News Article

Date: June 14, 2006
By DAVE RANK - GM Today Staff

PDR proponents plan  to regroup after defeat

Stung by Tuesday’s narrow rejection by the Washington County Board, proponents of the county establishing a purchase of development rights (PDR) program said they needed time to step back and reconsider their options on what to do next.

The board voted 15-14 to rescind an earlier vote authorizing the start of a PDR program, stopping the county from doing so.

"It’s time to regroup and come up with a plan of action," said John Stern, County Board supervisor from the town of West Bend, chairman of the board’s Planning, Conservation and Parks Committee and a member of the steering committee for the private Land Conservation Part-nership of Washington County, advocates of a PDR program.

"As a group we have to do that," Stern said. "This immediately after a vote like that you really have to sit back and reflect: ‘OK, we didn’t get it. Where do we go from here?’"

Is a referendum possible?

PDR proponents aren’t ruling it out, but they’re not enthused about the possibility either, mainly because of the difficulty to get the electorate to listen to both sides of an issue or take the time to learn what it all involves.

"We’re looking at all of our options," said Bob Retko, chairman of the Land Conservation Partnership and a town supervisor for the town of Jackson. "But I wouldn’t say (a referendum) is on one of our burners. We’ll look at all of our options."

If there will be a call for a referendum, it most likely will have to come from the Land Conservation Partnership, said Mary Krumbiegel, County Board supervisor from the town of Jackson and a PDR advocate.

"I don’t think we’ve really researched that to comment on it right now. I thought our best shot was at the County Board and they have spoken. We’ll have to regroup," said County Board Supervisor Daniel Stoffel, town of Kewaskum, a leader of the pro-PDR faction of the board.

One thing for sure, a call for a referendum on PDR will no longer come from County Board Supervisor Mark McCune, town of Erin, who voted against the program.

Since the issue was first raised, McCune supported a countywide advisory referendum on the issue to let the voters have a voice in the debate. In March he proposed a resolution to do just that, which was ruled out of order by then-Chairman Kenneth Miller

He also asked that a referendum resolution be included on the board’s Executive Committee’s agenda June 20.

But no longer.

After Tuesday’s board meeting, McCune said he asked for that resolution to be withdrawn.

He said he was only offering the referendum option as a favor to the pro-PDR county supervisors, but "after listening to the passionate speeches" of several supervisors who said the board was elected to make decisions and not rely on referendums, "I decided not to bring that forth."

Sue Millin is project coordinator for the Land Conservation Partnership, a 1,000-member not-for-profit land preservation advocacy organization.

"Today, our new County Board members had the opportunity to show their leadership and community vision," she wrote in an e-mail to the Daily News. "Sure I am disappointed by the revote. Personally, I don’t think it ever should have happened. However, most supervisors, even the strongest opponents, appear to understand the importance of saving farmland and natural areas.

"The biggest concern seemed not to be with the PDR program, but with the funding mechanism.

"The Land Conservation Part-nership ... will begin to look at other options for moving the PDR Initiative forward. There has been some talk about a referendum, but that could set us back a few years. We will work to find a solution that everyone is comfortable with."

This story appeared in the West Bend Daily News on June 14, 2006.