Did you attend the meeting last night? No one at that meeting was either assaulting the character or integrity of the Village board (as you just have), nor limiting the scope of their concern to the immediate area. The research shared covered a variety levels, from that local subarea of Caledonia all the way to the state level. The input relative to that area came from both market experts and community input (that being ALL of Caledonia). And no one there stated stifled development is the goal. In fact, we discussed several avenues to growth, increased revenue for the village, sustainable retail development, etc. So the truth of the matter the only "special interest" opinion you speak of seems to be your own.

@KEEP ON
Thank you for clarifying. I think it's important for both sides of the issue to understand one another. It's common for those against to feel the worst may happen, and that everyone else just doesn't know or think about it. And it appears too many on the pro-Walmart side think the organizers are against all development in the Village. Neither are true, from what I've learned the last 4 years

Wouldn't it be great if it wasn't just Walmart knocking at our door every other year, but we had our pick of beggars for job creation and revenue generation? I honestly have no strong opinion on Walmart itself, but a strong one about encouraging development in a way that is sustainable and profitable to the community. It seems the opposition to this new location is stronger and more organized than the last time on 31...

The board isn't beholden to "special interests".... Unless Tansandy is supposing that Bentonville, AK is paying the board's election expenses?

Correction: Tansandy seems to be implying local interests, not at WalMart. My apologies :)

In that case, each voter is a special interest. Organize and speak up!

Please, provide where you get all your information and statistic. It would be interest to see if this facts are real, or just the same old union myths.

@ Tansandy:

The Village Board, whom you continue to insult in your usual style, commissioned an economic study, by Ehlers Consulting out of Brookfield WI, for the Village to better determine how to grow the Village's economy.

A public presentation of the findings of the study was held in November of 2011 at the Caledonia Police Station courtroom. I doubt you attended the meeting.

So, for your benefit, I have provided a link below having a video of various segments of the presentation given by one of the Ehlers staff.

I urge you to closely listen to what he says regarding "big box" development at about 1:24 of the video.

http://caledonia.patch.com/articles/village-board-mulls-land-use-analysis-study#photo-8483626

You can also read the study, which is posted page-by page beneath the video link. Read page 8 of the study under the heading "Commercial."

@San -

Having personally looked at the Ehler study you reference, Hoffa is somewhat confused.

Why wouldn't these same results be associated with any commercial development in the village? Why do such results appear to be solely limited to "big box retailers?"

Wouldn't a business of any size that generated the kind of customer flow that a big box retailer does have a similar or worse impact on village finances (as physically small businesses with high volume would more than likely have lower property taxes than a business with a large physical footprint)?

Based on the logic/conclusion espoused in the Ehler report, only businesses with a very limited range of customer traffic and a decent enough size of a physical footprint to generate a positive property tax revenue is desirable - or in other words, customer-reliant businesses that would barely be able to generate a profit after paying their tax burdens.

What kind of business people are the residents of the village hoping to attract with this kind of mindset, and do such business people even exist in reality?

Other than Kmart, there is very little shopping choice, or box-box retailing within 20 minutes of most of Caledonia. This is why retailers have considered moving here. Saturation doesn't seem to be the biggest concern, but perhaps the current real estate market eliminates other options, leaving only discount retailers as the happy builders.

I wonder how many other businesses would want to build in Caledonia if the finance and real state market was stronger. I think it would be a good handful.

James Hoffa, regarding the studies. they have analyzed a number of factors and looked at real historical results in many communities, so they are fact-based not fantasy based. certain types of development, under that factual review, tends to cost less in services than tax revenue; other types cost more in services than tax revenue. small local businesses simply do not have either the traffic counts or the crime generation that big box stores generate, as the primary factors. additionally most local businesses do not tend to have 24/7/365 hours which is a big negative for a residential area with the noise, light pollution, etc. they do not have as many semi-trucks coming in all the time with their diesel particulate matter. they do not have enormous parking lots with their run off pollution. they do not tend to create congestion on all the roads. not only do the studies confirm this, but as you personally seem to approve, we can use our own common sense and go visit both big box stores and small local commercial development in and around the community and observe the differences in this case. the observation supports what the studies in fact have shown time and again. and the studies also show that development such as professional buildings, light manufacturing/assembly, etc. are positive revenue generators. of course such things exist.....

different types of development have different impacts both on the community and the village budget. Big box stores in general (and fast food that generally co-locates with them) tend to generate more costs to villages than the tax revenue they generate, so they are a "negative" on property taxes for the rest of the people. if other types of development that meet the community's needs and are properly situated in proper zoning areas can be brought in, no one seems to have objected. on the contrary, i have seen many comments supporting the types of development that bring a positive contribution to the budget AND meet the community's needs. the board has NO obligation to allow anyone to locate anywhere for any reason due to the impacts, costs, and quality of life issues in the community. Walmart is also not a village "resident" and has no civic rights in this community at this time. The citizens have the right to decide what community they want, not an external corporate interest with no ties to the community.

