By Roger Utnehmer
A recent vote by the Sturgeon Bay Waterfront Redevelopment Authority has effectively stopped a settlement of the lawsuit between the Friends of the Sturgeon Bay Public Waterfront and the city.
WRA members voted five to two against accepting the settlement offer that has been approved by the city council.
Authority Chair Tom Herlache cited three reasons for his vote to reject the settlement and questioned how individual votes of members are known to the news media.
Referring to the settlement agreement, Herlache said, “I don’t think it gave us anything.” He said the 60′ of additional land for development below the meander line agreed to in the settlement went over a sewer line, making it a problem for construction.
Herlache also said the lot proposed under the settlement “was not sufficient in size to do anywhere near the kind of increment we need to do the kind of waterfront we want to see.” He also said the agreement was not specific enough and was too vague.
When asked to explain his reason for opposing the settlement Herlache questioned how DoorCountyDailyNews.com knew how he voted.
“Where did you get who voted how?” Herlache asked.
“I’m not going to tell you how I personally voted,” he said, “I will simply give you my personal opinion.”
Votes of authority members are a matter of public record and were released under an open records request filed by DoorCountyDailyNews.com.
That open records request shows that the five authority members voting against the settlement were Herlache, Cindy Weber, John Asher, Ryan Hoernke, and Chris Jeanquart. Votes for the proposed settlement were cast by Laurel Hauser and David Ward.
WRA members are appointed by the mayor. Recent speakers at Sturgeon Bay city council meetings have called for the abolition of the WRA. At least one member of the city council, Kelly Catarzoli, thinks the authority is an impediment to settling a lingering lawsuit that could cost city taxpayers thousands of dollars and keep Sturgeon Bay tied up in litigation for years.
Herlache told DoorCountyDailyNews.com he has no plans to revisit the vote opposing a settlement nor does he have immediate plans to schedule another authority meeting.
Thanks for the report Mr Utnehmer,
–A problem for construction of what? A city owned and maintained sewer line has nothing to do with anything as the city presumably would be able to plan and engineer a solution to build something landward of the negotiated OHWM.
–Not sufficient space to build enough value to pay off the tax increment because the WRA doesn’t have a creative clue for any possibilities on either side of the negotiated OHWM, or, because new construction can’t be done where it might obstruct a newly built apartment building view of the shipping canal?
–Who is the “us,” Mr Herlache is speaking of here? It clearly doesn’t sound like an inclusion of the general public who aren’t private for personal profit developers being subsidized by city taxpayers to “lure,” them into investing in something like the Lindgren. The WRAconn for Sturgeon Bay was called out for what it was.
–So 5 people are holding up any possibility for the city to move forward as, “they,” aren’t getting enough of something, i.e. further risks of enough public funds to subsidize potential private developers with little hope of payback by proceeding with a repeat of the planning that brought the city trouble in the first place and Mr Herlache apparently isn’t budging from his authoritarian position.
Really elitist rhetoric here, “Where did you get who voted how?” Herlache asked.
————————-
Coming from the WRA chair who failed to reconvene in open session to vote as stated in the July 26, agenda for the meeting, this is an astounding statement. Those with the legal expertise (where was the city parliamentarian?) could and would seem obligated to determine if that vote in the conference room was a violation of the state open meeting laws and take full, immediate and appropriate action.
The attitude of some people in positions of power in this city is alarming. We really need to get out the vote next election. This gentleman, in his appointed position, thinks he knows better than our elected officials?
If the WRA is, indeed, the “tail that wags the dog” in city government, then Mr. Herlache has revealed himself to be the flea with the biggest bite on that tail. He seems to think of himself as an unelected head of city affairs, and the WRA as a “shadow council” with all the powers, privileges, and policy-making discretions of the elected council. He is what is wrong with governance in the city of Sturgeon Bay, and he and the WRA need to be ceremoniously “thanked” for their time and efforts and shown the door. If not, Mr. Birmingham, anybody considering a run for office and/or mayor in the upcoming elections has a ready-made issue to campaign on: who gave an appointed commission discretionary spending authority AND veto power on council decisions that has resulted in thousands upon thousands of tax-payer dollars spent in quixotic pursuit of a development that the court has declared unconstitutional in its design?
