why the current mayor would be re-elected when he has botched things up so incredibly much this term in office. Sorry Joe....I voted for you last time but am shaking my head now wondering why.
Why is everyone so worried and concerned about the city's relationship with the town of Brooklyn. What does the town do for me the citizen of the city of Green Lake. According to the state of Wisconsin a town or township should only exist until cities are ready to grow. It seems the town of Brooklyn is in competition with the city of Green Lake for superior status. Hats off to the citizens of Green Lake that want a stable city that looks out for it's people. Darts to the people of Brooklyn who constantly use the city, but refuse annexation because they do not want to pay their fair share.
The town of Brooklyn and City of Green Lake should combine and become one big happy family.
Greenlyn? Brook Lake? Green Brook?
How about it? The New and Improved town of Green Brook?
I have thought the governing body should be incorporated in to one entity long before this fiasco.
For those of you who have not read the Ripon Commonwealth yet this week, I think the two articles that relate to the current condition of the annexation will provide additional insight into just what a mess this whole issue has arrived at.
Basically, the situation is depicted as follows:
The TOB has provided the developer/ABA/GLCC with an initial approval of the development as it was initially presented back a year ago.
The city is still considering their options with respect to the petition for annexation by the developers/ABA/GLCC.
The developers has requested that the COGL dismiss their request for annexation based upon their desire to move forward with the TOB.
The TOB legal representatives) have written a letter to the COGL indicating their position that an annexation request will not pass legal scrutiny based upon several criteria.
The COGL has an outstanding balance of current legal fees of just short of $40K. The developer, although having paid to date $87K in associated COGL legal fees, never signed a commitment letter with regards to agreement to repay the city for such fees, and as such the COGL has no formal agreement to recoup the $40K balance due them.
The developer has indicated they will pay the remaining fees if the COGL agrees to drop the annexation petition which was presented by the developer/ABA/GLCC.
It appears the COGL is in a very tough position. If they don't drop the petition request, they stand to loose minimally $40K, and much much more if they end up trying to go through with the annexation and loose that issue due to legalities.
The developer, dare I say it, has put himself into a pretty good position. He has a initial approval by the TOB and the COGL is still fighting (potentially) for an annexation. His only concern at this point is how long with the TOB/COGL take to settle the issue of annexation. I suppose that could drag on for sometime in which case, the prime marketing time of spring through fall could be lost in the battle for interstellar domination (Green Lake County)
If the current powers of the two controlling bodies ( TOB & COGL) have not learned a good lesson here, I don't know how or when they will. It is idiotic to have two municipal entities for a population of this size. They should combine the two entities into one controlling party, combine the tax base, combine the resources, assets, and liabilities and go forward with one, well formed, well educated and passionate representation to serve the greater good of this physical area.
Although I believe the COGL should step away from this project now, as I believe they will continue to loose money and reputation, I fear my suggestions will fall on deaf ears. Ego's have now taken over for reason, and unfortunately, ego's have been know to prevail or reason or common sense.
This will probably be the dagger for the current mayor of the COGL. With the elections coming on Tuesday, I should think, most if not all who have watched this situation unfold, can now realized that a vote for Parise, is a vote for annexation, and I fear those people are in the minority.
Good luck to the TOB with this development. Make sure you put into your approval process a sufficient number of controls which will insure it ends up being a development we can all be proud of.
The song that will be playing next Wednesday, early morning, at some liquor establishment in the Greater Green Lake Metropolis:
"It's a quarter to three, There's no one in the place except you and me, So, set 'em up Joe, I've got a little story you ought'a know, We're drinking my ...
"Yesterday, annexation seemed so far away, now the TOB says their plats OK, Oh I believe in Yesterday.
Yesterday, the ABA appeared SOL, now it looks like they'll have God to tell. Oh I believe in Yesterday.
Why, they, had to go and develop we'll never know. They, said, they needed dough, maybe so, Yesterday-ay-ay-ay.
Yesterday, the spotted owls and eagles played away, now they'll be moving far away, Oh I believe in yesterday.
Suddenly, 97 lots came to stay, hoping someone will drive here to play, Oh I believe in Yesterday.
Shoreline mess, boaters parking where the fishing's best. Private gates and holy unrest. Oh I believe in Yesterday.
Oh I believe in Yesterday......
Since the developer has admitted (knowing full well) the annexation is invalid (not unanimous) and illegal (non-contiguous), I believe there should be apologies owed by all previous bloggers tied to Lindenwood, GLCC (Paul Higgins etal), and City (Donna Moore etal) which were complete snobs (supposedly in the know).
Lindenwood, GLCC and City have proven to be unethical and not trustworthy. It is truly a shame for this community.
The Town has nothing to be proud of either. Their standards are a wreck and they quickly changed their position on this as well as their laws regarding holding tanks and subdivion.
A great dis-service to the public interest has been conducted by all parties. It is being conducted behind the scenes of public presence (closed town sessions and secret city meetings).
We need a change of representatives all around.
"97 half acre lots on the grounds, 97 half acre lots. Sell one around, cut the trees down, 96 half acre lots on the grounds.
96 half acre lots on the grounds, 96 half acre lots, sell one around, cut the trees down, 95 half acre lots on the grounds".
Come on, everybody sing !
I think our Mayor has a lot to answer for. Let's hope that we see the end of this period of decline for Green Lake, early next week.
The man is unethical to say the least.
I have only one comment for some recent bloggers. Those who can, DO. Those who can't, CRITICIZE.
I'll vote for Joe... At least he realizes things have to change or it's only going to get worse. City expenses will continue to soar upwards and your taxes will go with it. Expanding our tax base is the only option. Growth has to come!
I would also support a merger of the City and TOB. It makes so much sense and long overdue it’s amazing it hasn't been mentioned before. Level the playing field of taxes and expand municipal services. Become a community that has a future and have some resources to hold onto a rich history & heritage.
A vote for Chuck Mirr is a vote in the wrong direction. The only way I would vote for a new mayor is if I really believe that that person is ready to do the job. Mirr is only running for spiteful reasons. He cannot fulfill any of his promises. He is also guilty of everything that he accuses Joe of doing, even more so. We will vote for Joe.
A friend called me to tell me to look at the blog since I was being called a snob along with Paul Higgins of the GLCC. I have only one comment to Illegal - not contiguous (think again). I have the courage to sign my name to my comments and not hide behind an anoymous name. We don't have to agree on issues but we should be respectful of each other. If that is being a snob, then I am guilty. However, that is not the definition of a snob in the dictionary.
I truly want what will benefit Green Lake citizens. We have infrastructure issues of 1.3 million dollars. The concern is how do we pay for these items that all our surrounding communities share and enjoy? We pay for parks, streets around the school, churches, the courthouse, the library etc. The downtown needs updating according to the Ad Hoc Committee report. I agree. Why should the expense of any upgrade or the infrastructure concerns be on the backs of our citizens. Is that fair or right? I think not.
I am open to discussion on one combined community! Is the Town?
I agree with Donna on her comments. We cannot have Green Lake citizens pay for everything others enjoy but never share in the costs.
Does anyone think the Town of Brooklyn residents would even consider a combined municipality? With their taxes being so cheap, would they vote "yes" to that consideration?
I bet not!
Donna,
If your posts were exclusive to the ones you put your name to, then you did not snob anyone here. I am mistaken. I am sorry for inferring that.
Post a Comment