Lexi-The propsal site involves 2 lots. The larger lot on the corner of 4 mile and Douglas is dual zoned-Residential on the West half, M-1 (light manufacturing) on the east. To clarify, M-1 is defined as no retail, business conducted completely within building with minimal external distrubance. Think the Ortho Lab on 3 mile. The other lot is M-1 as well. To the North, West and South, all surrounding area is zoned residential. And to the East, M-3 west of Douglas, Business East of Douglas. The zoning and land use plan for that subarea supports residential, whether single family or multi-unit and small manufacturing business. Even retail of a smaller scale would have to apply for a variance, but obviously have much less impact on surrounding homes (on 3 sides of lot), roads, sewers, etc. Understand the scope of big box versus smaller retail: a typical supercenter, with parking lot, fills the space of 15+ football fields. It receives 80-90 semi deliveries per week, many at night while the restock shelves. 10,000 car trips per week are averaged for a store of this proposed size and more on weekends. Imagine that 300 ft from your driveway. The location of this lot is not an appropriate spot for any development of this magnitude and type, whether Target, Lowes, Petco, Walmart or the like. But the fact it is Walmart and the visceral reaction people have to it? Yes, a factor as well. Just turn on the news. They are the creators of their own reputation.

The current news on Walmart is not their own creation. Just sayin. ;)

Walmart is not an inherently bad company, they simply aren't appropriate for every neighborhood. It's up to every community to decide

Walmart, Menards, Home Depot are always "evil" stores. But Walmart tops the list. Bet if they wanted to build a Kohl's Department Store in that same location, all the residents would be cheering. Kind of like a Sims game.

Look what happened on the corner of Green Bay Road and Hwy 20 when Home Depot wanted to buy that same property. There were signs up all over the area that it would spoil the neighborhood, cause too much traffic.... All those signs disappeared when Kohl's wanted to build on that exact same location. There wasn't a whimper when they redid that entire intersection. And now look what you have. Are the residents in that area still up in arms about all the traffic.

it is not zoned commercial...they would require a zoning change...so the premise you state is also not correct. even if it WERE zoned commercial, no one has a right to the kind of impact that big box makes on a community. The community has the right to say "NO". Certain parts of the country, such as metropolitan New York for instance, has been turning down Walmart stores for DECADES even in areas that are otherwise "commercially zoned" and no one can say that New York does not love business.....maybe they know something about business that we don't in this case.

This kind of crap about the community (or at least the vocal elements within it) deciding how one can or cannot use a parcel of privately owned property is exactly why Hoffa LOVES living in an un-zoned community and will fight to keep his township un-zoned till the day he dies!

Hoffa prefers FREEDOM and PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Mau, we are not talking about Mt. Pleasant and the development there, we are talking about Caledonia. We cannot speak for the motivations of the people in Mt. Pleasant or the decisions they were faced with. However, it is not a matter of big box stores being "evil" or that "some" are "evil" and others are "good". Rather, it is a matter of appropriateness of the location for the type of community and its goals; as well as the impacts of the development versus the benefits. ALL big box stores share certain characteristics that make them unsuitable for being sited in a bedroom community. ALL big box stores also tend to cost more to the community in services than they provide in tax revenues, so they DRAIN the community and force tax rates up. (Mt. Pleasant mil rate on property tax is HIGHER than Caledonia, and they thought they would be lower with "development". They were WRONG.) There may be some big box stores who are MORE aggressive than others, but putting aside one chain or another, it does not seem that ANY of them fit the community or should be subsidized through all of us paying higher taxes.

@San -

"(Mt. Pleasant mil rate on property tax is HIGHER than Caledonia, and they thought they would be lower with "development". They were WRONG.)"

Not necessarily true.

