Plotkin weighs in on
Schuetz parkland issue
In two
separate letters to The Thistle, Kevin Wernet has said the following: “My
opposition has been to spending. What the few who are so outspoken in favor of
the purchase have avoided addressing is the $1.5 million dollar price tag on
the proposed improvements of Schuetz and
Just before Wernet was elected in April, 2006, anonymous postcards were sent to voters. They were filled with distortions, exaggerations, and lies. I refuted one of those lies in my Thistle Guest Editorial of June 22, 2006 from which I quote:
“Claim: $3.7 Million for the Hwy 51 beautification project
immediately after the election
Facts: From the Minutes of January 23, 06: ‘There was Board consensus that no aspects of the plan would be implemented in 2006.’ From the Minutes of March 31, 2006: ‘There was Board consensus that more public input and discussion on the Highway 51 Corridor Plan was needed prior to proceeding with the implementation of any portion of the plan. The direction to staff was to not submit an application in the current grant cycle.’
So, two months before the election, the Board agreed not to implement any aspect of the plan in 2006. Three days before the election, the board restated that consensus. In light of these facts, this claim is far worse than mere exaggeration.”
Wernet’s continual references to the $1.5 million dollar price tag of the Schuetz and Urso Parklands sound all-too familiar. He completely ignores the governmental processes wherein decisions of such magnitude are made. He completely discounts the deliberations that will inevitably take place before any improvements begin. He never mentions that, without the plan for proposed improvements, the State and County grants totaling $607,265.00 would never have been approved, but that there is no deadline for implementing that plan. He neglects to say that he was instrumental in dismantling the Urban Forestry Committee whose existence was essential to marshalling park-improvement volunteers, acquiring other grants from the State and the County, and saving McFarland taxpayers money. He avoids addressing the fact that the Schuetz Parkland will be gone if the Village doesn’t buy it, but that any improvements will wait until the Village, including himself and the rest of us, decides to make them.
The only question before us is, “Do we buy the Schuetz Parkland or allow it to disappear?”
Sheila Plotkin
McFarland