Surprise Guest Remains a Mystery

This is a longer version of the Letter to the Editor, Capital Times
To be published 1/15/2008

Who could the “Special Guest” be at the top of the agenda? What forwarding-thinking person is Mayor Clauder going to present? I’ve never seen the Mayor so excited about anything. But, then, I’ve mostly seen him at Council or Plan Commission meetings. But wait. This IS a Common Council meeting and he’s still excited about something.

During the Mayor’s melodramatic and “suspenseful” introduction, I can’t help but watch the clock because time is valuable and I came here to observe the Fitchburg Common Council meeting. It’s been 3 minutes and he’s still playing his mystery game. So far, we know it’s connected to the Packers because he unfurled a giant poster containing the familiar helmet. We can also see a green and gold bobble-head doll perched near the Mayor’s seat (which remained in the camera’s view the entire night).

After 5 minutes of introduction, the moment arrived. There was no curtain so special guest John O’Neill appeared out of the wings of FACTv’s offices (affectionately referred to as “tent city” because of the tarps protecting their equipment from a leaky roof). Covered from head to toe in an elaborate green and yellow costume, “Saint Vince” strode across the Council Chambers carrying a staff topped with a cheesehead wedge and took the microphone from our beaming Mayor. O’Neill explained his unusual Packer Fan history including his costume (a tribute to “Saint" Vince Lombardi) and inclusion in the NFL Fan Hall of Fame.

Yes, this really happened and I had the misfortune to witness it for a mind-boggling 20 minutes at the beginning of the Common Council meeting on Jan. 8th.

I don’t think I was the only person to be dazed and confused by this display of Football Fever. I noticed a few other somber or perhaps puzzled faces in the audience. They probably came to express their concerns to about official agenda items. They were made to wait through 20 minutes of sports trivia before the Council could get on with business. I doubt that these concerned citizens appreciated the extra time spent waiting their turn.

I can’t help but wonder why Mayor Clauder believed that this was an appropriate venue for such a guest. Clauder mentioned that Green Bay and Ashwaubegon councils both invited the famous fan. He mentioned that he’s personally known O’Neill for a long time because he lived in Fitchburg for many years. But I still don’t see why Fitchburg needs to follow the lead taken by Green Bay. The two cities are quite different. We don’t even have a stadium much less one filled with Packer fans year after year. I haven’t a clue as to why Ashwaubenon is now setting a precedent for Fitchburg to follow.

Now, before any of you send me hate e-mail for being anti-Packers, I should tell you that “Saint Vince” seems to be having a great time as he raises money for charity by charging people to have their picture taken with him. This is all well and good… in the right time and place. I believe that a Fitchburg City Council meeting is not the right place. And if it were the right place, the priorities around allocation of time are still wrong.

And there’s also the issue of fairness and equity. Many people, including me, find it quite difficult to get more than 3 minutes of face time with the Council or the Plan Commission without being interrupted by “Are you almost done?” But I’m not in the NFL Fan Hall of Fame like O’Neill who had no such problem.

I have to question the priorities because I know that Dr. Cal DeWitt, a UW Professor who has devoted his life to studying and teaching complex ecosystems, was given just 30 minutes to present important research at the Plan Commission meeting Tuesday, Jan. 15th when he could have spent much more time if permitted. Dr. DeWitt has built an international reputation through his involvement with projects and conferences relating to global climate change and other ecological issues. His interdisciplinary experience has allowed him to connect some important dots in Dane County and we need to hear what he has found.

Do you see anything wrong with the judgment over at City Hall when the Mayor can allocate 20 minutes for stories about the Packers while Dr. DeWitt is only allowed 30 minutes for a presentation about the importance of buried bedrock valleys, missing aquitard and how these affect our groundwater system?

I do. Fitchburg’s Council, Committees and Commissions have important work to do. Their decisions impact the daily lives of current and future residents. Although I enjoy the occasional bit of humor at city meetings, wasting 20 minutes on sports trivia is a disservice to our community.

Terry Carpenter
(Disgusted in) Fitchburg

How Will Measures Be Enforced?

