Dear Jeff Schimpff, Without sounding "redundant", maybe you should read just what I was asking Richard Schwinn-----and it wasn't a continuation of just what is or isn't coercive land planning, called--Smart Growth! Does every word trigger a thread going off at "ninety degrees?" Maybe you will break into another description of the global warming controversy or "peak oil?"
EW "Schimpff, Jeff A - DNR" wrote: > > > 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
