Here’s the FREE WHITEWATER list of the scariest things in Whitewater. I’ll start in reverse order, from least frightening to super-scary.

10. Fear of Outsiders. You’d think that Milwaukee and Madison were Lord-of-the-Flies nightmares. If you’re describing someone from another country, you might as well be describing an extraterrestrial. It’s not that they’re scary, it’s that you’re afraid of them.

9. Mosquitoes. Squadron after squadron, swooping down upon you. They’re parched, and you’re just Gatorade® to them.

8. Squirrels. They only look innocent. They’re small, fast moving, silent killers. Whitewater has an ordinance against injuring squirrels; I can assure you that squirrels have no similar ordinance against attacking people.

7. College Students. I don’t think they’re scary, but quite a few of the entrenched town clique think they’re little monsters. Perhaps, somewhere in town, there’s a councilman sitting in his bed, curled into a ball, shivering at the thought of students running lose in the city.

6. Pratt Institute. Whitewater was once a center for ‘spiritualism,’ the crackpot notion that people could use crystal balls, or séances, etc. to talk to the dead. They had the arrogant notion that, through their for-fee training, they could distinguish between good and bad spirits, and engage the former, and manage the latter. Some people may think that all these spirits are the reason Whitewater’s such a mess now, but I doubt that. The fault is our own lack of vigilance over the living, not the dead.

5. The Bypass. Nothing scares a business owner more than the realization that hundreds of consumers can easily and conveniently circumvent the city. Years ago, some people foolishly thought that the bypass would benefit the city by reducing congestion. It didn’t reduce congestion; it reduced ordinary consumer traffic through town.

4. Our Former Municipal Judge. Disgraced, perpetual vulgarian Steve Spear may never leave; he told attendees at a Kiwanis meeting this summer that he was thinking of running again. He’s not the one who should run; you should run, as far away from Spear as you can.

3. The Whitewater Register. Only Pravda was worse. Carrie Dampier writes poorly, with a tired bias in favor of the worst, stodgiest, most selfish faction in the city. We don’t have a community newspaper – we have a weekly press release for the status quo. It’s not right that countless trees should be ground into pulp for this unworthy purpose. Feel free to contact the Sierra Club at 415-977-5500 and complain.

2. Poverty. We must be afraid of poverty and the poor, because as a community we seldom dare speak of a poverty rate higher than neighboring communities. The poor are the only group in the city capable changing a conversation with the town clique: mention poverty, and suddenly the whole room’s looking for an exit, or asking about the Packers, the weather in Mongolia, anything.

1. Our Current Police Chief. Here’s the number one fright for 2007. We have one of the least honest, least capable police chiefs this side of …. well, Mongolia, I suppose. That’s certainly scary.

All across America, thousands of police officers do diligent work each day. Someday, someone will lead this force properly, and he’ll have heroic work ahead of him, to fix the force that Jim Coan and his ilk will leave behind. Until that better day, their failed leadership is the scariest, saddest part of life in Whitewater for 2007.

Over at the Banner, there’s an October 30th mention of a recent New York Times story on how pressures in the sub-prime mortgage market may affect city budgets. The entire article, and the excerpt at the Banner, raise a good deal of worry, predicting that foreclosures on sub-prime mortgages will cause a drop in state and local tax revenue. The article warms that hundreds of millions in tax revenue might be lost nationally.

We have reason to be calm, dire cry notwithstanding: (1) sub-prime mortgages are minority of all mortgages, (2) only a minority of all sub-prime mortgages are at risk, (3) only the tiniest fraction of those sub-prime mortgages could possibly be in Whitewater (the article never mentions Wisconsin), (4) the NYT article cites not actual foreclosures, but a prediction only.

There’s no sound reason for Whitewater to plan based on the article cited at the Banner.

• Common Council Meeting for October 30th

• Considering the 2008 City Budget

• Beautiful Whitewater

• Halloween Special: Scariest Things in Whitewater

• Friday Cartoon Feature

I received two emails from a reader who asked to remain anonymous. One is about supposed identity theft, the second about sundry other matters in Whitewater. Her remarks in black, my reply in blue. As you’ll see, we do not share the same views.