Just because big box retailers move in doesn't mean that a community must provide more government services. The decision to spend more on providing services to those developments than those developments generate in tax revenue solely lies on the idiotic tax and spend politicians. They could have just as easily said to the developments and residents that services will not be increased if those developments proceeded and left it at that. Or they could have taxed those developments more than they cost the community in services provided so that their inclusion in the community would actually provide the community with a positive benefit to local government finances, as opposed to being a detriment on them.

Hoffa also severely questions the methodology and conclusions made by the Ehler report, as too many of their variables are stated in static terms, when in reality, such variables are very much dynamic.

Here's a list of the stories I've written, the links are on this page in the right rail. I'll also be doing more on this. Let me know if you'd like more resources.
Walmart Opposition Meeting Set
Catch Up On Our Walmart Coverage
Village Tells Walmart More Work Needed
Walmart Unveils Store Plans, Village Board Voices Concerns
Walmart Or No Walmart: Here's What People Are Saying
Walmart Plan Angers Many Residents
Most Walmart Neighbors Not Impressed With Plan
UPDATE: Walmart Presents Plans Tonight, Seeks Input
Update: Opposition Forming to Proposed Caledonia Walmart

mount pleasant has had almost 1000 police calls to the walmart store in the last couple of years. that requires substantial resources. mount pleasant taxes are higher than ours. All over the country, communities get sucked into the idea that such development will "help" their community and the studies done around the country find that in most cases, this is a "suckers bet" and they wind up paying more taxes and having to put up with more crime, more congestion, more noise, more pollution, and higher tax costs. what makes you believe that caledonia police department could sustain another 1000 calls in 2 years with no added costs?

Brian-I will have to diagree with a few of your assertions. The 2 parcels involved in this proposal-3933 4 mile, which is zoned R-4 and M-1 and 2927 4 mile, zoned M-1. If you know differently, please correct me. R-4 is residential use, M-1 is Light Industrial and Office, defined in chapter 20, RC zoning.

Regarding the Land Use Plan-Douglas Avenue Corridor, C1/C2, Subarea C Four Mile Road Transit Oriented Development, part of the Village Center VCM, that specific lot as part of a possible KRM development was planned as shown in figure 7-13 of the land use plan, shows nothing close to a 185,000 sq ft retail store. Furthermore, this specific subarea was studied by the UWM is a graduate thesis 89 page report commissioned by our Village as to the best economic use and community supported development. Direct from one of the authors: A big box retail store was never a part of our recommendations for that area.

A Land Use Plan has merit and value, as zoning does. Of course they can change. Of course they must adapt or evolve. But they were created with much thought and public input. This area in particular was scrutinized by the village for best and optimal development use through their own requested study, which included an additional public focus group.

Absolutely agree that if we want development of any kind, we need a venue in which to offer. A land-locked parcel on a local trunk highway surrounded on 3 sides by residential is an extremely poor choice.

And regarding the infrastructure costs? Walmart said traffic, not road improvements. They will pay for lot curbs, lights. I seriously doubt they intend to pay for widening, repaving, maintenance, possible sewer upgrades.

even if they want to put it in Brian Dey's backyard, i cannot see that the rest of the community would agree given the higher tax impact and the other negative effects of big box development for the community based on the historical reality that has been seen all over the country. As a community we need to be considering that everyone would be paying the price for the corporate subsidy that big box development requires in the form of higher taxes to make up the shortfall of costs versus revenues when big box development goes in. Mt. Pleasant made the decision to go after big development years ago, and they are trying to get ahead that way, but they have congestion, crime, and HIGHER taxes than here. They had to staff up their police force to handle that development and that is part of the higher tax burden they bear. Add all the calls to the Caledonia police force, and make it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and suddenly you will need a few more officers which are NOT built into the revenues that the big box would pay, not to speak of the many miles of roads impacted not just in front of the store itself.

@San -

You act like imposed taxes are a static variable. If a development costs a community more in providing government services to than the tax revenues generated from that development, there is nothing stopping the community from imposing higher taxes on that development, is there?

So why do you act like the issue of taxes is a static, as opposed to being a dynamic issue?

given the historical review of "big box" impact, and the higher tax burdens that imposes on the village residents due to the shortfall of revenue versus cost, does that mean that YOU are in favor of a tax increase to cover any such shortfall if walmart comes in here and the historical facts prove true once again? How much of a tax hike are YOU willing that all the rest of the community sustain for having a walmart or other big box / fast food store come into the community?