Expanded version of Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Phyllis Hasbrouck
Chair of the West Waubesa Preservation Coaliton

“Just Trust Us”

The main message that I heard from developer Phil Sveum and his team on Dec. 18 was “Just trust us.” They painted a picture of a “green development” in the Northeast Neighborhood, but with no real substance. They are “looking at” encouraging homebuyers to use efficient plumbing fixtures, limit lawn watering, create and maintain raingardens, and use rain barrels. They assure us that when they complete their CDP (comprehensive development plan) it will have measures adequate to protect Lake Waubesa, Swan Creek, the springs and the groundwater.

Should the Plan Commission just take their word for it? How many times have cities been left holding the bag when a stormwater plan went bad? Developers sure are good at sweet talking, but once they finish the project, they are done, and all problems are left to the city.

Can Neighborhood Associations be Depended on?

All of the neighborhood-wide water-saving and stormwater control features of the Sveum plan depend on a Neighborhood Association to carry them out, and that’s a real weakness. It’s hard to find people willing to put in the volunteer hours for the good of the whole neighborhood. Harlan Hills (which was built by Sveum to be an “environmental development”) has a neighborhood association, but it hasn’t stopped people from using the pesticides that Sveum said would be banned. People have mowed down prairie and incorporated pieces into their yards, and concerned residents were told that suing their neighbors is the only way they can get the covenants enforced.

It’s very easy to say, “the outlot raingardens, the repair and plowing of the alleys, and the greenways will all be managed by a dues-collecting neighborhood association,” but the reality may be quite different. A recent Capital Times article talked about the many area residents who buy homes without realizing that their street is private, and that they’ll have to pay for its upkeep. What if new residents of the NEN can’t or won’t keep up the raingardens, alleys and greenways? Will Phil Sveum step in and pay? Will the city? Or will the environment have to pay? I understand that Fitchburg has never allowed private streets. I hope that they stick to their principles when it comes to private allies, greenways, and infiltration features.

What makes anyone believe that the people who move into such a development will be interested in conserving tap water or maintaining raingardens? Congratulations to Commissioner McNally, who brought a sense of reality back to the discussion when he asked whether we could really count on all of these ambitious plans happening!

A Memorandum is not a Promise

The Ruekert-Mielke stormwater report was a list of goals, with no concrete suggestions to describe how the goals would be met. The Montgomery Associates Memorandum on water is a slight improvement. It describes the general sort of techniques that they plan to use, e.g. “providing multiple points of treatment and infiltration of runoff as close to the impervious surfaces as possible.” But we are told to wait until they have a comprehensive development plan to see exactly what kind, how many, and where such measures will be. Can it be that this is the accepted way of approving developments – to just take the say-so of people who have every reason to skimp once they have the approval?

Rob Montgomery, Sveum’s water expert, said “Those [municipal] wells draw water from the lower aquifer relatively isolated from the upper aquifer, and also draw from a wider region of Fitchburg and areas to the west.” People who attend or watch the next Plan Commission meeting at 7 p.m. in City Hall on Jan. 15 will learn that this is not so, when they hear Dr. Cal DeWitt speak on buried bedrock valleys.

The memorandum says that “Water draining off the Par Fore site will be managed to exceed state and local ordinance criteria for water quality, peak discharge rates, and runoff volumes.” Once again, we are told to just trust them. Everything will be done according to the law. But does that mean that it won’t harm the environment? The environment has been gravely harmed by development, and presumably most of that development was done within the law. We need some leadership by people willing to defend the resources that will sustain our grandchildren!

Groundwater, Lakes and Phosphorus

Rob Montgomery’s conclusion was that “placing consideration of the Northeast Neighborhood ‘on hold’ because of regional groundwater management concerns is not warranted. We suggest that an appropriate approach for the Planning Commission is to approve the neighborhood plan including an objective of maintaining groundwater recharge, and recommending appropriate municipal water supply conservation practices.” Translation: “Just write down that it would be good for people to save water and let rainwater infiltrate, and let us go about our business.”

It was encouraging to hear Commissioner Kinney ask Rob Montgomery how he could ensure that the water going in to Swan Creek would be both cleaner and of the same volume post-development. I hope that all the commissioners will be asking skeptical and probing questions, as they are responsible for the welfare of the entire community.

