She already has, she's on top of it! :)

Feel free to ask away if you'd like to know my positions and I'll answer as I'm able.

Votewilling.com.

That's the plan... Will likely being focusing on the primary first, but will be reaching out to them probably in the next few weeks, if not sooner.

@KOKO (abbreviation has a ring to it!)

As you'll see on my website, I certainly am pro-development, as I'm sure most (not all) residents are in the area. It helps our outlook for future education choices, taxation, job availability, etc. But, as a former project manager for an environmental-remediation real estate development corporation, I'm also sensitive to what is good development and what is not. I believe we've been given land to take care of, and certainly use, but to use responsibly.

In answer to Wal-Mart, I personally am in favor of a Wal-Mart somewhere in Caledonia. It would serve Oak Creek, Southern South Milwaukee, Caledonia, Raymond and northern Racine. It would do well, and I would be happy to have a cheaper alternative for some regular purchases. That being said, I believe the location has many legitimate concerns. Frankly, the location is lousy. And, the residents in the area are almost entirely opposed, which says a lot. Honestly, we're at this point, because a slightly-less-terrible location was already nixed.... Perhaps a better location should be scouted and suggested? The community could control the situation by being proactive, rather than reactive to whatever walmart wants.

My question is this: Why is Wal-Mart the only company knocking on our door every 18 months? Perhaps there is something the village can do to make us appealing to companies like Racine Metal-Fab and others that keep picking Mt. Pleasant or Sturt for expansion.

(cont...)

I am running for Village Board Trustee because I believe we have so much potential as a community, and I really want to be a part of it… as a father and a business-owner; as a church-going, park-loving, beach-walking, meat-eating, gun-shooting, baseball-obsessed taxpayer that intends on seeing Caledonia be a place my children would also want to raise their families. That’s the truth.

The Wal-Mart issue is one issue, but I believe its highlighting a much larger, long-term one: we need a more pro-active board that makes takes into account the assets of our village and using them for leverage, while also preserving the ones that make us a desirable community.
I don’t intend on running for the purpose of one issue. Or advocating for one primary purpose. I need to represent and lead the entire community. And, if that means no Wal-Mart on 4 mile, then maybe it does. But I cannot responsibly commit to being against something, or the desires of a local property owner like the one at the middle of this, without the due process afforded any development. And furthermore, I believe the best way to lead isn’t always just to say “no,” but to say “hey, here’s a better idea.” I don’t think there’s been anything like that in the 5 years I’ve been raising my family here in Caledonia.

That’s what I bring to the table: a fresh face, and a motivation to change the status quo.

www.VoteWilling.com

@KOKO

I wanted to answer each of your questions separately:

*****Have you read the Wal-Mart proposal submitted to the Racine County Planning Commission on November 21st?

Yes, I have. I have received a copy and read it. It's fairly standard, and has no definitions of their plans, scope, timing, etc. The village has basically just received a "notice of intent," with details coming later. The Pre-dev agreement assures that the village absorbs no costs for evaluation, study, etc.

*****Do you feel this proposed location is appropropriate for this type of development?

No, I personally do not believe it is appropriate. If zoning, road size, utilities and general traffic access was changed, then maybe, but the area doesn't feel like a commercial corridor at all, and those required changes appear to be too disturbing to the area.

*****Do you feel it is consistent with our Village Land Use Plan?

Currently, no. Separate from this issue, I believe the Land Use Plan is out-dated and needs to be revised. This will be a focus of my time on the board. But the purpose wouldn't be to change it FOR something, but to proactively create an environment that avoids these conflicts in the future.

(Cont...)

*****Do you feel this or any medium to high impact development is appropriate for this location considering the Plan, the current zoning and proximity to residential homes?
I cannot say “any,” because that is too definitive of a conclusion for far to vague a scope of judgment. But for this project, it doesn’t currently fit the use slated for the area, or the property, or the roads leading to it. More discussion needs to be had.

***** Would you approve the re-zoning request and PUD if you sat on the board now?

It does not appear prudent to approve a zoning variance for this purpose. But, as I said in another post, I would like to begin looking at other alternatives for the company to consider. Or…. Perhaps help the land owner (who really wants to sell his property to SOMEONE) find a suitor that doesn’t anger the entire community around it.