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xi0kbw_proposed-walmart-in-caledonia-draws-mixed-reactions_news

James Hoffa, unfortunately you appear not to understand how property taxes work. if the village budget takes a "hit" from the big box store costing more than it brings in, they cannot simply levy a tax on the big box store alone. the entire community mil rate goes up and we ALL have to pay higher taxes. A vote for big box is a vote for higher taxes, based on review of a large number of such developments around the country by multiple different studies, done by both academic and professional civic planning groups, using actual factual review of those areas. So VOTE FOR HIGHER TAXES is the theme song that the "pro-big box" development people are singing all over the country..Unfortunately they make all the rest of us sing along with that sad song.

@San -

That's not true at all.

The community can issue a special use assessment against property holders that draw an extraordinary amount of services, provided that they can prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the property is in fact utilizing an extraordinary amount of services. According to you, the expert studies claim that big box retailers do draw an extraordinary amount of services, thus a special use assessment would be completely viable option. Ultimately, it's up to the elected officials as to which avenue to take.

While you like to excuse the local politicians and blame big box retail for the politicians choosing to raise everyone's taxes instead of issuing special use assessments, Hoffa prefers to hold the elected officials accountable for their choices/actions, as that's the way our system was designed and intended to operate.

Please, let's stick to FACTS instead of made up BS.

Fran, agreed.

Again, the Village Board commissioned an economic study, by Ehlers Consulting out of Brookfield WI, for the Village to better determine how to grow the Village's economy.

A public presentation of the findings of the study was held in November of 2011 at the Caledonia Police Station courtroom.

I have provided a link below having a video of various segments of the presentation given by one of the Ehlers staff.

I urge all to closely listen to what he says regarding "big box" development at about 1:24 of the video.

http://caledonia.patch.com/articles/village-board-mulls-land-use-analysis-study#photo-8483626

Also, read the study, which is posted page-by page beneath the video link. Read page 8 of the study under the heading "Commercial."

@Fran & patchreader 123 -

The Ehler's study is faulty in that it assumes that the tax issue would be static and because of this that a big box retailer would automatically be a detriment to the community.

In reality, aren't taxes a dynamic issue? If a big box retailer is costing a community more in taxes than the tax revenues it is generating, and the community could eaily prove this beyond a preponderance of the evidence, then what exactly would be stopping the community from imposing such developments with a special use assessment that would effectively equalize the tax problem or even shift it into being a positive for the community?

Come on guys, let's use our heads a little on this one, as opposed to blindly trusting that everything that the so-called and self-declared 'experts' have to say is 100% accurate and correct.

Hoffa never trusts the so-called and self-declared 'experts,' as only a fool would.

James Hoffa, the fact that roads will need more maintenance or the police department needs more staffing is one that hits the entire community and as you yourself indicate a strong evidentiary case would need to be made to get the big box store assessed. The cost of doing that and the history of legal defense by big box against that means we would indeed get stuck with the higher costs and tax bills, and the legal costs of the fight against the big box to collect any such assessment. so let's look at the REAL facts and not just continue to make things up to suit your argument. from your other comments, do you even live in our community? you seem to live in a different community based on your numerous posts on this blog. What is your vested interest in having this development here? Where were you during the development of the land use plan when the entire community worked hard to develop a plan that met the community's wishes, by the way? where are the statutory authorities for the "special use assessment" you are referring to, and what are the conditions and requirements imposed for that, and could that ever be made to stick against a determined deep-pocketed company averse to paying taxes?

@patchreader 123 -

If the Village was truly serious about wanting to increase revenue while not raising residential property taxes, then they would discontinue the use of the public sewage and water system, would de-zone the community, and would cut back on services. Hoffa lives in a township with no public sewer/water system, no public waste collection services, and it is an un-zoned community. Hoffa's residential taxes are dirt cheap and Hoffa has all the government services that he desires - essentially the absolute minimum.

And Hoffa is able to enjoy a truer form of FREEDOM than those who are constrained by such government nonsense and higher taxation.

JRH:

If you actually had any skin in the game, I would take the time to respond to each and every one of your points. However, you don't; so I will not waste my time responding to your unexpected, yet entirely predictable plethora of comments made in this blog.

That being said, I am coming to the conclusion that “Hoffa likes to here himself talk (albeit, type),” while also perhaps not having an awareness of a certain on-line etiquette. Given your intelligence, I am quite certain that I need not explain such etiquette to you.