Some commissioners may think that the question of phosphorus has been laid to rest with City Engineer Paul Woodard’s calculations that post-development the NEN will contribute less phosphorus to surface waters than it presently does. While this may be true, (a schedule of corn, corn, and soy results in a lot of phosphorus runoff) it is not the relevant question to ask. Because Lake Waubesa is already partly eutrophic, a large reduction in phosphorus loading is needed, not a small one. Small scale, organic farming could be the best option of all for protecting and restoring Lake Waubesa, and it should be studied.

Workforce Housing and the Future of Fitchburg

Kudos to Alder Allen and Mayor Clauder for bringing up the issue of workforce housing. This is a huge need, but it won’t be met unless the city insists on it. Our proposal for the Northeast Neighborhood, which we will present to the Plan Commission in Feb., contains 30 units of workforce housing, for the farmers, teachers and entrepreneurs who will run the school of organic farming, the farmers market, and the Bike and Breakfast that we envision. The people who will be attracted to inhabit the NEN if our vision is realized will definitely be interested in and dedicated to saving water, infiltrating rainwater, stopping soil loss, rejecting pesticides, and creating a vibrant, closely knit community.

I hope that the Plan Commission and Common Council will remember that the choice before them is not between Mr. Sveum’s proposal and the worst possible development. The choice is between Mr. Sveum’s proposal, just leaving the land in agriculture, or endorsing our plan to preserve our lakes and groundwater while producing healthy food for the community.

Northeast Neighborhood Poorly Planned

Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to the Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Holly Adams, Fitchburg


I am a resident of the Northeast Neighborhood, and I was hoping that Sveum’s plan for the forests and fields that surround my home would impress me with planning, innovation and forethought. Unfortunately, the plan failed on all three counts.

The neighborhood is not well planned out. The neighborhood is not really a neighborhood, just a large cluster of homes clumped together. There is nothing to build a sense of community, no center, no focal point, no main streets, just winding roads jam-packed with single family homes, condos and duplexes.

I was hoping for more innovation in the design. I was hoping for something that would make Fitchburg unique or identifiable. Instead, I saw a bedroom suburb, the same as I see around Sun Prairie, DeForest, and Cottage Grove. Putting garages in the backs of lots and houses close together will only encourage people to walk if there are places to walk to. However, everything for these families will be a car trip away. A carton of milk, a teacher’s conference, returning a book to the library and a swim lesson will require cars to dart out of this neighborhood in four different directions.

With all the work that has been done to study I thought there would be more forethought in the plan. The last thing I expected to see was a repeat of the Swan Creek neighborhood, except with more homes jammed in. The Northeast Neighborhood was picked as an area to study for future development because of its proximity to the GreenTech development and to the rail corridor that runs parallel to it. No one knows for sure what is going into that rail corridor, but everyone seems sure we want to develop along it. Of course, if it is high speed rail, the chances that there will be a stop between Oregon and Madison are slim, but that matters not to the people who want to tear up the fields and forests to build acres upon acres of vinyl-sided homes in every shade of taupe known to man.

The city of Fitchburg and the School District of Oregon will bear the costs of this development. The city will have to pay for fire and police protection in this remote corner of Fitchburg, the cost of maintaining the roads and alleys that will crisscross the cornfields, and the cost of leapfrogging urban services over vacant land while land in the existing urban services area goes undeveloped. The school district will bear the cost of bussing kids seven miles each way to school; and the cost of building new schools and spaces for children who live on the far outer edge of the district.

But more costly still is the cost all of us will bear as we continue to chew up field and forest for pockets of development. The cost to our lakes, springs, streams and well water. While Fitchburg and Oregon can tax all of us more to help defray the costs to them for services, there is no amount of money anyone can extract that will recompense us when we have drained our wells dry, or killed our lakes.

I grew up in the Northeast neighborhood. I followed the trails through the woods that led through the meadows and out into the fields that are soon to be torn up. I climbed up the trees, and helped friends build tree forts in the oaks that bent out over the corn fields below. When we had the chance to move back to this wonderful corner of Fitchburg, we jumped at it. We watch the turkeys and the deer during the day, and wait for the flying squirrels to soar in at night. I love the parts of Fitchburg that are forward thinking, progressive and unique. I just wish my own neighborhood was going to stay in that part of Fitchburg, and not become part of the poorly-planned, mundane, environmentally-lethal suburbia that one developer envisions.