I appreciate your attention to my questions. 1st, relative to your thoughts on WM serving a large area: WM initially came to 4 mile and 31 with the intention of building a smaller store to "service the local community"-about 115,000 sq ft For whatever reason they chose to leave, they came upon a cheap piece of land down the road (much cheaper than commercial), a willing seller and decided to propose a 24 hr superstore. What has changed in Caledonia in that small time frame? I guess their "leakage studies" might be a load of crap?? You are correct in questioning why they continue to knock on our door. Possibly the indication they would have cooperation? The tradition of WM to pretend to embrace a community's input, only to completely ignore it? Maybe that is why they are the only development seeking a residence in Caledonia. Because this community does face challenges with development of this size. But why no smaller retail, the types listed in the household survey, the UWM focus group? Different business which enhances, not drowns out existing business. I know we as a community cannot discriminate and do need to be open to the presentations of developments, but we CERTAINLY can maintain the integrity of our quality of life and WE should ultimately control how we grow. (continued)

Regarding the Land Use Plan: The General Overvies states it should be reviewed periodically, about every 10 yrs. Specific to the Village Center of which this lot is a part of and WM uses as their justification for their proposal: It was designed as a transit oriented center. That is not happening. Updating is needed. WALMART DOES NOT get to dictate that change! Their proposal is insulting in they address a conflict and them proceed to completely dismiss our design as a "guideline". There are several steps and considerations outlined in the plan when considering amendment or changes. There are also density factors and input from the community regarding growth, buffering, concerns and desires for the future. And a 89 page UWM market study and focus group. And as I stated, this 1 issue is not the sum total of a future trustee's responsibilities. But it's a VITAL illustration of honoring the input, the voices, the investment we all have made in the Land Use Plan, or simply "hugging any developer that comes here with money". Being against this proposal is not being against development. It's a matter of WHO IS IN CHARGE HERE?? I hope any trustee remembers it should ultimately be the people who elect them.

@ KOKO

I appreciate you asking me decent questions. Many just ask “how do you feel about WalMart?” with no deeper questioning. That means they may have a position, but perhaps haven’t thought about it further. You clearly have.

I am very familiar with the previous location 2 yrs ago, when WalMart approached the village about building on 31. I had my reservations then as well, but honestly, that location made at least a little more sense than the current one. Anything on Hwy 31 is more reasonable than a T-intersection with two lane roads and high-residential. You said “for whatever reason they chose to leave…” yet, it was very clear what the reason was: VERY STRONG AND COORDINATED resistance to the project by residents and a local organization opposed to any development in this corridor.

In the end, KOKO,WalMart cannot dictate to Caledonia what to do. I assure you I am under no influence at all, and even if they made some kind of effort to persuade me, I have a very consistent and well-known reputation for stubborn principle. Also, I have seen nothing to indicate WalMart has bought any influence on the current board. There may be biases, but WalMart has no control.
(cont...)

(Cont.....)

What is right for a community is a very complex thing to determine; what is wrong is a little easier. We usually know what we DON’T want, vs what we DO. I believe the area residents have made it clear they don’t want this project there. But, my stance is that the board should make an effort to find better alternatives if the residents supportive of a WalMart think one should be built somewhere. We don’t have the luxury of a full-time economic development panel, but that doesn’t mean we cannot behave like one in some aspects. That is part of what I bring to the table.

I’m glad we agree on the land use review. I think this is very important. No decisions will ever make everyone happy, but the current plan is outdated, and to a certain extent, wasn’t completed properly the first time.

Thank you for recognizing that this one issue cannot define the entire race. But keep in mind that there are thousands of area residents that DO support this kind of development as well. There will always be two sides (or more) to every issue, and as a voter, I’ve tried to see the opposition’s perspective too. We’ve often just dismissed their views, and their evidence as moot, and they do the same to my position.

(Cont...)

(cont....)

What is important is to find the common ground, and then present alternatives everyone can live with… not always agree to, but live with. I’m not going to try currying favor with any particuar group or side on ANY issue. You’ll see my perspective on the pricniples of government on my website www.votewilling.com, and that includes being willing to govern free from any particular advocacy. My greatest fear is the entire village board being upended over a single issue when we have even more concerns ahead: Hwy 38 expansion/re-routing, 794 proposals, Hwy K development, future utility rebuilds, etc.

