The Shorewood Senior Resource Center will hold its annual Trustee Candidate Forum (debate) on Feb 12, 2007 from noon to 1 PM. This event is held on the lower level of the Village Center, and is free and open to the public.

This is the first of the debates, and will give us our first glimpse of what we can expect through the rest of the campaign. The debate will almost certainly include protracted discussion of why the Village Board has yet to take action on construction of a lounge for Shorewood's senior citizens.

Shorewood Village President Guy Johnson expressed concern Monday about the potential financial implications of the Village’s decision to join Milwaukee’s lawsuit against AT&T. Although the Village’s portion of the cost is only $400, Johnson believes this amount could increase if the cost of the lawsuit exceeds current estimates.

“I voted against participating in the RTC effort as a friend of the court during the possible litigation between Milwaukee and AT&T because of the possibility of getting involved over and above the approximately $400 share the Village is being told it would cost,” Johnson said in a statement. “I felt our participation should merit more assurance of limiting our litigation costs.”

In a 5-2 vote last week, the Village Board approved participation in the lawsuit. Both President Johnson and Trustee Margaret Hickey voted against the measure. Trustee Hickey did not respond to requests for comment.

At issue is AT&T’s attempt to elbow their way into the cable market, ignoring or bypassing scattered attempts by municipalities to slow the expansion. Delivery of the new TV service involved the placement of outhouse sized metal boxes in the right of way between the sidewalk and the street. AT&T claims their status as a telecom provider gives them the right to place this equipment without seeking approval from the municipality. The City of Milwaukee, joined by other surrounding municipalities, has mounted a court challenge.

This battle is being replayed in many cities across the country, as residents complain about sudden appearance of the unsightly boxes, and municipalities fret over the loss of revenue from Cable franchises. Current estimates indicated that 15 to 16 boxes will be necessary to provide service to Shorewood.

If AT&T gets their way, you can expect to see a massive grey box, similar to this one, in your neighborhood very soon. This week, AT&T informed our Village Manager that we can expect 15 to 16 more boxes in Shorewood by the time the project is complete. They have been plunking down the boxes all over the Milwaukee region, ignoring requests from concered municipalities to stop or slow the expansion. At issue is AT&T's desire to deliver television services over the phone lines. Since they are the telephone provider, they argue, they have free access to the right-of-way to place any communications equipment they want. While I am all for lower prices through competition in the cable market, AT&T's behavior in this case is difficult for me to support.

From this week's Shorewood Village Manager's Memo:

-------------------------

Shorewood Village Manager's Memo
Jan 25, 2007

"AT&T plans 15-16 more boxes throughout the Village. It remains the Village's position that they should try to place them on public property hidden from view, or other areas where they won't be a nuisance both physically and aesthetically. Their technology is limited in that they have to be placed to maximize video service to the customer, so they cannot promise that they won't be in the right-of-ways. They will work with the Village, if possible and landscape as needed. Legislation remains pending at the state level that will help AT&T by-pass local regulations of these boxes."
------------------------

Trustee Candidate David Tatarowicz has launched a campaign blog. Check it out here. In a statement sent to The Forum, Mr. Tatarowicz said "In working to get my message out to the voters and to express my positions on the issues, I have started an independent blog at Tatarowicz4Shorewoodtrustee.com."

Renters need more parking spaces in high density areas, including Oakland Ave and Capitol Dr. The draconian restrictions they have been living under for the last number of years are totally unacceptable and hinder the creation of a stable community of medium and long term renters. I have frequently suggested that allowing overnight on-street parking on Oakland and Capitol would go a long way toward alleviating the parking shortage, thereby improving the lives of Shorewood renters.

One of the most frequently cited arguments against allowing overnight parking in Shorewood is the fear of an increase in crime stemming from the additional cars parked on the street.

We finally have data to analyze which will help us assess the probability of this outcome.