'Green Plan' is Actually SPRAWL

Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to the Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Rosanne Lindsay, Fitchburg

Call it what you will, but the proposed Sveum development, on the outer edges of Northeast Fitchburg, is SPRAWL by any name, and raises more questions than it offers answers.

This plan may boast many things, including parks, rain gardens, native plantings, and filling a need to “provide houses in an area that reduces commuting distance” (for whom I might ask)? What it does not do is tell Fitchburg residents who care about increased taxes, what they will pay to provide services (water, sewer, fire, etc) to the NE area. Nor does it convey to those who care about protecting our natural resources, how these measures will be enforced.

The need for “greening” this plan was prompted by concerned citizens who believe that runoff pollution from this development will irreversibly degrade the native fauna and flora, creeks, springs, the Northern Pike Fishery, Lake Waubesa, and one of the highest quality and diverse wetlands in southern Wisconsin, only one mile from the site.

While Mr. Sveum’s effort to respond to citizen concerns was noted by some on the Plan Commission, discussion of specific measures by Sveum to address risks to the basic water chemistry and aquatic habitat conditions on pre-existing water bodies (Swan Creek, Lake Waubesa, Deep Spring), was lacking. These risks have been noted to be high and growing, according to Environmental Toxicologist, Dave Zaber (See 11/16/06 Star article).

Mr. Sveum’s consultant predicted that Swan Creek will not be adversely affected by development and that surface runoff will be cleaner than current conditions. However, he did not talk about accountability. In fact, Sveum et al. admitted that compliance with infiltration on individual lots cannot be enforced so how are we assured that groundwater recharge will be maintained or that runoff and the water bodies will remain clean?

There are accountability mechanisms which should be insisted upon: Sveum’s proposed Northeast Neighborhood, like his Harlan Hills, and Swan Creek developments contrast with the very rigorous accountability mechanisms that Bill Linton imposed in the Fitchburg Center. There, independent associations oversee the management and monitoring of compliance with covenants, much like the Natural Heritage Land trust does for PDR easements in the area.

In Harlan Hills, no additional funds will be provided to restore promised prairie land which is overwhelmed by clover. Mr. Sveum seeded and maintained the prairie for 2 years. Unfortunately, prairie restoration needs 3-5 years of maintenance to ensure proper generation of prairie plants, according to local experts. Promises of “no lawn pesticide application” (to protect the Arboretum) became “certain pesticides acceptable.” And even banned pesticides are sometimes applied because there is little, if any, ability to enforce.

As a result of the heavy rains last August, the Village of Oregon is faced with purchasing several flood-damaged homes, at least partly at taxpayer expense. The homes are downhill from Oregon's new Bergamont and Alpine Valley developments. Some have accused the developers of "design error" from poor stormwater management plans. Others say the developers are not to blame because they complied with the stormwater ordinance and other village requirements. Either way, there is little doubt that the developments exacerbated Oregon's pre-existing flood problems, as some residents had predicted.

These local histories prove that good intentions and inadequate city policies are simply not enough. Maintaining our precious environmental resources--the forests, prairies, wetlands, fisheries, and lakes that make living here so desirable--requires nothing less than full commitment to do whatever it takes to accomplish the goal, be it prairie restoration or preserving Swan Creek and the Lake Waubesa watershed.

Developers can talk all they want about "sustainability" and "green" development but they often fail to follow through. So it must be the city’s job to probe for specifics and examine concerns raised previously about the developer's Northeast Neighborhood Plan, including the suitability of the model being used for hydrological impacts, the absence of cumulative effects analysis, the preservation of rare hydric soils and infiltration, and the threats to our aquifer (groundwater) from a burgeoning population, as described by UW Ecologist Cal DeWitt.

Mr. Sveum also gave the rosy economic prediction that his thousand-home development will not cost the city money. But will Mr. Sveum give the city an enforceable guarantee as the country heads toward a recession? Or will Fitchburg taxpayers be the ones who bear the cost when his prediction proves incorrect? Virtually all Cost of Urban Service studies show that residential development leads to a net drain on local government budgets. What justifies Mr. Sveum’s belief that his Northeast Neighborhood development will be any different? What about reality of the nation’s economy; the shortage of credit to homebuyers resulting from the mortgage meltdown, the perceived need for more housing when many homes stand empty waiting for a buyer, or the fall of the dollar? City officials should require a full Cost of Urban Services Study for all new development proposals as a matter of fiscal responsibility.