We have a fairly conservative community, and as a strong conservative, that’s the only predisposition I bring to the village board race. Everything else must be a case-by-case basis. I only ask that residents be willing to evaluate each candidate entirely, and not this one issue. You can trust that I’m not going in saying “I want a walmart!” Conversely, I cannot say “I will never allow one!” It seems to me that your stance is more concerned with the location. But there are others that want each potential board member to be nailed down to one specific, definite position and I don’t think that’s proven productive. You’ve been much easier to discuss with, and I appreciate your balanced approach. That gets further than some of the hooting and hollering. :)

@bubbles

First of all, what post are you responding to? You didn't ask me any questions, so I'm not sure if you're responding to the comment above yours, which is logical, or to my earlier responses. And... How am I behaving like a politician? I didn't speak in generalities at all. I spoke very specifically. I said I personally am not opposed to walmart, but dislike the location.

Maybe it's just not the answer you want, but frankly, you'd be the first to speak negatively to my honest answer. In fact, I find many residents say the same thing, including neighbors in the area of this development.

You demand direct answers? Then please, ask direct question. Up till now, you have not asked any.

Please don't accuse me of something I clearly didn't do. BTW, the "alternative cadidate" for seat one is an old board member and a government official. Not a new face with a fresh perspective. I would represent the entire village, and would listen to your input as well as others.

Would you rather I say I hate walmart? Because that would be unreasonable of any local official. There are many that want the project. I personally am opposed to that particular location under the current terms. That's very specific.

Tansandy, I made no such comment. Please show me where I said I was for something before I was against it.

Brian, I agree with you on your above points about what is most important. Especially the Land-Use plan and Hwy 38.

In talking to residents over the last month, I have come to the conclusion though, that this particular proposal on 4 mile has been made a larger issue by a lack of vision to avoid these problems ahead of time.

So I would make the list 4, not just three. :)

Brian, I have to agree with virtually everything you said. Although WM may serve as an impetus to get people aware and involved in our Village government and growth, I do not believe anyone is or should take on the responsibility of trustee without being fully dedicated to the village and it's residents as a whole. People need to look beyond WM to how we want to grow, where we want to grow, what investment will be needed to do so, etc. Much of that is discussed within the LUP via the UWM study. it's a great, insightful document encompassing resident input, business owners, developers, market researchers, etc. The 9000 household survey gives great insight as well. We should be mindful that although that was done in 2002, the Village has only grown 1,091 persons since the 2000 census, so the input is still valid and topical. But I do have to somewhat disagree with 2 points you made: 1st, WM is on the table. What they are proposing and the location in which they are looking has to be dealt with, not only for the area itself, but for the future development of that entire area. And what many may fail to see is that the majority of opposers know what WM is and how they operate. We are beyond that. The virtual silence of the board at the October 23rd WM presentation, refusing to engage in a community discussion, not responding to questions, has raised cocerns and motivation for people to step up in leadership roles. People here really seem to LOVE the village they have.

Keep On Keeping On- No doubt, this issue needs to be addressed and I understand your concerns of the current village board. Let me preface my further comments by stating upfront that I believe this is a horrible location for Walmart or similar developments. First off, Walmart would be an anchor store and the intent of any anchor store would be to draw more commercial development. The proposed area cannot do that. There is no room for growth, nor should there be in that area. But I will say upfront also, that I am not against Walmart coming to the community. I have in the past supported the 4 Mile/Hwy 31 proposal.

But that is why I laid out the five major steps the village needs to address. I would take issue that the Land Use Plan is the be all, end all plan. The study parameters were set up by a much different planning commission and village board than exists today. The majority of both the commission and the board were land conservancy orientated and the study reflected that tilt. And while the population has only seen growth of about 1,000, the playing field for which the board can operate to generate revenue has changed dramatically. In 2002, we had budget surpluses, now we have to scrape to balance the budget. Many programs have been cut, like our parks and rec programs, and positions permanetly eliminated. There is not much more to cut without cutting service. Cont...