For about the last year, we have had a pilot program running on the northern section of Oakland Avenue, which allows area residents to purchase permits for overnight on-street parking. This program is restricted to only the northern section of Oakland Ave, but may expand in the future. What does our experience with the pilot program tell us about the legitimacy of the fear of a crime spike?

Below is an excerpt from a recent article discussing the success of the pilot program.

----------------------------

Overnight parking program to be studied, may expand

By Brendan O'Brien
Staff Writer
Posted: Jan. 26, 2007
...
Chief David Banaszynski said the program, which allows overnight parking on Oakland Avenue north of Capitol Drive, has met all expectations.

"We had excellent participation," he said. "The study has shown we can reduce parking congestion without any undesirable side effects."

Banaszynski added that the department has not seen an increase in crime and that cars have not stayed on the street for long periods of time.
...
--------------------------------

What happened to the Dome that used to be a part of the proposed athletic facilities? Back when the renovation was first reported, the plans included a dome over the field. The below article from today makes no mention of a dome. Hopefully, it has disappeared permanently.

----------------------------------
Board supports fundraising project
Brendan O'Brien
North Shore NOW, 1/26/07

The Shorewood School Board gave a vote of confidence for a fundraising project to renovate the high school outdoor sports facilities Jan. 23.

With a unanimous vote, the board approved a resolution supporting the efforts of the Drive to Distinction committee. The committee, made up of school officials and community members, is charged with raising funds for the renovation project.

Two weeks ago, the board approved $122,648 in donations for the project.

The renovation project - projected to cost $3.41 million - includes building a regulation field for soccer and football, a new track, bleachers and press box, and replacing the lighting and fencing. The project also includes building a maintenance shed, concession stand and restroom facilities.
--------------------------------

Several readers have questioned part of School Board Candidate Emma Poroli’s statement from January 11th relating to the amount paid for health care benefits in Shorewood.

Here is the original statement in question.

----------------------------------
Profile of School Board Candidate Emma Poroli
Posted 1/11/07

“I'd like to serve on the school board in Shorewood to help find innovative solutions to the many challenges we face. For example, I believe it’s important to evaluate our options for providing quality health care benefits to teachers so that we can be certain we’re using our money as wisely as possible, because more than half of our education dollars currently go to health care benefits.”

------------------------------

After readers brought up their questions, I asked Ms. Poroli for a clarification. Here is her response:

-------------------------------
From: Emma Poroli
To: Steve Koczela

I spoke to the superintendent last night after the school board meeting for clarification. Sen Darling spoke at the last school board meeting and gave the figure that 56% of the sate education budget goes toward paying healthcare and the superintendent concurred that she did give that figure. He did say that the figure may be misleading because she adds a lot of other things in there to arrive at that figure. Twenty two percent of the projected operational budget for the Shorewood district goes to 'fringe' (healthcare) costs. I apologize if my statement was confusing but I wanted clarification for myself before I responded.

The thing is, our district spends roughly 11k to educate each student, but only receives 1k per from the state education budget. We pay more into the state than we receive. I don't have an exact figure of what percent we receive back, but there is a significant deficit. So the 56% figure really impacts this district and every other district in the state because that means that less than half of the budget goes directly into the classrooms from my understanding.

I'm glad that folks are questioning the figures. They are disturbing. It's up to us as taxpayers to question why that is. I am going to set up a meeting with Sen Darling to find out how she arrived at that figure and what it all entails.

Emma Poroli
Shorewood School Board Candidate
---------------------------------------

Jim Doyle has proposed a bold, statewide ban on smoking in public places. So can we please drop the discussion of creating our own ban Shorewood, creating our own non-smoking island?

A ban in Shorewood alone would be a policy of dubious value; most likely ineffectual, and potentially damaging to our bars, taverns, and restaurants. As I have previously written, there is no interest in other North Shore communities in creating their own smoking bans. As such, a Shorewood-only ban would put us on a tiny non-smoking island in the middle of the vast metropolis.

A ban in the State of WI would be a vastly preferable alternative, saving huge numbers of lives, and keeping the playing field level for all bars, taverns, and restaurants.

