Public will settle land debate

Reasons for and against county support will be aired

By JOHN TORINUS

December 28, 2006

There are lots of good reasons why the Washington County Board would want to allow the citizens of the county to vote up or down on a local program to preserve natural areas, water recharge tracts and prime farmland.

Some have to do with process, some with the substance of the matter. First, the process issues:

The Executive Committee of the board has recommended that a binding referendum be put on the April 3 ballot. The committee followed board protocol.

There should be a good turn-out for that election date because one of West Bend’s own, Annette Ziegler, will be one of only two candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. That race, along with municipal elections, should spell a decent turnout.

The board itself is split on the issue. Preservation of farmland passed 17-11 by the previous County Board, but then fell one vote short by the current board. The supervisors appear to need guidance by the voters.

Some of the supervisors who voted against the farmland measure did so because they said a referendum should have been called as a more appropriate way to settle the issue.

Valid surveys of county residents have shown strong support for preservation of all types. Yet some supervisors have discounted the results, saying they were not convincing. They said a vote of the people was the only real way to judge public sentiment.

The local builders’ organization made an eloquent case for a referendum.

Very little extra cost is entailed to run the referendum itself as April 3 is an election date any way.

As for the substance of the preservation issue, there will be many points made on all sides of this debate. Some will be statements of fact - commonly accepted. Some will be projections about the future, and therefore less certain. Some will be legitimate opinions, for and against. And there will be distortions, misinformation and obfuscation, the usual fare in a democracy.

Here are a couple of the more clear "facts" going into the debate, leaving opinions for the later dialogue over the referendum question:

Farmland is disappearing at a fast clip in the county - no need for the numbers. We all know that.

Farm production keeps rising nonetheless, even with fewer farmers and fewer acres. The citizens will be faced with a judgment call on whether farm productivity can keep rising fast enough to offset the loss of prime farm soil.

Food security and quality is real issue. Local crops are more secure and certain than those from foreign lands.

Even in water-rich Wisconsin and Washington County, the supply of drinkable water is a matter of serious public policy matter. Again, citizens will have to make a judgment about whether we can stay with the status quo or be more vigilant about preserving recharge areas.

As for natural areas, the county, its municipalities, the state Department of Natural Resources and our two local land trusts have been doing a good job of preserving the Milwaukee River water shed. Voters will have to decide on more or less of that with county funds.

The money is already there. The county sales tax of one-half percent is yielding more than $8 million a year. It was intended for capital programs when instituted seven years ago. More than $50 million later, most of the capital projects have been completed or scheduled, including a $19 million fairground, a $10 million county garage, a $2 million garage annex, an expansion of the jail and courthouse and, of late, a $13 million sheriff’s radio system.

A good hunk of the annual $8 million has been diverted to county operating expenses, such as salaries and health costs. But the $800,000 per year still should be doable from the existing sales tax, even after the diversion.

If the surplus funds from the sales tax aren’t used for preservation, they will be used elsewhere. That’s the way of governments. However the sales tax monies are used, the property tax should not have to be tapped for preservation.

A preservation program only works if married to zoning and land use plans that respect agriculture. If farming is to survive, a critical mass of land needs to be set aside. Subdivisions and farms don’t mix well. Together, preservation and zoning have been shown to work in other parts of the country.

Agricultural business is still a big part of our local prosperity, accounting directly or indirectly for 5,500 jobs in the county.

Both the process and substance will be addressed on Jan. 9 when the County Board decides on whether to hold a referendum.

On most issues, it can be argued that the supervisors should make the calls without a referendum. They do represent us.

But, in some extraordinary circumstances, a referendum becomes the better route for a decision.

Because the board has been so divided on this major issue because the issue itself is so important, because a good number of supervisors on both sides of the issue have asked for voter guidance, a referendum vote directly by the people of the county is the way to go.

That will settle the matter.

(John Torinus is CEO of Serigraph, Inc. in West Bend and a past general manager of the Daily News. His column runs regularly on Wednesdays, but did not this week because of the holiday.)