Your point regarding a tax base: While I agree with the scenarios as you define them and tend to believe that the 2nd option would be the most desired, considering the end of the year surplus and the current level of taxes, Caledonia does appear to be fiscally sound. Now, if we want to address development at I-94 and address the current level of taxes Caledonians pay into Racine Unified (and possibly revisit the consideration of developing our own school district), we will have to expand the tax base on a more substantial level. I think Grafton, Wisconsin may be a good community to look at. Development of both a highway commercial center and a downtown village has been done in recent years. in fact, their downtown "center" is almost a mirror image of our plans for our Village Center. From recent articles it seems the highway development has been a more successful economic investment. We have land out there ready and for sale, but no water/sewer. That will cost money. How do we get that? By bringing in a supercenterWM to a location with no current infrastucture ($$$$) lack of police support to manage ($) No surrounding room to creat a commercial hub (no $$), Remember, the comcept of a Land Use Plan came from a State initiative called "Smart Growth" "Smart" is the imperative word here. It's not "All or Nothing". It's not "I hate Walmart" (though I have valid concerns). It's what the he** has been done since the LUP was was passed in 2006. WM is not the answer

cont... Further, the Land Use Plan left very little room for business development and that is why we are constantly under pressure to change the plan by developers. Again, that was done by design by those who were in charge at the time.

The biggest area marked for commercial development was the Douglas Ave. corridor. That was supposed to be the downtown. However, the the current land use plan leaves little or no room to expand what we already have. The I-94 corridor is in the plan, however, without sewer and water, very few companies come forward to build there, and those that do, want sewer and water. Same with the industrial park and Franksville. There will have to be some forethought of how to strengthen these areas in order to attract businesses.

As for the board, and I know you and others in that area don't like this, but the board must go through the pre-development phase before they can accept or reject the proposal. That is the law. President Coutts tried to address this at the meeting. If they don't, they could be sued, not by Walmart, but by the current landowner for lack of "due process".

The predevlopment agreement is where the village board will find out the answers to the questions you posed. And at the point, I hope they are prepared to answer them. Part of the process calls for a public hearing, and if the questions go unanswered at that time, I would be as mad at the board as you are now.

@KOKO

i agree with what you said. WM cannot be the answer. i'm still not opposed to one somewhere, but i recognize it will be a zero-sum benefit to the community financially. For me, it's the intangible benefits that it brings. I believe whether it's a Target, Walmart, department store, or other development, we need to find a way to attract good development that will spur further development.

Your mention of sewer/water is precisely why I keep mentioning the utility concerns i have. Not only do we have an aging system that will need maintenance, but we also need to expand that system to handle future growth and needs.

The Wal Mart issue is simply an indication of a larger problem we are facing, and it appears a growing majority of folks (even walmart-supporters) are opposed to the current location.

Lets start working on our alternatives. What WOULD we like to see? What residents do we wish to keep (young professional families, for example)? What mix of services vs. tax base are we comfortable with?

I'm not afraid to address these issues. It seems the last several years have avoided these questions.

P.S. A side-note: to get more community input, I want to develop a volunteer program for the village that actively seeks to get as many residents on a regular email list as possible.

It sounds rudimentary, but I think it's essential. people don't come to village mtgs like they should, except you and me and a few others. We need more communication

Keep On Keeping On- One of the only reasons there was a surplus this year was because of Act 10 and its influence on contracts. Every year, the budget has been a house of cards. I'd give credit for the surplus to those involved in the contract negotiations and the eventual settlements. Employees gave benefit concessions to get the little surplus we have.

It is nice to dream of areas like Grafton, but it goes further than looking what they have now. Our village center has been on the books for 11 years, and this is the first proposal made to the board. Something has to attract developers, and so far, nothing else has. We don't have the revenue to pay for staff to actively go out and seek developers. We have to rely on what comes to us.

As far as the school district, and I can speak of this because I was the President of the steering committee, we don't need additional tax base. With what we have now, we could support a new district with the building of a new high school with little additional change to your taxes. Under the current funding formulas, we collect nearly $17 million in local taxes for RUSD. With tate revenue sharing and federal revenue, we would get nearly $54 million, slightly less than the 25% local taxes we pay for Unified. It gets pretty involve , but suffice it to say, the per pupil funding would be the same. The big thing is the process, and it doesn't favor well for us.

