Letter: City has presented plenty of facepalm moments in recent years

To the Editor-

When Mayor (Mike) Wiza says it’s important to have public input, most rational people might think that our words, opinions, thoughts, and sentiments would be considered valuable when decisions are made regarding city government, such as allowing our present zoning to be completely abolished.

Sadly, those of us who thought we might be heard at multiple city plan commission meetings, were ignored, and Mayor Wiza told Director (Ryan) Kernoskey to take it back and continue to work out the details. For over a year, city officials “worked” on it.

For that same year, many of us (the public) “worked for no money” finding research and statistics we presented to the commission. We discovered multiple reasons that this plan was insulting, offensive, and dangerous.

It gives one pause to wonder if this was time well spent by the mayor, community development director, and other associates. That they spent days/weeks/months of their precious time (paid for by our taxes) attempting to do what the city government had in place for decade upon decade—zoning that worked.

What might be a reason to spend that extensive amount of time pushing to get us to believe what isn’t believable? What’s in this plan that they haven’t talked about? When the question of who brought this ADU/ACU was asked of the city on many different occasions, here are the directors’ answers. ”Some people requested it,” “Two alders brought it up,” “A few people want it,” etc.

There was never a definitive acknowledgment as to where it came from, or who was pushing so hard to get it through.

Who is going to benefit from this zoning change? Property taxpayers? Not a chance. Then, who exactly? There is evidence that the Wisconsin League of Municipalities, AARP, Wisconsin Realtors Association, Wisconsin Builders Association, landlord associations, and others are getting into the mix.

Has the city government listened to those of us who live here? Hardly. Let’s take a look at some of the city’s “costly accomplishments.”

A trolley (that no longer exists) to take people around this city; a $1 million dollar splash pad on the Square that uses 5.2 million gallons of treated water per season and immediately goes down the storm drain (that’s 78 million gallons of water in the past 15 years); two boat launches that cost the property owners money to maintain but are not bringing any direct revenue to us, the taxpayers; bike lanes that cost $1 million and are empty most of the time (are any of you bothered by the fact that, in the event of a crisis in our city, the road reduction would not allow the people to evacuate readily); Green Circle Trail that costs the property owners money to maintain; a proposed Plover River Crossing, and Emerson Park, that will cost the city property owners more money.

There are ways to get revenue-producing events, not income-reducing “pie in the sky” dreams of a few people who are not financially responsible or loyal to the people of Stevens Point. There is a huge difference between “wants” and “needs.”

I’d suggest we put all “wants” on notice for the next 5-10 years, and just take care of the “needs.” Road repair anyone? Roof repair? Building maintenance? When you fail to maintain anything, you will pay five times more to have it repaired or replaced.

Our city roads are reduced to rubble, and the city government departments are looking for more ways to spend money. Don’t think that a “grant” is the way to go. That is just a cover word for taxes paid by us. Grants are created with the long list of taxes we watch climb higher and higher.

Ruth Pfiffner
Stevens Point