The public policy question is one of deciding whether or not “market forces” should allow this sort of development at this location when it makes such a dramatic influence on the area’s natural and recreational resources, as well as contributes to commuter traffic and sprawl. The fact that there is the rail line and the Green Tech Village plan, both of which do far more for the City, is an important alternative that must be given more thought.

Proposed developments, in conjunction with past and present developments, are adversely affecting groundwater and surface water resources throughout Dane county and this problem is particularly acute in this part of Dane County. Let's hope that at future meetings of both the Plan Commission and the Common Council, the city will ask many probing, skeptical questions that will truly serve the interests of the many Fitchburg residents waiting for answers.

And while Mr. Sveum may, indeed, share many of our concerns, he may be the only one to see “green” if the Northeast Neighborhood turns into more Fitchburg SPRAWL.

Proposed Development is 'Green Washing'

Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to the Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Amy Schulz, Fitchburg

"Green" plans for N.E. Neighborhood really mean "green $" for developer

I just finished reading the article regarding the "new and improved" proposal for the N.E. Neighborhood. I'm glad that Sveum has tried to be responsive to the concerns of the citizens of Fitchburg but I'm afraid that his proposed solutions to our concerns are "green washing", in other words, they sound like they are good for the environment, but there are truly a lot of holes in the proposals.

For example, Sveum and Montgomery have plans to control runoff and methods to encourage infiltration, but if these are voluntary, it's likely that they won't be implemented. Sometimes developments promise to be kept free of pesticides (an example of voluntary proposals) but without any governmental teeth to enforce these types of promises, pesticides have been utilized.

Montgomery assured members of the commision that Swan Creek wouldn't be adversely affected by development but what about the issue of Lake Waubesa's water table being affected? Professor Cal DeWitt has done extensive research on the impact of development on Lake Waubesa and this wasn't even addressed.

I find the push for another development in rural Fitchburg to be short-sighted given the economic challenges of the recession that is in progress. There are plenty of homes on the market these days with depressed prices reflecting this recession. The new development in Oregon has plenty of vacant homes and the Swan Creek Neighborhood still has plenty of room as well. The small businesses close to downtown Fitchburg seem to be struggling, are more businesses what we truly need?

I hope that the planning commission will consider these points and NOT approve this development in light of these concerns.

Proposed Development a 'Homebuilding Debacle'

Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to the Editor, Fitchburg Star
By Gary Leverington / Resident of Fitchburg

(Emphasis added)

I'm writing again to express concern about the proposed NE neighborhood plan. It is my hope that sensible leadership will prevail at the City Council to once and for all put a stake in the plans to turn the NE neighborhood area into a massive homebuilding debacle.

I ask all members of our community to consider where we are in the real estate cycle and vigorously oppose the NE neighborhood being turned into additional houses (and lots for sale) that we do not need and most citizens do not want.

More importantly, there are a plethora of valid environmental reasons to put a stop to turning the NE neighborhood area into paved roads and houses that just add to the oversupply of homes and lots for sale in Fitchburg. Creating a huge new supply of houses here will also place additional downward pressure on existing home values in Fitchburg.

To take land that could be used for organic farming, teaching and organic retail - with the ability to provide good quality food for those that live here now, and those that will come after us - and turn it into another grouping of paved roads, over fertilized lawns (with pesticides), and more houses is beyond irresponsible.

As for developers of new houses - once they've already acquired the land, asking them if we need more new houses is like asking the owner of a shoe store if it's a good time to buy shoes.

Let's request that our community leaders maintain control over what's in the best interest of the community. Adopting a people over profits theme.

As an alternative, perhaps the developer can come up with a plan for an organic farming village that can be a shining legacy for future generations - not just here, but for the entire area! Just imagine how popular this would be for the growing number of people seeking healthy, locally grown, organic food products! What a wonderful and beneficial legacy to leave to our children!

Consider the following: Mortgage performance has suffered: An alarming 5.6% of the nation's homeowners have fallen behind on their mortgage payments — up from roughly 4.7% a year earlier and the most since 1986. The percentage of homes in any stage of foreclosure has jumped to 1.7%, the highest since the Mortgage Bankers Association began tracking it in 1972.