Anonymous Reader:

Mr. Adams, you stated:
“Real identity theft ­ not the odd, distorted definition that the Whitewater police use involves theft of consumer credit cards, access to bank accounts to pilfer funds, etc.”

This is wrong. That definition may be the one the media has led you to believe, but that doesn’t make it correct.

The Federal Trade Commission states:

“Identity theft occurs when someone uses your personally identifying information, like your name, Social Security number, or credit card number, without your permission, to commit fraud or other crimes.”

The Department of Justice states:

“Identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person’s personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception, typically for economic gain.”

The Social Security Administration states:

“Misuse of someone else’s SSN is a violation of Federal law and may lead to fines and/or imprisonment.”

You went on to state:

“Truly responsible and truly professional police forces, unlike our police department, know that identity theft is a serious matter of consumer fraud, not an opening wedge to an immigration action.”

Have you gotten a hold of the individuals whose social security numbers were fraudulently used by the employees at Star Packaging? Several have some very interesting things to say about how their lives were affected, and are still being affected. One of the victims was a four-year-old child. I have a hard time believing you think stealing someone else’s social security card is not “a serious matter.”

I have been asked for my SSN when pulled over by an officer. When one states one doesn’t have his or her license with one, the officer then asks one for other forms of ID, such as “student or employee ID, credit cards, social security cards” and so forth. Seeing as most illegal immigrants hold no driver’s license, I am not surprised that an officer would fish for further identification as to who the driver truly is.

As much as I felt, and still feel, for the families who suffered during the Star Packaging raid, I still believe the law is the law.

Adams:

As for your second email, unpublished here, it speaks for itself, and none too well. I’ll offer one example, from among several. Your repeated description (four times) of disabled children at Lakeview as ‘misfits’ pretty much says it all. You write as one put upon by having to attend elementary school with disabled classmates. I’m unsympathetic to you. Their right to be in the classroom trumps your discomfort.

Tom and Jerry before Tom and Jerry. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq2Ad7niRko

I have been a critic of police conduct in our city. I am convinced that leadership here is poor, and excuse-making. This is a mediocre, ill-trained force in a city that deserves far better. Any yet, even I find myself surprised by what I sometimes read. Consider a comment posted on the UW-Whitewater Royal Purple‘s website, in response to an editorial about underage drinking near campus.

Here is an excerpt from the comment on the Royal Purple website as of 10/25:

In response to your editorial entitled “This just in: Police still give tickets to underage drinkers,” I would like to correct some misguided information. No one at the party that night is disputing the fact that they received a drinking ticket. Everyone there knows what they were doing is illegal. The problem we have with this situation is the manner in which the Whitewater City Police Department acted. We feel that sending in undercover officer into a college party in a college town is simply unethical. Also, to barge into the door screaming “Whitewater P.D.” as if this was some kind of drug sting is totally unnecessary. Worst of all, when the dust had settled and the tickets had been written, the police were seen high-fiving each other as if they had just won a game.

Really? Can this be true, that Whitewater Police ‘high-fived’ each other after completing the raid on the residence? What mature man high-fives a colleague after citing underage drinkers? I’m not much for the high-five in any event, but it’s a callow person who’d act that way. As for bursting through the door, shouting ‘Whitewater P.D.,’ that’s too funny. You’d think that they were arresting Bin Laden, or liberating Grenada.

(Quick reminder: you cannot scare students from underage drinking by looking ridiculous.)

Did it happen this way? Write me at adams@freewhitewater.com and let me know.

Over on Comedy Central, there’s a show called Reno 911!, about over-the-top, buffoonish police antics. It’s just a television program there; it is police practice here?

Over at the Janesville Gazette, and The Week, Mike Heine reports that federal civil defendant Larry Meyer has offered settlement to Plaintiff, Steven Cvicker. The settlement involves Cvicker’s claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated at the time the Whitewater Police executed a search warrant of his business. Cvicker’s Fourth Amendment claim survived a summary judgment motion earlier in the year. I’ll summarize where the claim stands (settlement is not yet final).

