It sounds like someone would like to know more about comprehensive planning in Wisconsin, sometimes referred to as "smart growth." Here at the link below is a brief, good summary of what state law requires.
Aside from requiring that a few paragraphs and maps be included in a plan to describe the current conditions and future desired conditions of a community, regarding 8 or 9 elements that are common to good land use plans everywhere, and a requirement that plans be reviewed every ten years, there is nothing "coercive" or prescriptive about comprehensive planning as required by the Wisconsin legislature. All the details are left up to local citizens and their elected representatives. Your local plan stinks? Property rights being trampled? Your community is a lousy place to live or do business? Then clean out "city hall" and start over. This does not fit even the loosest concept of a "coercive" system: http://learningstore.uwex.edu/pdf/G3749.pdf Jeff Schimpff Bureau of Science Services Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources "Bus, Bike, Walk or Carpool to Work for Clean Air for Kids" (*) phone: (608) 267- 7853 (*) fax: (608) 267-5231 (*) e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Westhagen Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:46 PM To: BikiesSubmissions Subject: [Bikies] Vagueness in Richard Schwinn's Statement Dear Richard, I am not clear as to what you have said in this paragraph. In your earlier paragraph you say that you "personally" agree with coercive land planning, called SMART GROWTH in this context. But then you say: . . .---- <"While I have no reason to believe that anyone was trying to mislead the board with this statement, there was also no specific approval of it, either. Eliminating this reference doesn't mean the Bike Fed or the Board rejects Smart Growth or other causes. It means the organization can focus more on bicycles."> It would seem to me that an organization should "officially" act according to their "policy or platform" as determined by their board. Particularly this should be the case when an advocacy organization seeks "publicly financed money, either in grants or contracts." But this is only honesty with paying members as well. If the policy then includes------"coersive land reform" as well as direct bicycle issues, then potential members would weigh the conflicts with their own "values." But if the group intends to advocate with full scale lobbying or "official" letters of support for "emissions controls, anti-war, political parties, land reforms, collectivist housing, re-establishing mandatory zoning for or against auto parking, etc., etc.,"----------THEN IT SHOULD BE STATED DIRECTLY IN POLICY STATEMENTS FOR MEMBERS AND OTHER "FUNDERS." THAT IS BASIC HONESTY. Certainly we all deplore dishonest lobbies, which abound, when they do not agree with use, therefore such practices should not be suggested or condoned with BFW. Eric Westhagen _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