According to some estimates, as many as 2.2 million homeowners could lose their houses over the next 24 months!

We've already seen the price of an American home lose 6.1% from a year ago, according to the well-respected research group S&P/Case-Shiller. The Census Bureau shows the price of new homes down even more — 13% in October, the sharpest drop in 37 years. Lending standards have also tightened so fewer would-be buyers can qualify for loans - this also adds to downward pressure on home prices. More supply with fewer buyers is supply and demand 101!

I fully expect more declines in 2008. Home values will likely fall by the mid-single digits nationwide, and more in select markets. For those that think Fitchburg is immune from a downturn - just ask the people in Florida that bought condos at the top of the market and now owe way more than their homes are worth. They too felt they were immune from a downturn. Let's not allow Fitchburg to become overbuilt and place our home values at risk!

For our community leaders, I know it's difficult to resist the temptation to accommodate developers, but in the example of the NE neighborhood plan in particular, denying approval is quite obviously the right thing to do for our wonderful community.

What If The Experts Are Right?

[Originally published as Letter to Editor in the Fitchburg Star on November 30, 2006.]

What if the experts are right
That the earth is a closed loop system
With limits on many of its natural resources
And long term consequences for many of our actions?

What would you change if you knew
That our unsustainable lifestyle
Wastes precious and finite assets
Like oil, natural gas and water?

What would you want if you realized
That our excessive consumption
Lowers the future standard of living for our children
By producing mountains of junk destined for landfills?

What would you do if you believed
That our disregard for resource limits
Allows us to enjoy the luxuries of today
In exchange for the necessities of tomorrow?

What if the experts are right
That we must make changes to ensure that
Our children have the resources they need
To lead healthy, happy and productive lives?

Terry Carpenter

Lindsay Questions Water Supply

Rosanne Lindsay's testimony from Aug. 7th Public Hearing:

[Most content from Letter to the Editor which appeared in the Fitchburg Star on Aug. 9, 2007.]

I’d like to talk about something that links all of us on the issue of Smart growth and growth boundaries, and that is the water.

The term water shortage has become a buzzword in Fitchburg this summer with two warnings from the city, including one mandatory warning, announcing water restrictions that limit yard sprinkling. Perhaps the water restrictions are due to increased growth in the area, or drought conditions, or both.

But as the city warns current residents to limit water usage on one hand, they are also moving to allow increased growth to our outlying rural corridor through the Urban Growth Boundary proposal. The approval of the Growth Boundary would pave the way for the approval of the NE Neighborhood development which would bring in thousands of new residents and hundreds of new businesses. It might also require siting a new municipal high-capacity well, diverting more water out of the ground.

Why would the city risk expanding our resident base, as sprawl, knowing that water shortages around the state are generating heated arguments about our current water supply?

For example, the city of Waukesha, known for overdevelopment and sprawl, still struggles to gain access to clean drinkable water even as they plan for new development (they drink radium-contaminated groundwater). Recently, a Waukesha developer and the utility proposed annexing Town property to sink two new heavy pumping wells near the 4600- acre Vernon Marsh Wildlife area to gain access to clean water for 200 new homes. But opponents to this plan convinced the Common Council to vote against it, saying they should halt new development so that they could live with their existing water resource.

Is this a novel idea whose time has come? Halt development and annexation in favor of conservation? More locally, the Village of Oregon Board and Planning Commission recently stopped annexing residential property due to concerns that the village has too many vacant residential lots.

I read, more often now, that developers are seeking to build closer to rural environmental corridors, wetlands, marshes and lakes, not only because they are often the only areas left to develop, but also because they are areas with a ready source of water.

The plan to chop up the open space of the Northeast neighborhood and cover it in asphalt is no different. But it doesn't have to happen. There are plenty of opportunities within Fitchburg's city core for infill development using existing wells that would lessen the impact on the flowage to Lake Waubesa's ecosystem. Further, why take away our access to highly fertile farmland, forest, and wetlands, surrounded by protected lands and parks that represent Fitchburg's unique rural, environmental corridor?