Best quote from the Gazette:

UW-Whitewater Assistant Professor of Political Science Jolly Emrey said most harassment suits settle because it is the quickest and cheapest. Settling could also save the city embarrassment from what could happen at a jury trial, Emrey said.

Here is some — but perhaps not all — of the evidence regarding Meyer’s conduct in this matter, from published accounts:

“Expert Witness: Investigator Led Crusade Against Businessman.” (Meyer — named defendant in a federal civil suit.)

Former Assistant District Attorney Krueger signed an affidavit that Meyer destroyed evidence in the investigation of Cvicker’s business. (Krueger subsequently left for a position with the Attorney General in Madison.)

Larry Meyer’s career has been bad for the city, and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t put Larry back together again. For every empty but strident defense from Chief Jim Coan, to all the support in the world from his friends in Elkhorn, one truth remains: Meyer is offering settlement on a federal lawsuit about a citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights. That’s no simple mistake — he’s settling on a constitutional claim. He will contend that he’s admitted no wrong-doing, but that’s whistling past the graveyard. Meyer would not likely have settled — not Meyer, nor any other excuse-making, self-justifying member of the Whitewater Police Department — if he’d been more confident of his conduct.

Wait — I thought that this was a completely, entirely, wholly, unquestionably professional force, etc., etc? That’s only a smattering of what Coan likely tells his officers — and insists to the world — about his department. He speaks about them the way a righteous man speaks about a saint. We’re a city of ordinary men and women, doing the best that we can in challenging times. Citizens are neither saints nor prophets; nor do I expect that ordinary people will turn water into wine. It’s shameful, risible, galling, and impious how Coan elevates his staff. Small wonder that they perform poorly: they’re unaccountable.

I come from a solid libertarian background, but I never imagined that I’d write about life in our small town. Watching and listening to Coan compelled me to write, as much as anything else. No morally serious, mature man could possibly accept Coan’s excuses, distortions, and rationalizations without exasperation. He rationalizes conduct the way a child does; a serious man or woman should not let that go by.

I have grown old in this beautiful city. I look at the family tradition behind me, and find myself astonished. My father, and paternal grandfather, read and wrote widely and well. The gap between those men and someone like Coan is a chasm. In the place of their skillful facility with Whitman and Whittier, Paine and Jefferson, Hayek and Friedman, Coan offers only unconvincing justifications in a poorly written newsletter. This city has conferred police power on a mendacious excuse-maker.

If Coan doesn’t like what I write, then he shouldn’t do what he does.

He’ll likely wash his hands of failed leadership again and again, but I’ll not refrain from pointing it out.

(Notes to reporter Mike Heine: Great work on these stories. You’re the only reporter willing to write seriously and professionally about these issues. Whitewater has no paper within the city willing to do the same. Otherwise, these stories would not have been in print, but only on FREE WHITEWATER. One minor quibble — The order of the federal magistrate in this case never said that Meyer conducted himself ‘appropriately.’ The magistrate said that Meyer had a qualified immunity regarding some claims, and possible liability under a Fourth Amendment claim. There is a difference between the basis for qualified immunity and ‘appropriate’ conduct; Meyer could be the beneficiary of the former without exhibiting the latter.)

I posted previously about growing up in a libertarian household in “Who Died and Made You King?” I’ll add a few other remarks about that time, and our time.

Libertarians are often criticized as libertines, but that was hardy the case with us. I never once saw anyone drunk, or stoned, or otherwise substance-addicted. We had no hard rule against drinking or smoking, but no one drank to excess, and no one smoked. We never had beer on hand, and liquor only at the holidays. Wine, by contrast, was common, mostly red, but sometimes white. It was common to see wine at table, with dinner, or with crackers or cheese as a snack. Many adults in the family had lived for an extended period in Europe, and picked up some of the habits of time there. Wine was one of those habits.

I sometimes meet people, from those families in town most committed to every restriction or regulation, who rail against student drinking while their own children are among the worst offenders. Some of these same people expect perfect behavior of students in town, but excuse student behavior in colleges they attended, or that their children now attend. (I have no link to our local campus; I’m just not willing to kick people here because I studied elsewhere.)