Who is Kelly Catazoli to blame anyone else for costing the city money. It was she and the “Friends” who have cost the city thousands of dollars. I have watched this dispute for well over a year and the original move to block the hotel was not in the interest of the citizens of this area and the “legal grounds” amounted to pure obstructionism. For what reason?
I for one would unfriend the “Friends”
Joe M, if that is you, you lost your city council bid last spring, but regardless of who you are, I suppose that Papke’s pending law suit would be against the Friend’s then and not against the city if what you say were true. Yes?
—————-
For either you or Robert, who commented below, ask the city to produce the number of tourist rental units that are vacant any time of the year and determine for yourselves the validity of that reasoning for anyone arguing either for or against the potential success of a big honking hotel air-dropped onto the waterfront tarmac at taxpayer expense. I don’t recall the city mentioning any of the actual room data related to WRA/City planning or a feasibility study with decision making for that plan. How fast would that hotel have dropped to below half of its initial assessed property value in failed anticipated returns for the TID?
Joseph…..the court apparently disagreed with you when presented with the facts.
Liz:
Fact is that this entire fight was to protect B & B owners from competition. If you review the minutes of the Nov 2013 Planning Commission and later super Committee minutes this is clearly revealed. The so called Friends group went to a save the planet argument 10 months later. FACTS ARE FACTS!
Hahahahaha
Hahahahaha (Robert and Joseph) keep kicking your feet and telling yourself that, but the fact is that you are simply bullies, who make up facts as you need them. So old school.
Mr. Loss,
Your personal vendetta and attacks are restraining order caliber. You’ve made it very clear publicly via alternative factual letters to the editor and 3 minute rambles that you are out to get my sister and I. I have no issue with you, Sir, as l am amused when you write or speak. More often than not, you help make our case. Thank you. I know you’ve attended meetings where you were joined by numerous (maybe hundreds) of people that spoke against this debacle for various reasons. How many B&B owners do you think live in this town? I suppose the teenage boy that spoke owns one too. Fact is: 3 city-hired attorneys and 4 of our own totaling 7, have agreed there is no conflict. Read the deposition. It’s word for word. I was silenced once before with a SLAPP suit for bringing to attention what I still believe is actual conflict of interest. So, I’m practicing my right to speak up for the constitution now. I’m sorry if you don’t like women speaking their minds. That says as much about you as me.
Carri:
If your first sentence is a threat then I say GO FOR IT!
I look forward to our discussion before a Judge.
I’ll be sure to bring the minutes of the two meetings I referred to in my posting to support my point.
You be sure to bring samples of my so-called “alternative facts” claim.
Like you and all citizens I have the right to speak, which I will continue.
Have a good day.
OT (Off Topic) So you were banned from commenting here as commentator named Bob, where you previously publicly claimed to be Mr Loss and have returned now as Robert? FYI “discussion,” before a Judge is called testimony and is done under sworn oath where liars can be prosecuted. Just checking, Bob, you are aware of the rules and consequences? Or maybe ” Truth or Consequences?”
I just wish someone could explain to me how a committee of bullies appointed by the mayor has jurisdiction over those elected by tax paying citizens of this city. I think that is where the problem lies. Who is running this city?
Hi Mr Don
FYI I was never known as “Bob” and do not know the person. Thus never banned fro these pages.
Check the Plan Commission minutes of 11/19/2014. Not a word about High Water Mark.
Friends group argument from then until late 2015 was about room utilization and my favorite: “WE Don’t Need It(hotel); WE Don’t Want it: We Can’t Afford it!” Check the time line Donnie!!
Have a good Day!
Thanks for bringing all that timeline info that has absolutely no bearing upon where the situation sits now. Birmingham refused a proposal, several times, for Papke’s hotel across from the Bay Loft, and the WRA is obstructing any progress for the city to move forward with anything else right now, so I guess readers are left anticipating, and probably could surmise that a backdoor deal has been arranged with the DNR leadership, for the the benefit of the private investors milking the city for private profits.
Donnie:
Slick move on your part. Confronted with actual facts you change the subject.
Please stay in Fish Creek you have “no Skin in the Game hers in SB!”
Remember that in SB Meetings we stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, which is something you failed to do in recent meetings.