Brian-let me clarify I am more disappointed than angry at the board. Granted, I am very angry at WM. I find them a morally corrupt company and specifically to their behavior in our Village, dishonest with their facts, their assertions of listening to a community and their willingness to "work with a community". As far as our board and this obligation to have due process. The SAME obligation exists to ASK and not just listen...to QUESTION much as the community did. NOT A ONE voiced any concerns with the location, the residential proximity, the lack of development potential, the lack of road infrastructure. You will note the only major concerns addressed were delivery location and 24 hrs. The delivery route I do not see altered via the proposal sketch and the 24 hrs morphed into a 5am-midnight with a 24 hr pharmacy (in store shopping access too??), 24 hr Black Friday deliveries and re-stocking overnight. In essence, screw your concerns, it's basically 24 hrs. When you sit in forced silence while you hear WM speak to your board, spewing the same junk they did a week earlier and hardly a peep in response? You do start to wonder who the board advocates for. Who they are entrusted as trustees to represent? i never expected the board to have the visceral reaction to WM that many in the community had. They have a job to do and a sometimes difficult one at that. But they also have the right to address valid issues. WM may have pursued something else if that happened.

Brian, you said it perfectly: Walmart is only a symptom of our problems. As I told KOKO earlier, I feel the lack of an updated plan, or proactive approach has created this problem to begin with.

We need to spend several months doing the hard work of rewriting that entire land use plan. Tough decisions need to be made ahead of time, so we're not left reacting to them later.

We must consider how future road projects may impact the village. Possible 794 access, a more fluid Hwy 38, and even an east-west corridor are challenges we're going to face. We need to make sure we're already thinking about these things ahead of time, and factoring in what residents think now of scenarios, rather than waiting to hear their reactions on a case-by-case basis.

I will go on the record for being supportive of a local school district, as long as it is able to be done with little to no impact on our tax base. I have reviewed information that indicates this may be possible, but it is very important to both keeping the tax base as attractive as it has been, and also giving our younger families confidence that they won't have to move when their education choices become more limited as their children grow older.

DJP -

I didn't mean to say it's a problem that he once held a position on the board. I think it's a better option to change the status quo. And, while David Prott is a good man, and I would agree with him on many things, I come with a particularly motivated goal for the board.

My qualifications are that I have vast experience in budgeting, owning a small business, being an employer, serving in background political roles, interfacing with government agencies.

If my answers appear vague to you, perhaps it's because they were intended for someone else and their questions. Please feel free to ask me some, and I'd be happy to answer them. I am honest in my answers. Occasionally, that honesty includes answers that don't make everyone happy. But I will do my best!

To find out more, please visit my website: www.votewilling.com
There is also a facebook page available: www.facebook.com/edwillingforcaledonia

My qualifications, some back story and my guiding principles are found there. Feel free to email me or find me on facebook for more in depth conversation.

@DJP, have you visited the website at all? Some of your questions reflect that you might not have.

As for "new face," yes, I am. I've never served on the village board or consulted with them, or had any influence on it. But I have witnessed the inner workings of various levels of government as a business professional, business owner, liaison, activist, writer, etc.

Change the status quo, please read my many responses above in this thread. My vision is very clearly laid out.

Trying to pin me down to attacking David Prott (when you clearly support him already) is a wasted endeavor. I have a vision for the board,and I'm motivated to do something different in the village. If I didn't think I was a better alternative, I wouldn't have run for the open seat. I don't have to attack David Prott in order to make that point.

As to your questions:
Unfair taxation - some taxation is determined by state law, others by local law. I am a fair-tax guy. I believe *nearly* all subsidies are inappropriate. Call them what they want: "tax breaks," "credits," "subsidies," "variable rates," etc.... it's welfare. I don't like it.

I have not reviewed the amount of property taxes the conservancy is paying, but I would be happy to sit down and review that information with you. I would say initially that crestview and kramer both require different services, but if the land use is virtualy the same, but the taxation is different, I would oppose that.

(Cont....)

Re: taxation variance
I pay around $3,300 on a property valued at $200,000. Meanwhile, a friend in Crestview pays much more. It's clear some of the larger properties are taking advantage of agriculural/rural zoning laws. There is only so much Caledonia can do, but what I can do, i would advocate. Tom Weatherston still has half a term left and will be simultaneously serving our district in the State Assembly. Perhaps we can schedule this on the agenda. If you vote for me in seat one, I promise you, I would have the conversation with the public. Write it down - that's a legitimate offer!

