[Winona Online Democracy]

Kathy:
 
My intention has always been to participate in constructive conversations, devoid of 
accusations directed at individuals. I responded as I did to Turek's e-mail because 
her accusations were way "over the top." It is not a matter of "making peace and 
moving forward' as you suggest Kathy. It is simply a matter of whether or not basic 
rules will be adherred to regarding civil discourse. I personally do not have time to 
forever debate how to debate, as opposed to truly talking about the respective issues 
on WOD. My hope is that WOD becomes more than simply a surrogate for newspaper 
opinions.
 
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Seifert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Winona] Fw: Opinions expressed on the Annexation in regardKathySieferts 
proposed question


Just to clarify, I in no way mean to imlpy that members should not have emotions or 
express emotions in postings. I am reminded of the following quote by Aristotle:
 
Anybody can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to 
the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right 
way, that is not within everybody's power, that is not easy.
 
I think that it gets to the crux of the troubles we seem to be experiencing as we try 
to discuss and I try to facilitate discussion of this highly emotionally charged 
subject.
 
There is a big difference between stating that one is angry (or worried or suspicious) 
about the prospect of having one's property annexed by the city.  It is quite another 
when one's anger or suspicians lead to name-calling.  This is what I see happened 
between Ms Turek and Mr. Sorenson.  Ms Turek has apologized for her actions and seems 
to be committed to self-monitoring in order to improve future communications about the 
issue.  Mr. Sorenson has not communicated to the list his intentions, but I encourage 
him to also make peace and move forward with the discussion.
 
Kathy Seifert

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Janice Turek <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 5:41 PM
Subject: [Winona] Fw: Opinions expressed on the Annexation in regard KathySieferts 
proposed question

[Winona Online Democracy]





  _____  




 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Janice Turek <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:38 PM
Subject: Fw: Opinions expressed on the Annexation in regard Kathy Sieferts proposed 
question

 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Janice Turek <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:35 PM
Subject: Fw: Opinions expressed on the Annexation in regard Kathy Sieferts proposed 
question

 
 

I appreciate Kathy Sieferts input and "opinion" on how people express themselves and 
the importance of not directly attacking anyone in a forum like this.  I apologize for 
using "land grabbers" and "power hungry" as terms to discribe those I disagree with 
and do not share the same opinion on annexation.   I believe opinions often need to be 
expressed with emotion.  I can understand taking the name calling out of a discussion, 
but to take the emotion which is often linked to behavior, out of a discussion deletes 
the passion and commitment one may feel to a subject.  It limits expression.  Only 
stating "facts" and not allowing or respecting opinions, closes communication
 
In response to Mr. Sorenson's response, I will try to keep the emotion out of this.
 
1.  I have changed my email address to my home email address.  I realize putting 
Winona Health on a personal message is not an appropriate thing to do. I do believe 
the intelligent readers in this forum realize these are my opinions and not that of 
Winona Health.  Since I am at work far more than I am at home, it is more convienent 
for me to follow discussions not only on this but on other issues.  It may be days 
before I view my home email.  Also, I have to believe that everyone of us have used 
our work emails for our own personal stuff at one time or another.  What surprised me 
most on Mr. Sorenson's response to this, was that he cc'd it to the CEO of Winona 
Health.  Interesting.  
 
2.  Mr. Sorenson claims I am not an expert in the mapping of  proposed annex areas. I 
never claimed to be an expert on mapping of proposed annexed areas, I only brought up 
the FACT that the County report in Plan A sees the developable land as 40 acres verses 
125 acres that the city proposes.  I realize that ciites "annex" not counties, that is 
why my questions have been directed toward the actions of the city not the county.  I 
am not sure where Mr. Sorenson was going with this.  I just stated a "fact" that the 
county has a different "opinion" of what should be developed.  It did not surprise me 
that the city does not agree with this report.
 
3.  see number 2
 
4.  Jerry Miller owning land 2 miles outside the requested annexation is a fact.  If 
the Phillips property is annexed, Jerry Miller can at that point request to have pipes 
run out to his land, this is a fact not an opinion. This fact has been used as an 
argument from the city as to the Jason Phillips property.  I have heard at numerous 
meetings that land adjacent up to 2 miles outside the city limits can be favored for 
annexation if deemed necessary.  I heard this fact from the city meetings.  I am only 
basing my "opinion" on the facts that were fed to me.    I would be the first to admit 
that my link to my own personal property and home, weigh my "opinions" heavily,  Could 
anyone say differently?.  Do we not all possess the need to take care of what is ours, 
including home, family and finances.
 
5.  Mr. Sorenson says my comments are self-serving.  Of course my comments are 
self-serving.  I wouldn't be in this fight if they were not.  However, I believe Mr 
Sorenson, may be reading my passion and discussion on this entirely wrong.  If you go 
back on my discussions of this subject at any point, I have not said "No" to 
development.  I have talked about orderly, planned and sensible development and my 
desire to have the city prove this is necessary in an area nearly 2 miles out of the 
city limits.
 
