Over Water, Waukesha Council Plays Power Games
The City of Waukesha continues to diss new Mayor Jeff Scrima, a Lake Michigan water supply skeptic, by peeling back his authority.
Following his upset defeat of Lake Michigan diversion proponent Mayor Larry Nelson, the Common Council grabbed the power to review the job performance of the City Administrator, an ally of the City Attorney and Water Utility manager - - both key cogs in the Lake Michigan diversion application drafting.
That'll show that upstart, city-wide election winner!
When the Mayor questioned the thoroughness and wisdom of the Council-approved application for diverted Lake Michigan water, (approved in the waning days of the Nelson administration, and set to expand the reach of the utility to another 17.4 sprawl-inducing, service cost-exploding square miles)) the Council wrote to the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - - the application's first reviewer - - and told him that it was the Council, not the Mayor, that set water policy for the City.
That'll put the whippersnapper in his place!
And when Scrima sought to replace the chairman of the water utility commission who'd served 21 sometimes-controversial years, with a fresh Mayoral appointee, the Council changed a long-standing practice and said it, and not the Mayor, made water utility appointments.
Take that, landslide victor!
The Council eventually let the Mayor have one pick, but added back the chairman, plus another Council-approved appointee, to boot.
This was called a compromise.
Yes, Waukesha, with a city administrator (now less-connected to the Mayor) has a so-called strong-Council, weak-Mayor form of government, but the Council seems intent on a no-mayor framework.
Waukesha wants to be taken seriously as an actual city in the region, but the game playing by the Council there reaffirms it prefers infighting to authentic policy work, and keeps showing the world Waukesha is not ready for prime time.
Imagine that Council handling a water sale discussion for a long-term contract with Milwaukee, or meeting with otter Great Lakes negotiators, or further representing the city.
Yipes!
4 comments:
Only 15% of the service area would be available for development. 85% is either developed or designated as natural and environmentally sensitive areas.
Are you saying you prefer development with private wells and septic systems instead of urban services? That's what sounds like sprawl.
Maybe the more rural status quo in the area, much of which is in the Town of Waukesha, is what the people there would prefer. And not to be dragged into an annexation situation, or with development-induced traffic, etc.
And not all environmentally-designated areas are protected, as I understand it. Some of it is recommended for protection by SEWRPC, but in the past those recommendations have been ignored.
Mr. Bill, that is an incomplete comment, again. You can do better for the $13,000/month the City of Waukesha pays for your PR work. If only 15% of the service area will get served, why does the water service area include the additional 85%? And if it is true, the City only intends to serve the additional 15%, why is the city asking for so much water from the Lake? That sound like sprawl to me or bad math.
Bill, again you miss the point (or more likely are avoiding the point) that the Common Council's unprofessional and petulant behavior has created doubt in the minds of neighboring communities (Milwaukee, Wauwatosa, Racine and Oak Creek), the DNR, and the outside organizations, agencies and bodies who hold Waukesha's water future in their hands via a diversion decision.
No Waukesha residents who know them would believe for a second that Aldermen Ybarra, Tortomasi and Patton wrote the recent guest opinion pieces published in the Freeman or JournalSentinel. Someone else is writing and pulling the strings above their wooden heads.
Just wondering who that might be . . . .
Post a Comment