Good morning.
Friday in Whitewater will be sunny with a high of 86. Sunrise is 6:54 and sunset is 6:32, for 11 hours 37 minutes of daytime. The moon is a waxing gibbous with 83.9 percent of its visible disk illuminated.
On this day in 1863, President Lincoln declares the last Thursday in November as Thanksgiving Day.
For today, a few general words on development. The particulars of any claims made below will come later as part of a discussion the City of Whitewater plans to advance on single-family housing proposals for the community. (That discussion will be welcome and timely. See An Upcoming Presentation on Development.)
Normal discussions. Discussions on development happen all the time in well-functioning communities across Wisconsin. The economic forces that shape these discussions do not begin with policymakers. These needs and desires arise from within a community, from among many residents. (There are local discussions across Wisconsin like Whitewater’s, there are state-level discussions in Wisconsin like this, and there are national discussions like this.) When a few insist that they have what they call ‘our tradition,’ they mean their narrow self-interest over the community interest.
Pretending that proposals on development are intrusions on the community ignores the many in this community for the sake of a few.
Whitewater. In all of this discussion, a reminder is worthwhile. Whitewater is a city of fifteen thousand, and its local government is by law bound to the electorate of this city. Whitewater has not elected a common council to represent people in other communities, but the electorate in this community. It’s understandable to be polite to visitors to the council lectern, but it is a duty to represent those who live within the city limits. Those on council, boards, and commissions owe a duty residents within this city.
Communities outside Whitewater should not be determining Whitewater’s economic future.
Flow. Anyone who follows the flow of the arguments1 on development in this community has seen that claims against projects have grown ever more extreme: anti-funding arguments about apartments have become anti-funding arguments about any kind of residence, which then morphed into arguments against any funding for anything, and thereafter descended into claims against any development and any growth.2
It has been a predictable decline from a critique (however incoherent and hypocritical of their own past work) to obstruction.
Stagnation is decline. Doing too little in the past, and doing it poorly, has left Whitewater behind. Standing still will increase the gap between this city and nearby cities of similar size. America doesn’t stand still, Wisconsin doesn’t stand still, and prosperous communities across this state do not stand still.
Staying the same is falling behind, and falling behind means a harder time meeting residents’ basic needs.
Plans from the local government for housing and business development within the City of Whitewater? A reasonable, thoughtful person will welcome this discussion with interest and curiosity.
_____
- Listening and marking the arguments against development is the equivalent of watching a someone throw objects against a wall, hoping something will stick. ↩︎
- Past opposition from the last decade (2010s) to project funding in Whitewater is easily and reasonably distinguished: the funding bases were different then, the goals were ill-defined then, and the officials running development were out of their depth (to state the matter generously). ↩︎
Bear enters Arizona grocery store and runs through aisles: