News Article

Date: June 21, 2006
By JOHN TORINUS

Counting the ways PDR reversal came about

How to explain the one-vote loss on the Washington County Board for preservation of prime farmland?

The reversal of a positive vote by the previous board for using $800,000 of sales tax money was not the county’s finest hour. Although the debate was wide-open and democratic in the messiest sense, there was a certain mean-spiritedness about opposition that had never been seen before in county politics.

The kind of polarization that plagues Madison and Washington, D.C. is now part of our political life in Washington County.

The negative outcome for a PDR program (purchase of development rights) can be sliced and diced a number of ways. Here are a couple of observations:

1. We have new leadership on the board, and it’s coming primarily from Mark McCune of the town of Erin. Chairman Tom Sackett positioned himself with words as an even-handed promoter of good debate, but his actions were all on the side of reversing the March 17-11 vote in favor of PDRs.

The narrowly successful con campaign was orchestrated by McCune, whose style is that of a prosecuting attorney.

Pumped by his win, McCune has now set his sights on eliminating the county optional sales tax of a half percent. That will cause heart-burn on the part of county administrators because they had been counting on using about half of the $8 million in annual sales tax revenue for operating purposes.

County Administrative Coordinator Doug Johnson has warned that property taxes will rise if the sales tax money is not there.

2. The negative outcome can be viewed as a loss for farm and business leaders who asked the County Board to preserve prime farmland. And it was a victory for developers like McCune, who drew support from the Metropolitan Builders Association.

The Milwaukee builders, interestingly, are not on the same page as their state association, which is backing a statewide PDR matching program.

The West Bend Economic Development Corporation and the new Washington County Economic Development Corporation both supported a strategy called "Stand Up for Farming" and therefore PDRs.

You’d think the county’s job creators would have some credibility with the board, but their message that the farm economy is essential fell on 15 sets of deaf ears.

Question: if the County Board isn’t going to support one the strongest parts of the local economy - agribusiness - what kind of economic development will the board support?

The answer can’t be subdivisions because they cost the taxpayers much more than the property taxes they generate. Residential development is the caboose, not the engine of economic development. People buy houses when jobs are plentiful.

3. The vote can be looked on as a urban vs. rural vote. Most of the opponents came from the urbanized southern part of the county or from the cities of Hartford and West Bend.

The urban guys must think that local food sources are unnecessary, that food can be imported from other parts of the world. And, indeed, that’s what’s happening. The United States, for the first time, is importing more food than it exports.

In the midst of global turmoil, I’m pretty sure that’s not a place we want to be. Indeed, the best thinkers in this country see the need to move from a petroleum dependence to a bio-economy.

4. Some of the debate points made by the opponents were nonsensical. David Radermacher kept dragging in the Highway 164 expansion and the Highway 45 bypass, saying they promoted sprawl. I opposed the 164 widening, too, but what’s that got to do with preserving farmland? If anything, Radermacher should have supported the PDR program because it limits sprawl.

PDRs, which are not anti-growth, complement a good land use plan that channels residential and commercial development to where the community decides it best fits.

McCune pointed out that when the Native Americans were here, most of the county was forested not farmed. What’s that got to do with today’s issues? Wisconsin was covered with ice once, too.

5. Complexity hurt. Perpetual easements, which are at the heart of a PDR program, are not a simple tool. Some confusion surfaced in the debate. More education will be necessary.

6. It’s easier to be against something than to advance a positive solution. If PDRs aren’t the answer, what is? The county is losing 2.3 square miles of farmland a year, so agricultural zoning by itself is not enough.

7. The manipulation and mean spirit of the opponents showed in McCune’s cross-examinations of proponents and in their attempt to keep the Wisconsin secretary of agriculture from speaking to the board.

Rod Nilsestuen has been all over the country and this state, listening and learning, and he has a lot to say about what’s happening to our working lands. When we try to squelch a cabinet member, we are showing no respect.

It was that lack of respect that put a nasty tone to the debate.

This column will surely be viewed as sour grapes by the winners of round two. I am disappointed by the short-sightedness shown by the board. And I do understand the opponents’ argument for fiscal conservatism. This is a spending program.

Nonetheless, the board should show more respect for farmers, for business leaders who create jobs and for the citizens, who have stated clearly in very valid surveys that they stand up for farming and are willing to make the investment to keep Washington County, as the song writer said, a paradise, not a parking lot.

(John Torinus is CEO of Serigraph, Inc. in West Bend and a past general manager of the Daily News.)