No one in my family was fanatical about exercise, but — with one exception — no one was overweight. You were expected to be outside a lot, and a person who wasn’t active wouldn’t have fit in. Walking, running, cycling, hiking, swimming, climbing: diverse elements of the family regimen. Our one exception was someone who didn’t want to fit in, and was just plain lazy.

As I mentioned in a prior post, we would have considered someone who disliked students just crude and mean-spirited.

Everyone read voraciously, and many did crosswords. Most had a second language that they spoke well.

No one played cards, or gambled, but I cannot think of a reason we didn’t.

We had no dislike for either major political party, but skepticism about both, at times more of one, then more of the other. Like most people who grew up in the movement, we were never quite sure what to make of the Libertarian Party; many libertarians are quick to distinguish their leading lights (Hayek, Von Mises, Friedman) from the quirky, often embarrassing national Libertarian Party.

I meet all sorts of people who dislike, almost hate, conventional conservatives or liberals (depending on their own views). I have never felt this way, and neither did anyone in our family. Growing up, we read magazines and newsletters from libertarians, conventional liberals, and conservatives. We read works of the extreme, oppressive left, too. Almost everyone knew a fair amount of Marx, because it seemed necessary for debate back then. Marx seems a distant threat now. His ‘science’ was junk science, but it captivated many in academia, and ruined good minds. (I could stuff couches all day with the worthless theses and dissertations that took Marxism as valid.)

There are times when the libertarian seems to hew close to the left, and other moments when he seems closer to the right. In the end, he is an ally of both, yet neither. (How’s that for ersatz philosophizing? I’ll think I’ll have Café Press put it on a mug.)

We believed then, and I believe now, in sometimes hitting hard. Even more, we believed then, and I believe now, in a free discourse. One of the worst, but most obvious, traits of the town clique is that they don’t want discourse. When they complain about the free commentary on this independent blog, but ignore the real injuries to others they’ve rationalized away, they reveal only their own narcissism.

That’s brings up a final observation. When did men become so fussy, so easily concerned about small, physical inconveniences? We were a family of outgoing people, who would have been embarrassed to complain about minor nuisances. It would have seemed a sign of masculine or feminine weakness. Running to the police to report these small matters would have been ridiculous to us. It’s not ridiculous to some; it seems normal to any number of hidebound people that the police, city officials, etc., should investigate and enforce their needs, to the exclusion of others‘ interests. These selfish, stodgy few see themselves as the genuine citizens and residents, with a greater entitlement than others.

I might have stayed silent, but I could not have done so and been consistent with the family political tradition of which I am a grateful beneficiary.

I’ll write this week, and afterward, about the 2008 proposed city budget. Before I begin, I’ll make a few remarks about our City Manager, Kevin Brunner. I’ve been asked if I dislike the City Manager because I’ve teased, occasionally, about his ‘inside-baseball’ manner. I do not dislike him; I have no strong opinion one way or the other. (One quick note: I understand from many people that he doesn’t like me, not one bit. I don’t care. My opinion of him does not depend on his opinion of me.)

Our current City Manager — and I mean this is a straightforward way — is very much the model of a competent, early twenty-first century planner. There’s strength in this for Whitewater, but risk, too. In style, manner, and thinking, he is similar to many managers in successful firms in Wisconsin. Whitewater has few people like him, but Wisconsin has many, and America still more.
He represents a clear departure from his predecessor, Gary Boden. Where Boden was publicly edgy and imperious, Brunner is publicly calm and controlled. Well-respected prior to his arrival, he’s well-liked now. That’s no easy feat in Whitewater: this is a town that too quickly turns on people, especially those from outside the city. Brunner exudes nothing so much as competence, and that’s meant to be a compliment.

I have three quick concerns about his approach. His presumptions rely too much on the public, and too little on the private. For better and worse, he has a public manager’s, rather than a private citizen’s, point-of-view. That’s why it’s easy for him to say that there are only ‘x’ number of development tools available, where ‘x’ is the sum of publicly-authorized financing tools. I cannot help but listen to him and think that he over-emphasizes greatly the importance of the public over the private.

Second, I doubt that all Whitewater will benefit as much from recent, publicly financed projects as Kevin Brunner, and others, hope. Our prior tax incremental districts have not lifted Whitewater from greater-than-average poverty, and I doubt that new ones will do so.

