Miles gave true facts on Schuetz property

I want to thank Village Trustee Patrick Miles for helping enlighten us on what’s actually happening regarding the village’s historic opportunity to acquire property in a conservation area.

I would also echo Patrick’s sincere thanks to the Schuetz family members for their offer to sell their land to the village so that, for the rest of its existence, McFarland could be home to a beautiful park and conservancy – a place that will help define our village forever.

I find the debate on the board confusing and mildly depressing. People like Don Havlik, whose letter employed selective facts and downright misinformation, don’t really help much.

Here’s what we know about this issue:

· Acquiring the Schuetz property is not a chance in a lifetime opportunity. It is one chance in history. Once it is developed, it can never come back as park available to everyone.

· Two thirds of the price is covered by the county and the DNR Stewardship program, with more money available. The village will pay roughly a third of the cost, and possibly as little as a fourth. Board members who horse around with this proposal – as some are now doing – means we could lose county and state funding.

· This issue has not suddenly sprung on us. This is a discussion that has been going on for years, brought to a closure recently by the Schuetz family’s magnanimous decision.

· The price is fair. Both sides recognize the Schuetz’s might make more money dividing the land up and selling it. So price is not the issue. It’s dishonest to suggest that it is.

· The Town of Dunn cannot acquire this land. The area is included within McFarland’s boundary in our agreement with the town. The county has an interest in preserving delicate areas for wildlife and recreation and is willing to pay most of the cost of acquiring it.

Some opponents are upset because the village wants to add parkland while, at the same time, it removed playground equipment from the parks we have. The equipment was labeled a liability.

I personally thought the board overreacted. But members of all political stripes supported the solution. They are two separate issues, both conducted in good faith by all members of the board. (Beside, one lawsuite would saddle the village with huge costs – and the equipment would have been removed anyway.)

I would strongly urge the village board to revisit this momentous decision and take the Schuetz family up on its generaous offer. If they do, McFarland can take advantage of the county’s incredible money match. To do otherwise would be a tragic mistake.

Accepting this offer would place this board as part of McFarland’s history.

Come to think of it, if this board fumbles this issue, it will be part of history anyway. It just won’t be the sort of history the McFarland Historical Society acknowledges on its hallowed walls.

Mike Flaherty

McFarland