Editor’s note: The following is a letter Peter Abbott, chairman of the County Grounds Coalition, wrote to the editor of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, which they chose not to publish. The opinions expressed are Mr. Abbott’s and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Shepherd Express.
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's Oct. 27 report on actions Milwaukee County and Wauwatosa are considering regarding the future of the County Grounds was highly misleading.
Far from meeting "the terms set by the County Board," the county development director's application carved out 22% of the area the County Board asked Wauwatosa to rezone as parkland for development.
Don't take my word for it. Just ask county board supervisors themselves. A letter to the City of Wauwatosa signed by 13 supervisors (a majority of the County Board) stated their "opposition to the rezoning application submitted by the Milwaukee County Economic Development Department as it unilaterally changed the intent and spirit of the resolution adopted by the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors."
But you'd never know that from reporter Don Boehm's article.
Perhaps it might have helped his reporting had he attended the County Board's Parks Committee meeting Oct. 24 to hear county supervisors and scores of citizens push back against County Economic Development director James Tarantino's truncated rezoning application.
|
|
Mr. Boehm's article appeared just a few days after that Parks Committee meeting, yet he focused his reporting instead on the rezoning application Mr. Tarantino had submitted more than a month earlier, failing to mention that Mr. Tarantino had asked the Wauwatosa Plan Commission to remove it from its October agenda after the supervisors sent their letter opposing it.
So why report old news when fresh news (the supervisors' letter and the Parks Committee meeting) was still hot? Is it because the old news fit the story line of Wauwatosa's pro-developer politicians better?
Mr. Boehm's article quotes Wauwatosa Mayor Kathleen Ehley saying, "I cannot bear seeing this special place chipped away at or incrementally encroached upon." So why did she prevail upon Mr. Tarantino to do just that? And why did Mr. Boehm never talk to any of the citizens opposed to his application's "encroachments" on Sanctuary Woods?
If he had, or had looked at a map, he would have found out that these "encroachments" could bring development right up to the edge of
Sanctuary Woods, threatening that habitat and the wildlife it supports and blocking the public access we enjoy now.
So when did the Journal-Sentinel and Mr. Boehm stop reporting more than one side of an issue?