Finally, Whitewater has more than an economic problem; it has a regulatory, and enforcement-bias, problem. In this respect, we are more like the proverbial, flawed southern town than a responsible Midwestern city. Police and regulatory bias here is high, entrenched, and supported by a stubborn, selfish faction. No matter how serious the economic problems that we face, we have no challenge so great as the bias, over-reaching, and abuse of enforcement authority. Our City Manager is, first and foremost, a manager and planner, and not a reformer. In fairness, he lacks the authority that city-wide elective office would confer on a reform effort. In any event, it’s not his inclination. A commitment to politeness as a virtue, and not just a prudent behavior, leaves misconduct and bias unchallenged. More confrontation would not be a bad thing. Whitewater doesn’t need more Emily Post; we need more Hayek and Friedman. (There are ways in which libertarians look like conservatives, but others in which we seem more like progressives.)

A polite, well-planned future won’t break the hold of the town clique over life here; it will not produce a town large and vibrant enough to be beyond their control. They fear nothing so much as high growth, spontaneity, new people, and new ideas. Our polite and competent City Manager may not share their views, but it will take more than politeness and competence to turn this city around.

Here’s a quick post on the Planning Commission meeting from earlier this month. Weeks ago, someone sent me an email to remind me that not all members of the Planning Commission see things the same way, and that I should not lump them all into the same, small, well-planned and regulated box. Fair enough: as I mentioned once since that reminder, I know that not everyone on the Planning Commission has the same view.

I would like to remind readers, though, that at the latest Planning Commission meeting, one of the board members asked a property owner what sort of plants would be near a proposed building. It was meant as a rational, serious question. It was certainly rational: pondering, enumerating, cataloguing, and classifying are, typically, rational processes, at least at public meetings.

It was, however, hardly serious. I simply do not believe that it should be the concern of our city, or any city, to ponder what sort of shrubs, bushes, etc., a property owner proposes planting. It has become, in many places, the concern of planners, boards, commissions, and regulators.

Communities have thrived for centuries, in America and abroad, without worrying about what sort of plants a property owner uses. The bias of planning is that, almost necessarily, without government regulation there will be unruly, ugly development.

A community with less government regulation would look different from our own. It might seem unruly. I am not convinced it would look worse; I think that it would likely look even better. Not one of the principal, respected architectural styles common in North America came about by government committee; they were the product of creative and talented architects and their patrons. Freedom from municipal regulation will create a different aesthetic. It’s presumptuous to assume that a municipal board would produce a better result than hundreds of talented property owners with an interest in solid, expanding values for their property.

There’s a Common Council meeting tonight, focused on Whitewater’s 2008 budget. I’ll offer an observation about last week’s council meeting.

Many businesses and firms have ‘on boarding’ or team-building sessions for new management teams, to increase cooperation and congeniality between co-workers. If anything, this sort of session is a staple of contemporary American white collar life. I’ve been part of about three sessions like this, and know the results of scores more of them. They usually work to increase team harmony and cohesiveness, but not always. They’re often a good idea.

I have never heard or seen a session like this for politicians. I’m sure Whitewater’s not the first city to try this; I’ve just never heard of it elsewhere. I wish the effort well, and the first council meeting after the on boarding seems to have gone well. There is a difference with modern business or professional life, though. In a business or professional setting, typically the team leader will be able to hold others accountable for not living up to the standards set at the session. For a legislative body, elected representatives have — rather than a single hiring-and-firing manager — different constituencies and legislative districts. Over time, they may decide that it matters more to them to please their districts and constituents than it matters to maintain the common standards of the on-boarding session.

We’ll see.

No matter how beautiful other places, with the adventure of unexpected travel, it’s a pleasure to be back home. Here’s what’s in queue for this week, with additional posts always possible.

• Thoughts on Planning

• Congeniality in Politics

• City Council Meeting for Tuesday, October 16th

• Inbox: Reader Mail

• Catching up with the Register

• Friday Cartoon Feature

Enjoy.