Re: conservancy
My only "special interest" is good, conservative governance with input from the community. The "Save don't pave" community has legitimate concerns, but perhaps their solutions aren't always practical. I've proudly played devil's advocate all my life so I can see both sides. But I have principles.

Re: public service spending
I have many friends and mentors over the years with many ideas I would tap for keeping the tax base where it is, while growing with our needs. There are many ways. For instance, the Parks save tens of thousands of dollars by privatizing the lawn maintenance. Also, the choice to give one-time bonuses, rather than increase the fixed-cost salaries of 50 employees saved the village thousands.

Re: the LUP
We can do so by maintaining a sliim budget now & being wise in the coming years as housing recovers. We lost $300 mil in value. It will come back

@DJP

No "but" necessary here. :) I am actually making it a campaign theme, among several, to make the LUP a focus of the next year. I completely agree. To be honest, I don't think a mere "revision" is necessary. I think it should be entirely rewritten. Most of the core of it was from the 70's. I think some parts of it are important, and i think preserving the rural aspects and some open land in Caledonia is important, but it needs to be clarified and an aggressive action needs to be taken for developers to look at our community as the best option in RaCo to build good, sustainable, positive-sum projects that contribute to our tax base, not drain it, or upset a thousand people living in the middle of it.

I am a member of the Parks and Rec Commission, and my father worked for the Milwaukee Co Parks back in their heyday, so space is very important to me and my son today. But, I want this village to grow. Because I want my son to live here too when he grows up.

The reality is that the current walmart project is so widely hated, even by good conservative, pro-development people I know, but that if not handled properly will discourage any further development. This is already the case, to a degree. I want to change that.

I don't know how to shed light on your question, because I agree with you. Without further development, a solid utility district and attractive tax base we will never grow. If we aren't growing, we're dissolving. We will not remain solvent this way.

@KOKO

I appreciate the word of caution, but i assure you I wouldn't throw any baby out. :) I never advocated throwing out the plan, but rather rewriting it. I have a link to the plan on my website, and I believe the core principles are good, but the village has changed a lot in the last 5 years, let alone the last 40. It needs to be rewritten, and this time with EVERYONE on board. Many residents have felt it was revised to empower one group over the rest. Perhaps most of the plan would stay intact in the end. But if there are vast groups of people that *feel* excluded, the scab of division will only worsen, and nothing will change. But, if the plan is revisited by the board, with someone like me who adamantly calls for input from everyone, something will change. And walmarts will only be the junk food aisle at the buffet of companies that will come knocking, like higher retail and solid employers.

I will not pretend to be the 'one' to save the board from mediocrity, but I am confident that if my goals of community engagement, education-expansion, and responsible LUP revision occurs, others on the board (new or old) will see the benefits and follow suit. The whole village would change. And as I said before, we'd find a balance that we may not all love, but can at least 'live with.' that's the essence of local government.

The UWM report was a market study, not the household census, done specifically for the C1/C2 corridor/Village Center. No one group of residents gave input more than others. It was completed by Milwaukee's Applied Planning workshop consisting of UWM graduate students. part of this study was a focus group, but the conclusions regarding the market were NOT opinions of residents but the analysis of these graduate students. The focus group was open to residents, business owners, etc. There was no one group excluded from participation in order for you to make the claim that a certain geographic area was under-represented.. Pg 36-41 outline the findings. Additionally, the survey instrument was filled out by developers-Ray Leffler, Bielinski Homes. As far as the household survey done as part of the Land Use Plan and the committees developed for the neighborhood subareas- again, these were open to Village-wide participation and the subareas cover all of Caledonia.

KOKO- I'm not sure how long you have lived in the village, but there were whole sections of the village that were never contacted. And as far as developers are concerned, they have their own agendas. One only needs to look at the plan to see it isn't very business friendly. It is quite obvious from the shallow concideration for commercial development.