Kudos to Jim Doyle. Now, the attention turns back to our Village Trustees. March 3 is the expiration of the 60-day time window that was given to the committee to report back with a new version of the ordinance to vote on.

-------------------------------------------

Doyle to ask for bans on smoking

By STACY FORSTER and PATRICK MARLEY
JSOnline, Jan. 23, 2007

Madison - Gov. Jim Doyle will announce today his support for an increase in the cigarette tax of more than $1 a pack and call for legislation banning smoking statewide in workplaces and public places, including taverns and restaurants.
...
The smoking ban Doyle will propose would supersede less stringent local ordinances already in place. Fifteen states plus the District of Columbia have workplace smoking bans, according to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation.
-------------------------------------------



1. "I'm thrilled that Wisconsin is poised to institute a state-wide smoking ban in restaurants and public places, but I do wish that the tax on cigarettes would be raised more than $1 or so a pack. I'd like to see at tax of $3-4 a pack, which would significantly reduce smoking, but for now, I'm relieved that Shorewood businesses won't have to suffer business losses due to patrons going to other bars and restaurants that allow smoking. I'd also urge everyone to try to make a point of patronizing our restaurants and bars after the statewide ban goes into effect to help minimize their business losses in the changeover. I for one can't wait to have a celebratory drink at a smoke-free Shorewood bar very soon. And thank you, Village Board, for allowing gambling machines back at the American Legion, as I know they can really use the extra profit now that they face the loss of their smoking clientele."
- Nancy Peske, Shorewood Resident, 1/26/07

EDITOR'S NOTE: This post is entirely tongue in cheek, in case that is not starkly apparent.

In an effort to boost the number of bloggers appearing on ShorewoodNOW, Journal Interactive has recruited three bloggers from the Central Asian country of Tajikistan. Bloggers to be added include such household names as Qatorkuhi Akademiyai, upstart blogger Qullai Mayakovskiy, and the widely respected Kyzylart Korzhenievski. NOW editors issued a statement confirming the identity of the new bloggers, and talking up the new format. “We are excited about this. This really brings the idea of local news into the 21st century. We anticipate bloggers from Tajikistan making an important contribution to our new format”

Each of the new bloggers will be contributing regular features about topics of interest to Shorewood residents such new school construction in the Gorno-Badakhshan region and opinion pieces on whether the residents of Qurghonteppa wish to continue participating in the Khatlon Regional Fire and Rescue Department (KRFRD).

Shorewood residents are divided in their opinions of the new format. Some Shorewood residents were excited about having more contributors.

“When you look out there at the world, the issues facing Tajikistan and Shorewood really are similar,” said Menlo Ave resident Jonathan Smith. “I will read their posts with great interest.”

Others were less sure, questioning the relevance of having bloggers from outside Shorewood appear on the ShorewoodNOW site.

“Can’t we find more bloggers from Shorewood?” asked Shorewood resident Jaime Kenthy. “I really can’t imagine why I would care about what these bloggers think about anything.”

In a related story, unconfirmed reports have surfaced that Journal Interactive may change the name of ShorewoodNOW to EverywhereWeCanFindBloggersNOW. Requests for comment from Journal editors were not immediately returned.

Several readers who asked not to be identified have questioned part of School Board Candidate Emma Poroli’s statement from January 11th. Specifically, the piece that has raised questions is the assertion that over half of our education dollars are spent on health care benefits.

----------------------------------

Profile of School Board Candidate Emma Poroli
Posted 1/11/07

“I'd like to serve on the school board in Shorewood to help find innovative solutions to the many challenges we face. For example, I believe it’s important to evaluate our options for providing quality health care benefits to teachers so that we can be certain we’re using our money as wisely as possible, because more than half of our education dollars currently go to health care benefits.”

------------------------

I am seeking clarification from Ms. Poroli and will post an update when I have more information.

Today officially marked the 324,572,158th story about the budget woes facing the Milwaukee County Parks system. The County Board and County Exec are engaged in the usual bare knuckled fist fight over budget cutting and fee raising.

