Wernet’s comments on Schuetz parkland confuse reader

After reading the editorial by Patrick Miles and Kevin Wernet’s response, I am confused.

Mr. Miles offered a summary of the proposed Schutz park land and how the village could buy the park land by paying only 25 to 35 percent of its total cost.

Mr. Wernet offers no real rebuttal of any of the facts Mr. Miles presented. I assume Mr. Wernet agrees that the Schutz park land is a once in a lifetime opportunity. It offers beautiful views, connects to a larger park corridor (thus increasing its value) and is the highest ranked county park project.

He must agree with Mr. Miles that this park land is a tremendous value that will serve the village for generations. It is a wonderful gift that we can give to our children. His only objection is about the funding. This is why I am confused.

His objection omits a very important point. The Village of McFarland has been telling developers for years that that they do not have to build park land as a part of their developments.

Instead, the village allowed the developers to build more houses and has collected fees from developers so that the village could use those fees to buy park land.

However, Mr. Wernet states he is concerned abut “…the total price tag to McFarland taxpayers for the purchase and development of the area.”

Is Mr. Wernet implying that the developers’ fees are going to be spent elsewhere and that the village will have to ask the taxpayers for funding to buy the park land?

How much of these existing and anticipated dev elopers’ fees could be used to buy the Schuetz park land? If these fees are not going to be used to buy such a valuable piece of property, what will be bought with these fees?

I may feel less confused if Mr. Wernet talks more about how he feels the village should use the developers’ fees and his vision for future park land. What does Mr. Wernet plan to leave our children?

Sincerely,

Patrick Kane

McFarland