The former Town of Waukesha chairwoman Angie Van Scyoc reminds the DNR at the downtown hearing now underway that the City of Waukesha added the neighboring Town to the city's Great Lakes diversion application - - and thus to potentially-higher bills - - without the Town's consultation.
Use the blog search box and key words to find that history.
Here is an example.
Use the blog search box and key words to find that history.
Here is an example.
Yes, "arbitrarily"
ReplyDeleteDefinition of ARBITRARY from Merriam-Webster.
1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law
2a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority
2b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power
...But with great intent.
This is one of the clear deficiencies of the City's application. They want water for land for which they are not currently responsible to deliver to, and to land that currently has an ample supply of clean water.
WHY? -> To serve the needs of land speculators and developers and the City's desire to increase its tax base by annexing from the Town of Waukesha.
When the town resisted, the "powers that be" worked and succeeded in getting politicians sympathetic to their desires in power in the town. And voila, the town board changed its vote to be in the extended water service area. That election was "all about the water." And we see that ever more clearly every day.
The inclusion of the Town in the WSA is in opposition to the intent (and letter of the law) of the Great Lakes Compact, but it's very clear what is going on.
I hope the DNR can see this. I just fear that Walker's DNR and Walker will do whatever they can to please conservative Waukesha and this will be a political decision, despite all the claims to the contrary (methinks thou dost protest too much).
I suspect we will have to rely on some sensible politicians in the other seven (7) states to put an end to this foolishness. Time will tell.
"Just say No" ~ Nancy Reagan