Finally, with regard to your statement pertaining to "fools," has it ever occurred to you that "only a fool would" constantly refer to one's self in the third person while expecting to be taken seriously? Just say ‘in, JRH; just say ‘in.

@patchreader 123 -

Come on, give Hoffa a break. Hoffa attempts to convey tone in his comments, although not always successfully, so while Hoffa may come off as being a bit rough around the edges at times, Hoffa would hope that you at least would realize the innocent and playful nature of some of his comments.

But you're right - Hoffa doesn't have any skin in the game on this issue directly. When has that ever stopped anyone from commenting before on Patch?

However, Hoffa does co-own and operate a business in a community in which he doesn't personally reside. And sometimes, Hoffa just gets a little sick of all the BS that the local boards put businesses through - especially after having originally welcomed such businesses with arms wide open.

As for the third person references, you know that's Hoffa's trademark thing here on the Patch :-)

Hope you and your family had a great Thanksgiving holiday and Hoffa looks forward to possibly meeting up with fellow Patchers sometime around the Christmas holiday!

JRH:

Break given. While I do understand your "innocent and playful nature" underlying your comments, it is only because I have corresponded with you on other blogs and have some insight.

You will likely notice that many of the people commenting on this blog do not regularly do so on other "broadly political" blogs. This is because these people indeed have skin in a game and are thus commenting on issues that have, at times, literally divided the community of Caledonia, to include our elected officials (whom I generally respect).

In short, some of these people are dealing with issues that may cause some of them to actually worry and lose sleep at night, while your comments (at least in this instance) are nothing more than a passing interest to you; a mere application of your "playful and innocent nature."

Furthermore, while you can apply your professional skills and challenge many of these people in their opinions, you may also be surprised that these people are more informed than you give them credit for. Trust me on this one.

My TG was great, as was the Mosquito social, thanks.

@patchreader 123 -

Thanks for the pass :-)

"Furthermore, while you can apply your professional skills and challenge many of these people in their opinions, you may also be surprised that these people are more informed than you give them credit for. Trust me on this one."

Actually, Hoffa doesn't have to trust you on this one, as many here have already proved to be very worthy sparing opponents, making well thought out and informed arguments for their advocated positions.

As this isn't Hoffa's fight, and appears to be quite personal in nature, Hoffa will find his way out of it and leave it to those who are personally and individually effected by this issue.

Best wishes to all on whatever side of this issue they may fall.

@patchreader 123 -

Hoffa believes in private property rights, un-zoned communities, and a purer/truer form of FREEDOM!

Hoffa's neighbor recently opened up an auto repair business out his pole barn. It didn't require any permits, no public meetings, no board approvals, and it doesn't bother Hoffa one bit.

That's called FREEDOM my friend - it's fantastic!

Patchreader- Seeing as how both proposals are within a mile to two miles of my home, and the Hwy 31 site is about as close as Wal-Mart could be built to it, your claim is utterly ridiculous. I have not come to a conclusion on the current proposal, but I was in favor of the Hwy. 31 site as has been well documented on the Patch in prior articles over the past 2 years.

What I do know is this. The current board has told the Wal-Mart rep that any changes to infrastucture would be on their dime, not the villages. They were also told that they would not accept the 24 hour proposal.

The truth of the matter is that the businesses you say you want will not locate here without a major anchor store, and Douglas really isn't an option. A vacant gas station can't even find buyers and pretty much the rest of the area is land-locked. Douglas is about as built out as it can get.

San I understand. He clearly wants this to be a bedroom community. I say great to all those that do, but then I would encourage the board to raise the levy the max every year so that the dollars are there to pay for the services required. Clearly, they are not now.

"Seeing as how both proposals are within a mile to two miles of my home, and the Hwy 31 site is about as close as Wal-Mart could be built to it, your claim is utterly ridiculous."

Come on Brian......don't embarrass yourself. Clearly, you are intelligent enough to understand my point.

For example, you and I both know (I'm assuming you know) of a certain individual who was a very outspoken proponent for the 31/4mi Walmart proposal. This individual was very vocal about throwing around the NIMBY rhetoric regarding those opposing that location. Now the present proposal is mere feet from this individual's home. It is my understanding that this individual has had a change of heart. Gee, what a surprise.

Get my point?

patchreader 123- As you say, it would be in my self interest to not have a Wal-Mart on Hwy. 31 and 4 Mile Rd. I'm sorry, but before I throw something out as a NIMBY, I want to hear all sides, not just those that can scream the loudest. It is my hope that the village board would do so as well. In the two years since your group opposed Wal-Mart, not one "desirable business" has come forward to develop in the area you want them to. So who is embarrassing themselves?