For example, why was no consideration for commercial zoning given to Hwy 31. This is the main highway connecting the northside of the county to the southside? Seems pretty suspect to me considering the large parcels of land and the infrastructure already in place. And before you say that the infrastructure is fairly new, which it is, it had been planned by the state for two decades before its expansion.

The fact of the matter is that the Conservancy group has had a heavy influence for years and basically want a no growth, bed and breakfast community. They are unwilling to compromise on anything and have strategically bought up parcels that would have been more suitable for commercial development. Good for them because I believe most residents don't want too much development that we lose our rural character. With that said, we are too large to be solely supported by residential development unless you want to pay high taxes for minimal services.

KOKO

The problem that I have with the highway 31 plans is that it was never even considered as a commercial Corridor even though it geographically and topographically makes the most sense. Another reality is that the very people writing the land-use plan in 2006 were many of the ones who live on that stretch. In other words... The entire community is not represented in the establishment of commercial corridors. I am not saying that we should make it an exclusive commercial Corridor, either, and there are some space and environmental issues we need to consider. But some other communities such as Franklin and Brookfield have some mistakes and some good ideas that we could learn from both ways. We need to revise our LUP, and find a way to retain the C3 and 4 areas while making it easier to direct future development ideas to areas residents have predetermined are acceptable.

Heather thank you so much for your support… Feel free to ask away, provide me with any input you may have or concerns you or your neighbors may have. If your be willing to place a sign in your yard, I'd be most grateful! Please email me at edward.willing@att.net!

Richard Frazier is a friend who is running for seat 5. Check out his page here: www.facebook.com/voterichardfrazier

Denise and Heather already have some things together for asking each candidate, and I know they plan on putting a piece out on the village board very soon.

From what I understand I have checked and been unable to find any restrictions on board members making comments about policy. Perhaps the board members are hesitant because the unfamiliar with the medium. I however will do whatever I can. I actually have people tell me that I should less because of that. But its my nature... I will always engage people on Facebook and patch and my own website. You have my word on that.

I'm not running as an advocate of a single thing, I'm running so others will be encouraged to get more involved. I am bothered by a lack of civic participation and frankly, I need to set an example.

In fact, one proposal I have on the site (www.votewilling.com) is establishing an official, but voluntary village communication list by email. It's time to bring the village into the 21st century. The reality is that people cannot/will not attend a mtg but may be more engaged if we make it easier for them to be,

Sorry for the typos. My iPad is giving me some autocorrect grief!

Ed, I'll Like both pages on FB and look forward to hearing more about your and Richard's campaigns. I'm not in a good area for a sign (very little traffic), but I will mention you to the few neighbors I have and other people I know in Caledonia.

I was a volunteer with the Land Use Planning years ago. It was very interesting to me and I enjoyed the process. I was on the committee for our area. I think it was a useful tool, but to remain current, it would need to be done more often (and I believe it cost quite a bit!). Also, there wasn't much participation from other residents, so only those who made it on the committees really had much of a say. (I did consult with neighbors about things as much as possible, though.) Since having kids and starting to work in the evenings, I've been unable to attend most village meetings. I think a village communication list is a great idea as long as it can be administered without extra cost to the village.

That's definitely a unique hypothetical. :)

I can see some of the traffic and safety advantages, but whil I think there's too many unknown factors to take a position on the idea, it would seem at first glance that the negative effect on businesses in the area would outweigh advantages. Unless you mean just name-designation-wise, in which case it's merely symbolic, not physically altering the route.

Perhaps you could expand on what you mean and the reasons you believe it's a good idea?

I didn't ask for a comment at this time. Just something for you to ponder. Maybe Denise would like to pose that to all the candidates. It would cover the Land Use Plan, why Walmart is not proposing building on a major Highway, the decision by the WIDOT not to go ahead with the Highway 32 expansion at this time, things that the Village board can or can't do, and what ramifications this would have on the Village.

Oh ok, well then, I trust you'll vote for me on April 2nd, so I can then continue the consideration from here, and discuss the issue with you as an elected member! :)

I was falsely accused and I answered. :) if that's angry to you, how do you classify your own?

Yeah, I'm sharp tongued and get to the point. Hopefully that gets me some votes.

It is odd that you're attacking me when I've attacked no one here. Just pointing out the truth and explaining my positions to one who clearly have no idea where I stand.

Guilty as charged.