We need innovative solutions. As such, I propose the County cede control of a portion of Estabrook Park to the Village of Shorewood. This portion of the park will be converted to the North Shore Dog Park. It will be financed by seasonal user fees payable to the Village of Shorewood , as well as private donations. There are no dog parks in the immediate vicinity, and a huge concentration of dog owners on the East Side and the North Shore.

Although the piece of land available is not huge (assuming we only used the piece between Wilson Drive and Estabrook Parkway, there does appear to be enough space there to give dogs and their owners a place to enjoy.

Joe Mangiamelli has posted a response to my 1/17/07 post, "Yes, Geography Matters." He seems at once please and alarmed that I have raised this as an issue. Below is an excerpt from his post.

----------------------------

Theory of the leisure class

From The Village Square, 1/19/07

"But Steve, why do you raise these dangerous issues. Of the 12 elected official in Shorewood, all of them are from the east side of the “tracks.” And we did have tracks on Oakland, street car tracks. Steve, thanks for bringing this up. Now we have something else to worry about. What shall we make of this?

It's the conventional belief that those living on the east side of Oakland Avenue earn higher incomes than on the other side. I suppose this is self-explanatory. There are more rentals and many less expensive homes there on the west side. Does this mean that our diversity is generally more a matter of geography than of an diversified mix? Are the upper income residents better represented than those of lesser incomes? Now we've let the cat out of the bag.

Steve, the implication raises some interesting and unsettling questions. You often do this, you know"
--------------------------

This type of post gets at the heart of why I write this blog. In my view, this is the type of issue for which blogs are ideal. No mainstream press outlet would ever make this a story or spend any ink on it. But it is one that impacts us on a day to day basis, whether we realize it or not. By hiding from it, we neither increase understanding of the issue, nor give ourselves the capacity to address it.

Did I know the geography question would make some residents uncomfortable? Of course I did. But I believe it is an issue worth mentioning. Readers of this blog get to decide if it is an issue worth discussing. The voters in future Village elections get to decide if it is an issue worth addressing.

As long as we are on the topic, here is a map from the 2000 Census of how income is distributed in Shorewood.

I heard from JS Reporter Marie Rohde this evening. She is preparing a story on the unfolding drama between AT&T and the City of Milwaukee.

I have written extensively on this topic, and am glad it is getting significant attention at this point.

1/7/07 Village Sues AT&T
12/22/06 Lightspeed goes Nuclear
12/15/06 Lightspeed Speeds Up
12/2/06 A Few Project Lightspeed Updates
10/23/06 Journal Sentinel Jumps on Lightspeed Bandwagon
10/22/06 Stop The Boxes
10/18/06 AT&T Issue has Village Attention
10/6/06 Project Lightspeed Update
7/24/06 More on Grey Boxes
7/14/06 The Grey Box Problem

Occasionally, somebody asks whether geography matters in Shorewood politics. Does where you live affect who you vote for? Does where you live affect your chances of getting elected if you run for office? In an effort to apply data to this discussion, I analyzed the voter rolls and the locations of our current elected officials. Here is what I found.

1. The further East you live, the more likely you are to vote. The three wards with the highest voter turnout for the 2005 Spring General Election (Wards 6, 4, and 5 respectively) are the three that border the lake.


2. Of our 7 Village Trustees, 5 live in one of these three wards.


3. Of our 5 School Board members, 3 are from these three wards.


4. Of our 12 elected officials, 6 of them are from Ward 4 (East of Prospect Ave, South of Capitol Dr.).


5. All 12 of our elected officials live East of Oakland Avenue.

Am I saying that people actively consider the home address of a particular candidate when they cast their votes? Of course not. But the facts above certainly should strengthen our resolve to expand the geographic distribution of those participating in our Village political life.

So far, the issues likely to define this Village Trustee race include the following.