If current drought conditions should persist as a predictable summer occurrence then shouldn't we be cautiously planning our future growth to ensure that there will be enough water to sustain current residents? If future droughts continue to affect the levels of our area lakes, how will new high-powered wells for thousands of future residents from elsewhere help us to sustain our current water needs?

In considering the expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary, city planners and council members should explain how sprawl development would not sap city resources, spend more taxpayer dollars, and short our water supply in the process.

Open Doors Make Good Neighbors

[This Letter to the Editor appeared in the Fitchburg Star on June 28, 2007.]

I would like to congratulate the Fitchburg Common Council, Mayor, and Plan Commission for working in a thoughtful way to plan for the city's future. And I thank them for the courteous reception that they have always given all concerned citizens even those residing outside of Fitchburg.

Though some might complain about "outsiders," our leaders realize that everyone in the area has a stake in questions of development, and that living on one side of a line on a map does not negate a persons ideas or concerns.

I've heard the Mayor point out that Fitchburg officials and residents participate in discussions about Allied Drive, even though it is in Madison, because being just across the border, it affects Fitchburg. Similarly, there are neighborhoods in the Towns of Dunn and Blooming Grove that are just across the border from Fitchburg's Northeast Neighborhood. In fact, they are much closer to it than I am, even though I live in Fitchburg.

Through my concern with land use (especially how it affects farmland, natural areas, streams, wetlands, Lake Waubesa, the aquifer and groundwater), I have made many new friends and acquaintances in the surrounding cities and towns. I've worked closely with several of them and know them to be deeply concerned about the threats to our habitat imposed by the Urban Growth Boundary Map as it is currently drawn. I've seen their dedication to protecting what's left of a beautiful area on the urban fr'inge. I've watched them pour hundreds of hours into educating themselves and others about storm water, New Urbanism, PDR and TDR, economic benefits of local food production, sustainable living, etc. They are a tremendous resource to the entire region and especially to Fitchburg since it is here that so many important decisions, affecting everyone in the area, will be made.

I urge my fellow Fitchburgers to welcome input from everyone willing to look seriously at the issues we face and find solutions that benefit all future residents of this region.

Terry Carpenter

Fitchburg

Questions Proposed Growth Boundary

[This Letter to the Editor appeared in the Fitchburg Star on May 31, 2007.]

As an observer at the Plan Commission meeting on May 15th, I was very disappointed at both the process and the results. Please consider my points and join me in questioning the Proposed 50-year Growth Boundary at the open house and public hearing on June 5th.

(1) I saw little consideration for protecting the ecosystem - our shared habitat which extends beyond the 36 square mile rectangle called Fitchburg. Planners should look at the impact of everything they do including the effect on the area to our east which is much more precious and fragile than any other so-called “undeveloped” area in Fitchburg! The wetlands, streams and lake have “developed” through a very slow process that takes millions of years. The Town of Dunn, Nature Conservancy, DNR and others have invested enormous amounts of time and money to preserve these priceless and essential natural areas. But, Mother Nature has her limits, so we must become good stewards of the earth instead of developing the Northeast Neighborhood and much of the eastern side of Fitchburg as currently proposed.

(2) I overheard several inappropriate comments including: “Who owns that property?” and “You might as well grab that one.” This process should not be treated as a land grab and this phase should be independent of individual landowners. We need a cautious approach that respects the wishes of area residents, as it preserves and protects what’s really important… the world we leave for our children. A survey indicated that Fitchburg residents value farmland, open space and natural areas. We want clean air and water. How can we ensure these things for future generations?

(3) I observed a rush to expand development at a rate approaching 75 acres a year for 50 years. The Commission’s vision turns Syene Rd into another McKee Rd lined with new development. But, as one of a growing number of “localvores,” my vision for Fitchburg includes many places to buy locally grown, organic food. Our farmland will become more and more valuable in the future. Let’s preserve it.

(4) Although Commission members included "infiltration" and "soil types" in a worthy attempt to use some objective criteria, I wonder if they understand the danger of paving over hydric soils in the Northeast Neighborhood by using a narrow definition for “good” infiltration that omits these soils.

We have until 2010 to develop a new comprehensive plan. Yes, we need to start now. But, let’s hear expert testimony and consider scientific data before we change the face, and the life support systems, of Fitchburg.

Terry Carpenter
Fitchburg