6.  IMr. Sorenson claims I am unaware of the negotiations and information between 
Phillips and the Township. I am very aware of the negotiations and information the 
Township offers as well as the alternatives for development.  I talk to Mr. Kirschman 
on a regular basis (sometimes daily). I am in regular contact with the other township 
board members.  I have attended every Township meeting since this issue came up.  So 
for Mr. Sorenson to say I am uninformed that is his "opinion".  I do not claim to have 
privvy to all the Township information, but I believe our Township Board has been 
direct and honest with the information available to the 1200 people in Wilson Township.
 
 I did attend the nearly 3 hour presentation by the State representatives on 
alternative Septic systems.  I listened and took notes.   There was not one city 
representative at this presentation.  If you look back the day before the 
presentation, I personally invited everyone involved on the winona online demacracy 
site to attend this presentation.  I try to keep myself informed on any information 
that is offered to me.  
 
So again for Mr. Sorenson to say I am basically in the dark on these subjects is once 
again his god-given right being born in the US to have an "opinion".
 
7. Mr Sorenson made claims that I am uninformed about the a Phillips and city 
agreement. I am as aware of this agreement as been made public on the subjects. I have 
attended the Board meetings regarding the Phillips propery as well at the City Meeting 
that was called.  I will admit I do not know the full extend of the cities agreement 
with Phillips, nor does this matter.  The points that Mr. Sorenson makes here were 
never an issue nor have I ever brought these up. 
 
 I am not sure where he was going with this.  If Mr. Sorenson is trying to make the 
point that the City and Mr. Phillips are trying to "please" the residents of Spring 
Brook.  This was never an issue with me.  The issue remains: "show me the need, show 
me the plan, show me the city is in need to continue to annex our rural areas and 
deplete us of our Townships.   Show me that this a worthwhile and responsible spending 
of tax dollars".  I am asking for facts on this, not opinions and speculations.  
However, I remain open to others opinions and speculations, as it certainly raises 
things to think about.
 
Wilson Township also has asked for hard facts supporting their decisions. Wilson 
Township has been willing to start developing a orderly plan of annexation, but being 
the responsible people they are, they want to get it right and do the right thing.  In 
order to do that they need information from the city.  Unfortunately at the Township 
meeting last night they were told by the city officials attending, their request for 
information was not important in the decision making process and the statistics would 
not be supplied to them unless it goes to a State mediator.  If it goes to the State 
mediator, this will be a requirement.  I am really confused as to why the State would 
see this as important, but our City officials do not.  Interesting.  A 'fact' to 
ponder.
 
8.  Mr. Sorenson claims I do not understand finances. I am not a financial expert, 
this is a fact!!  (nor do I wish to be). I only posed questions as to how the city can 
financially justify this move.  I implored others to talk with their councilmen on 
this. My understanding is the city councilmen believe this annexation is a "slam dunk" 
(actual quote (fact) by a councilmen).  They believe this because no one is calling 
them and questioning what they are doing or expressing an opinion either way on the 
subject.   I raised questions to others on this forum to think about.  How can the 
city justify annexing what the county sees as only 40 buildable acres.  I was fully 
aware the city sees it differently.  Mr. Sorenson, had the right to express his 
"opinion" and offer more facts, that is what this debate is all about.
 
Lastly, in regards to Mr. Sorenson's comments about acting professionally,  My 
profession is not in city planning, I am not a professional nor possess past 
experience  in this area.  My comments are on a personal level. I have never claimed 
otherwise. I have never said I am writing as a professional and would hope this a very 
mute point on Mr. Sorenson's part.  I am a Registered Nurse and a Business women.  
This subject of annexation does not touch either one of these aspects of my life, It 
does not affect my profession or force me to use the information I am an expert in, it 
affects me personally.  My "opinion" is a personal one, not a professional one as Mr. 
Sorenson eludes it needs to be.
 
 I provide information I have gotten, but I also express my "personal" opinion.  If 
WOD is only a  forum for "professionalson a subject" to discuss "facts" then you might 
as well shut it down.  My understanding is this is a forum open to all to express 
opinions and be given facts by those who may possess more or other information.  
Limiting this forum to only a professional or factual debate will not get at many core 
issues.  It will alienate many people who would like to debate issues because they are 
not "professionals" in the area of the debate.  Facts can and should be challenged on 
many different levels including those who are not "professionals in the area of 
discussion, this provides growth and thought.
 
If Mr. Sorenson, or any one else out there, did not agree with what I was saying, or 
how it was being said, they had a right to express their "opinion" and I can respect 
that.  If they can offer facts, then that makes it better, but facts are not necessary 
to carry on a debate. Kathy Siefert did express her opinion and followed up with some 
guidelines and I appreciate her "professional" manner of doing this.  
 
Janice Turek
 
 
 
 



  _____  




_______________________________________________
This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
All messages must be signed by the senders actual name.
No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list.
To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit
http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
Any problems or suggestions can be directed to 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at
 http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org

_______________________________________________
This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
All messages must be signed by the senders actual name.
No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list.
To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit
http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
Any problems or suggestions can be directed to
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at
 http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org

Reply via email to