1. Development of a lounge for senior citizens in the Village Center
2. Banning smoking in public buildings in Shorewood
3. Long term development in the Village of Shorewood, especially along Oakland and Capitol
4. Property Taxes (an issue in every election)

What should the other issues be? What other issues are on your minds? What questions would you like the candidates to answer for you?

Following our earlier exchange (here and here) regarding pay for elected officials, Trustee Candidate David Tatarowicz and I exchanged several emails. Below is the full email exchange between Mr. Tatarowicz and myself, which more fully illuminates the themes from his original letter to the editor. Although my interpretation of his original letter was made in good faith, it is now clear to me Mr. Tatarowicz' actually is not urging higher pay for elected officials.

Letter 1

From: Steve Koczela
To: Trustee Candidate David Tatarowicz

Hi Dave –

Thanks for your response. To be honest, I was surprised to hear that your letter was not intended to call for higher pay for elected officials. This was my honest reading of it. After receiving your response today, I re-read your letter to locate the specific phrases which made me believe that you intended to call for higher pay.

Specifically, it was several excerpts from your letter that made me believe this was your intention.

"As important as it is that the pay and benefits of our elected officials be in line with those whom they govern, it is equally important that those who are from less affluent neighborhoods can also afford to serve."

"And when only the very rich can afford to actually be in office?"

I understood you to be saying that, in order to allow those from less affluent neighborhoods to be able to
afford to serve, pay and benefits would have to be more generous. This would be a new idea for Shorewood, and since I thought this was your intention to make this case, I felt it to be a newsworthy item to point out for the readers of the site.

Finally, I have no particular agenda surrounding this election other than to disseminate as much information
as possible about the candidates, their positions, campaign events, and anything else related to the election. If I write something with which you disagree, please feel free to write and let me know. I will be happy to publish your rebuttals and clarifications.

Best Wishes,
Steve Koczela

Letter 2

From: Trustee Candidate David Tatarowicz
To: Steve Koczela

Hi Steve

Thank you for your reply, and I am glad to hear that you are not running a hidden agenda. I understand how semantics can confuse issues, so I do try to be very concise in what I say and write --- although I recognize that there is always a risk of being misunderstood. I willingly share any blame in any such communication of my ideas. Also, as I am sure you are aware, when you write a letter to the editor at the Journal, or any other publication, they reserve the right to edit the letter --- and they do --- sometimes leaving out sections that may seem redundant, but what are in fact, refinements and clarifications, of the author's intent !

In an effort to better explain myself ( and at the risk of digging a bigger hole ! ) --- my main theme in the letter was meant to be that I am concerned that our elective offices are often going to those with the deepest pockets --- and that the cards are stacked against lesser affluent folks. I fear that ultimately, our elective offices will become the equivalent of the "House of Lords" --- with no opposing "House of Commons".

In regards to the re-numeration that elective officials receive, in almost all cases, I think it is either adequate or more than adequate. And specifically, in regards to the pay for Village Trustees, I think the $1000 paid is fine. I do not view the Trustee position as a full time position, nor even a position that should re-numerate for time spent. I think the Trustee position is a "quasi volunteer" position, and the salary is more symbolic than actual pay for services.

It is only in full time elective positions, in which we expect our elective officials to give of themselves fully, that I think the salary, and benefits, should enable those who are not independently wealthy to serve. Having said that, I recognize that a large number of our representatives in both houses of the WI Legislature have additional employment. However that is only practical for those legislators who own their own businesses, or are in professions such as doctor, lawyer, etc., who can possibly juggle their time to serve more than one master. (Whether those elected officials who do have other jobs, really give the commitment they should, I will leave for another discussion).

Anyone who is interested in serving as a legislator, who does not have the ability to leave their regular employment at will, needs to have a reasonable salary and benefits to make elected office viable for them. I believe the salary levels and benefits that presen

At this past Monday’s meeting, the Village Board voted 6 to 1 to combine wards for the Feb 20, 2007 Primary Election.  To avoid the minimal cost ($2,500) of keeping the Lake Bluff and Atwater wards open, the Board decided that all voting for the February election will be done at the Shorewood Library.  In April, voters will return to their usual polling locations.  The lone dissenting vote came from Trustee Mike Maher, the voice of reason on this issue. 

