.

Village Board Races Heat Up With Contested Races

All four positions for the Caledonia Village Board will have two candidates on the April ballot. One of the positions will also have a primary election in February.

Four of the seven Caledonia village board seats are up for election this spring including the village president's position, and each has a contested race. The village trustee number three position will have a primary election on February 19. The top two vote getters from that race will then be on the spring election on April 2 along with the other positions.

Trustees serve two-year terms and are paid $6,600 per year. The village president is paid $13,000 per year and serves a two-year term. Candidates have until 5 p.m. today to file papers. We'll update the list if any additional candidates file.

Trustee No 1

*Kathy Burton (filed non-candidacy)

Ed Willing, 5754 Winstar Lane

David Prott, 2442 Rebecca Drive

Trustee No. 3

*Kevin Wanggaard, 3710 South Lane (re-filed)

Jim Tiderman, 4519 N. Green Bay Rd. 

Maureen Cramer, 3616 4 Mile Rd.

Trustee No. 5

*Jim Dobbs, 5314 Agatha Turn (re-filed)

Richard Frazier, 6023 Finch Lane

President

*Ronald Coutts, 609 Kentwood Dr. (re-filed)

Bob Bradley, 6022 Leeward Lane

* incumbents

Edward Willing January 04, 2013 at 04:00 PM
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.
Brian Dey January 04, 2013 at 04:13 PM
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...
KEEP ON KEEPING ON January 04, 2013 at 04:15 PM
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
Dnaiel J. Phillips January 04, 2013 at 04:16 PM
EW, So your not a new face? ('serving in background political roles') "To change the status quo", what is meant by that? Do you know of anything Dave was involved in when he was on the board, or are you assuming he is just another rubber stamp politician? How would you address the fact that manyf Villiage properties are unfairly taxed? Why is it that members of the Conservency, seemingly pay less in property taxes than those who live in Crestview or Kremer Addition? A good friend of mine pays $3200 a year in property taxes for a houes valued at $135,000, while a well known member of the Conservency Pays $9000 for a property worth about 1 milliion. How will you correct issues like this? What will you do to encourage growth in Caledonia, when the "Save Don't Pave" group confronts you? How will you ensure us that our services will remain top notch (I have to give credit here to our DPW, Police and Fire they do a great job!) and our tax bills won't resemble the City of Racine's due to unnecessary spending? Many issues face our Villiage, can we continue to utilize a LUP that is 12 years old and still confront the ever growing cost's of services?
Brian Dey January 04, 2013 at 04:24 PM
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.
Edward Willing January 04, 2013 at 04:25 PM
@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
Edward Willing January 04, 2013 at 04:34 PM
@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....)
Edward Willing January 04, 2013 at 04:45 PM
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
Brian Dey January 04, 2013 at 04:52 PM
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.
Dnaiel J. Phillips January 04, 2013 at 05:02 PM
EW, Great responses. But you have to agree the LUP is outdated and needs to be revised in order to move Caledonia forward. People keep using the same old tired UWM report as their reference guide, do you not agree that we need to be proactive and this would mean possible changing the LUP to fit into our current needs. Failing to adapt with the current financial situation could leave Caledonia in the same situation as many other small communities. How can we continue to shoot down development, recieve less state funding, and still remain solvent without raising taxes? I believe we can't! Please shed some light on this for me.
KEEP ON KEEPING ON January 04, 2013 at 05:45 PM
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.
Edward Willing January 04, 2013 at 05:49 PM
@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.
Edward Willing January 04, 2013 at 05:57 PM
@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.
KEEP ON KEEPING ON January 04, 2013 at 06:11 PM
Ed- i would caution regarding the LUP to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. Meaning the Plan does have merit and some very meaningful examinations of our area. and Mr. Phillips-I have spoken directly with 2 authors of the UWM study. I disagree the report is old and tired. If anything, the market factors the study speaks of relative to market saturation in the area have only increased since it was written. One can look additionally at the market study done by Ehlers in 2011 for Caledonia, the expansion in Mount Pleasant (market study done in 2011 by the owners of Piggly Wiggly and Sentry-I have read it) and the expansion in the Oak Creek area. These adjacent retail developments effect our market. And let's not forget, as i have already pointed out, that WM themselves say leakage studies justify a need for a store of this size in Caledonia. One must ask why 18 mths earlier they planned to build a smaller store to service the local area only. So I conclude a larger store services adjacent areas. yet we are getting an ADDITIONAL WM on hwy 20*-possibly a larger one if they purchase Hobby Lobby or Sentry (seen at both). We want development here that can be sustained and thrive without diminishing the existing business tax base (as WM historically does). Otherwise it becomes a zero sum gain for the community. And possibly a drain considering the investment we have to make in improvements, ones that will only benefit 1 development in that location.
