Letter: Resident supports Bus. 51 referendum
Editor’s note: While the stakeholder meetings were delayed due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the city made several attempts to involve members of the public in stakeholder meetings but had little success, garnering 12 stakeholders for a Nov. 2020 meeting and 13 for the Feb. 2021 meeting. All of the roadway alternatives, including the recommended alternative, were published on the city’s website and have been published in numerous local media outlets.
To the Editor-
In a review of an open letter submitted by Meleesa Johnson of the Common Council, she lauds the “decision and courageous action” taken by the Council to impose “their” choice of a road diet and the ruination of the city’s north/south thoroughfare vital to our local economy, business, and future growth expansion in our community.
This is one of the true lifelines of our urban area, from south of Plover through town to the Sentry facilities to the north.
She also went on the criticize past administrations and Councils as unwilling to show “courage” to address the major public works project this will become. Were any of you shown the options or potential future plans for this major project? I know I was not, as it appears the details were basically kept under wraps from stakeholders in our community—the citizens, taxpayers, business owners, and constituents of Common Council members.
Also little known was the fact that some years ago, the city accepted a payment of $6 million from the state to take ownership of this thoroughfare, which is why we find ourselves in this divisive situation today.
Councilmember Johnson also states that thanks to the “hard work” and thought put into their decision, the conclusion was that the three-lane was alternative will qualify for federal funding. Yet, a mere two paragraphs later stated it “would very likely qualify for 80 percent federal funding.”
As I interpret it, we truly have no idea if there is any federal funding available for any option, after all the “hard work and decisive action.”
One thing is certain, there will be a sizable layout for a project of this magnitude. The greatest cost will be to allow a handful of individuals to impose this upon us. Get it wrong and bear that cost indefinitely into the city’s future.
And what of the business owners struggling to survive after the imposition of the federal government disaster on our economy? Has there been any concern for them—as they stand to sacrifice the most under the city’s plan? They drive our local economy, put in long hours to make ends meet, and pay their taxes. And what about those in our community who support them, want them to succeed, and strive to keep it local?
I, for one, don’t believe this important decision should be left up to a handful of individuals claiming to represent us, imposing their preordained determinations on what is best for Stevens Point.
I’m urging members of the Council to present all options studied and available for review. We can always change things before we ever lift a sledgehammer.
The only way this should move forward is to bring the proposal to a referendum, so we include all stakeholders of our community. This is far too important a decision to leave to those who believe they can monopolize power. Those who don’t agree should consider stepping down. We would be happy to find people to replace you.
Dave Eiden
Stevens Point
Send your open letter to [email protected]