By confusing voters with different locations for different elections, we risk turning away would-be voters.  Although expected turnout for this election is 5% or less for this primary, ever single last vote is important, and collecting these votes is one of the most important duties of our Village Government.  Election administration is not the place for cost cutting, no matter how low the expected turnout, and how insignificant the election.  An extra $2,500 for fair and consistent election administration is a cost I would guess nearly all voters would be willing to bear.

Even if the savings were much higher, this would remain a bad idea.  Changing election locations will cause some voters to miss this election, and may also cause some to miss the April general election.  Voters unaware of the location change may show up at Lake Bluff at 7:55 PM on Feb 20 and will be unable to get to the Library by 8:00 PM to cast their vote.  Voters may easily be confused by having the February elections at the Library, and miss their opportunity to vote in the April general election by going to the Library again.   Disenfranchisement is an ugly word, and one I do not want to be associated with Shorewood. 

The 2007 Village of Shorewood Budget is nearly $19,000,000.  Saving $2,500, or 0.013% of our budget, at the expense of the integrity of our elections, is a bad idea.

Comments

1. I agree with you. It's confusing. In fact I never heard of any community playing around unnecessarily with voting location. And I'm sure it's difficult for some people to get to the library, especially in February.
- Suzanne Rosenblatt, Author of "Between Yesterday and Tomorrow", 1/13/07

2. I agree with your assesment of the plan to close polling places in the upcoming primary election. Voter participation is so important (and alas, declining) that the Village Board should be addressing "How to Increase Participation" and not ways to confuse the voters."
- Dave Tatarowicz, Village Trustee Candidate, 1/16/07

This blog will now be appearing regularly in the print edition of North Shore NOW, formerly the North Shore Herald. Many other changes in format and content of our community paper are coming as well. The full article is below.

----------------------------
Herald changing its name to NOW

By Cristy Garcia-Thomas
Publisher
Posted: Jan. 11, 2007

Dear Readers:
It is not often that we have used this space for a letter from the publisher, but I wanted to personally inform you of some exciting changes at Community Newspapers.

Beginning Jan. 25, we will return to Thursday delivery and begin publishing under a new name, North Shore NOW. This should be the final phase of significant changes that began last fall with the development of our http://www.mycommunitynow.com/ Web site.

The newspaper will include local news and sports coverage, the things you've told us to retain in the newspaper - Police Report maps, Government Watch and columnists such as Charlie Sykes, Dennis Shook and Matt Pommer, as well as some new items from the Web. We will feature, for example, the best of North Shore bloggers Steve Koczela, Richard Thieme and Andrew Franklin.

For local Milwaukee Journal Sentinel home delivery subscribers, North Shore NOW will be delivered Thursdays with the daily newspaper. Our Circulation Department is in the process of contacting subscribers with additional information. Newsstand copies of the Thursday Milwaukee Journal Sentinel also will include the NOW paper. Those who don't receive a Thursday Milwaukee Journal Sentinel at their home may pick up a free copy of North Shore NOW at select locations.

The changes are part of our continuing effort to serve the needs of our readers, advertisers and our company's shareholders. Our goal is to preserve the best aspects of our North Shore newspaper, which, in various forms, has served these communities for 78 years, while exploring ways to reach new readers and advertisers online.

You can always find up-to-the-minute community news at our Web site. Log on to MyCommunityNOW.com to submit your stories, photos and blogs, as well as to find the latest news and information about your community.

The combination of these three products - your weekly community newspaper, the local Web site and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the state's largest daily newspaper - provide you with the best and most complete news and shopping information about your neighborhood.

We understand change can be difficult, and we appreciate your loyalty throughout the transition. In the long term, we anticipate these changes will enable us to provide you with a good balance of editorial and advertising information - in print and online. You can contact me at (414) 224-2427 or our editor, Roger Bartel, at (262) 317-8553.
---------------------------