Edward Willing January 04, 2013 at 06:31 PM
@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.
Dnaiel J. Phillips January 04, 2013 at 10:00 PM
KOKO. Lets be honest Mrs. Tiderman aka "Keep On Keeping On", the report was done with, as Mr. Willing points out,without input from many residents, but rather with major input from the Conservancy and minimal input from those of us that live on the Northern boundries of the village. Thus making your report swayed in a manner that favors your opinion and not that of many others in the village. I can order reports on any subject and influence there outcomes simply by offering up alternative prospectives. This why I feel your UWM report is out dated.
KEEP ON KEEPING ON January 04, 2013 at 10:48 PM
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.
Brian Dey January 05, 2013 at 03:28 AM
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.
KEEP ON KEEPING ON January 05, 2013 at 03:11 PM
Brian-you are correct that in the LUP subarea descriptions of C/3 and C/4 areas, both of which encompass part of hwy 31, it looks from the public input that the majority of residents wanted that area to maintain it's residential, rural feel. As far as who was involved, contacted, etc., I am not privy to any thoughts that certain areas of residents were never contacted or allowed to participate. I can't speak to that. One just has to drive around Caledonia to understand the challenges that establishing the type of commercial development we may see in Mount Pleasant, Oak Creek, even on a smaller scale. But what I can speak to is the fact that the corner of N Green Bay and 4 mile most certainly does not seem to be the answer. And to be forthright, this neighborhood subarea is the only subarea examined in the UWM study. The examination of and conclusions drawn there should not be applicable Village-wide. There are 2 threads of discussion here-our upcoming election and the WM proposal. Although most certainly enterwined, not every point relative to the proposal location and that subarea translates into my thoughts about developing other areas. But I do appreciate the insight. Knowledge is power.
Heather in Caledonia January 05, 2013 at 03:46 PM
Well, so far Edward Willing gets my vote. Where are the other people running for office? Why is no one else commenting on here? Welcome to the new media and the new world of politics. Waiting for a reporter to contact you with some pre-written questions and then attending a couple of in-person discussions is so... '00's. :) I want people who represent me to continually monitor and comment on issues on sites like the Patch and I want them to respond to me when I send them an email with my opinions. (Guess I'm still a bit miffed that NONE of the board members responded to my email about Wal-Mart. None. I emailed all those with email addresses - how is it that 2 board members don't even have email?!?) Thank you to Edward and Brian for being active in discussions when they're running for office. Edward, if you are elected, please continue to be visible and engaged in public discussions. It's much appreciated and very lacking from our current board. Hmmm... that makes me wonder. Is there some sort of rule preventing board members from commenting in public discussion boards like this? Do they have to restrict themselves to personal phone calls with constituents and board meetings? Strange. I don't remember ever reading comments from a board member, but I could be wrong.
Edward Willing January 05, 2013 at 07:48 PM
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,
Edward Willing January 05, 2013 at 07:50 PM
Sorry for the typos. My iPad is giving me some autocorrect grief!
Edward Willing January 05, 2013 at 07:58 PM
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 in Caledonia January 05, 2013 at 08:44 PM
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.
Caledonia Confused January 06, 2013 at 12:53 AM
Ed, here is a hypothetical situation to ponder. WIDOT decides to reroute State Highway 32 from 4 Mile Road north via 4 Mile Road and State Highway 31. The old section of State Highway 32 is then returned to local (Village or County) control.
Edward Willing January 06, 2013 at 07:15 PM
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?
Caledonia Confused January 07, 2013 at 05:52 AM
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.
Edward Willing January 07, 2013 at 03:02 PM
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! :)
Hermes Trismegustus February 08, 2013 at 12:05 PM
I live outside Crestview, and I have been reading this thread. I have not been up to date on what's been going on, but whoever this Edward guy is, he is sure sounds very condescending. I agree with the post that said he sounded like a politician before he was even elected. Whoever wrote that is pretty correct. Also, it is odd that he sounds so angry in his posts, and why is he so argumentative with people asking him questions. It seems to me that he should have a little more class.
Edward Willing March 26, 2013 at 02:49 PM
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.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something