Readers may have noticed that I did not review the October 2nd Common Council meeting. I’ll offer remarks, instead, on a single topic from that meeting.

Perhaps I should not be surprised that one council member, ill-disposed to student housing, is ill-disposed to a voting station on campus, too.

I am sure that citizen-students on campus, over the age of eighteen, are entitled to vote as a matter of state and federal law. I believe that the city should — as a presumption — make it convenient for them to vote. They have that right apart what anyone in Whitewater thinks of them, of their youth, or politics. These are settled matters of federal and state law; no one in Whitewater — no matter how self-important — should inhibit that right. It says much about the arrogance of a few that they feel no shame in posing every objection to voting on campus. Dislike of the campus, and its students, is a trait that many of the town faction share.

Students on campus should be able to vote smoothly and reliably, and a campus-based polling station will make that happen.

Most of these students will vote their conscience for conservatives, or liberals, and not libertarians. I wish there were more libertarian candidates, and that more voters would support those candidates. No matter; I do not fear the contrary preferences of others. Even if I were so weak that I did fear those choices, I hope that I would not be so wrong that I would try to limit the exercise of choice itself.

It’s sad, laughable, and infuriating to watch someone on council grope for ways to object to voting on campus. It’s an exercise in selfish preferences. Let’s consider one misplaced objection: the complaint that if hundreds of students could go across town for “Make a Difference Day,” then they could go to the Old Armory to vote. These two acts are not the same; they are wholly different.

When citizen-students go to the lakefront to work on projects, they confer a benefit on us; when we deny them a polling station on campus, we inhibit the exercise of a right of theirs. They are not obligated to go downtown to help the community, and we should be grateful to them that they do.

We are, by contrast, obligated to them, and all other citizens, to assure effective voting access. When the town faction says that they love Whitewater, they mean that they love it so much their way that they would debase the democratic nature of the community so that they could possess this town forever. They’re no more citizens than any others, no matter how much they want to flatter themselves with the false notion that they know more, count more, and are worthier.

Would someone remind them that they cannot simultaneously argue that students should not register and vote on campus, and contend that when students register and vote at the Old Armory, they make voting inconvenient for non-students. Pick one.

By the way, if you and your stodgy friends walk away from voting when you see too many students at the Old Armory registering to vote, then you’re more tired, and more dissipated, than I suspected. You should find their presence energizing; that you find it discouraging speaks poorly of you.

Here is a recent email from Thomas Jefferson, who corresponded to FREE WHITEWATER previously, in July. (Great pseudonym, by the way.) His email is in black, and my reply in blue, regarding my post entitled, “The Register’s Echo Chamber.”

From Thomas Jefferson:

John,

I could not agree with you more on the quality, or lack thereof, in the Whitewater Register.

I thought last week’s Nosek articles were the pinnacle of absurdity. Not only were they not significant issues that generated little debate from the remaining Council, the article on the lot was inaccurate.

Ms. Dampier details how the Council was apparently provided a memo by City Manager Brunner on the options that could be pursued. She notes that the Council decided not to act on these. Someone should inform her of how Wisconsin Open Meeting law works.

The update on the property was placed on the agenda as a ‘Staff Report’, the Council was prohibited by law from taking action.

I am glad she covered other items such as the appointment of citizens to various boards, the 2008 budget assumptions or the stormwater utility credit policy. I guess these items pale in comparison to the correct mix of salt and sand in our streets put forth by an ‘expert’.

As someone who has attended meetings in the past it is interesting to note that many times Ms. Dampier does not stay for the whole meeting, if she shows up at all. She should always watch it from home and just rehash the agenda, which would actually provide more coverage than some of these recent write ups.

Regards,
TJ

Adams replies:

Thanks very much for writing. Your assessment is better than mine. I focused on the idea that Carrie Dampier of the Register was propping up one point of view. I think that she was, but that’s not as significant as the point you’ve made about the topics that she chose to describe. Her chosen focus could not have been, as you note, the subject of any immediate action, based on the those topics’ position on the agenda. Your observation is sound independent of Dampier’s point of view, whatever it may be. As you note, she picked subjects for the front page that weren’t ripe. The alternative topics you list would have been better choices.

Enjoy.