See, I was here when the same type of opposition arose from the building of the Greentree Shopping Center (Kmart/Pick'n'Save), and none of the fears that you or San or Fran have suggested, materialized.

patchreader123- And I know exactly who you are talking about and that only proves the point I was making. I hope that makes my point!

Brian:

Brain: I would fully expect that that you would not object to either proposed location based on a NIMBY point of view, as I assume that both locations are sufficiently far enough from your home to not affect you with litter, truck traffic, noise, 24 hour parking lot lights, and the resulting loss of property value that may accomany such issues.

However, I would also fully expect you to onbject to any proposed location that would indeed have a direct effect on your home. I don't know where you live. But, for the sake of example, let's say you lived on Rebecca street and Walmart wanted to build on the 50 acres of vacant land located between Rebecca and Catherine streets, just east of Middle Road. And let's say your back yard abutted the development? Are you going to honestly tell me that you would have no objections, and that you would fault your neighbors who would?

The ironic thing is, if the above scenario was true, I would likely sympathize for you, as I do for those presently affected (of which, I am not).

Brian, sorry for the typo re your name.

patchreader123- I thought you were complimenting me, lol. That is why i thought the better option was Hwy 31/4 Mile Rd. Less residents affected. I'm off of Hwy 31, one mile from 4 Mile Rd.

What is wrong with having some referrendum on this to get the viewpoints of ALL citizens rather than just the vocal ones with signs? Also, the whole argument of backyard placement of a Walmart is goofy. You cant take on the argument by pointing out any chunk of land big enough to put it on... because not every chunk of land like that makes sense as a realistic option. The corner of 31 and 4 mile road IS an extremely good place for a retail center... whether Walmart or anything else. I would accept nearly anything being built there... Walmart was just the one proposing it. It is a great location on a sizable highway with room to expand lanes to the north. I believe at some point that location WILL be developed with something, and by 10 to 20 years from now it will be something and it will be useful and few will complain about it after the fact.

As I have said in the past, if you build a house or live on a major highway near the intersection of another major road, you should not be surprised if a big development shows up on that lot in the future... whether its a shopping center, a gas station, a restaurant, or whatever. There is a huge difference in a location like that compared to an open plot of land off middle road and its intersections with minor residential streets... get real.

31 and 4 mile will never be developed. Just look at the land owners to the west and northwest. Never happen.

i think you have not read the report carefully. it does NOT recommend big box development because it tends to cost more to the village than the revenues it generates and has other negative effects on surrounding businesses and the community. Why should we agree to pay MORE taxes to have a big box store anywhere in caledonia when there are plenty of such stores in every direction already for our shopping needs? it is not a matter of "where in caledonia" if you want to keep taxes down and maintain the quality of life of this community. There is no "requirement" to bring in a big box store. I thought we had a conservative "low tax" population in this town, but some of the people on this blog appear to want to force everyone to pay more taxes for the "corporate subsidy" that big box stores require to exist in the form of services and roads etc. If you want to have higher taxes, why not just vote for higher taxes and leave the community at peace and quiet?

another point is that during the land use plan debate, a study was commissioned and provided to the Village which showed that "big box" was OVER-SATURATED in the area and that the population of Caledonia could not support another big box store, which implies pulling in lots of traffic from other neighboring communities as well, further stressing the roads and the police services for people who do not live and pay taxes here in this community. And we should not forget the negative impact that certain big box stores have been shown to have on local businesses and their employee base, and the deterioration that occurs in the general tax base when these other businesses get driven out.

Several of the studies being discussed are available to email to you MS- I would be happy to do so. Otherwise the Ehlers study is on the Village website. You can go in to the Village Hall to get a copy of the UWM study (they make you pay for the copy). The Hunter College Study provided to the Board is available online. As far as location goes, I hesitate to say any location would be prudent at this time for a large retail store based upon the information at hand. However, feedback from the community (not just the current opposition) reflected a desire to see small retail along Douglas (ie a downtown Racine, Greendale corridor). I suggest reading the UWM study consisting of 89 pages of analysis of this area along with a focus group of residents, business owners and board members, to get a full scope idea of what this community wants and where. This is not about individual feelings-it's about a community.

@San and KEEP ON KEEPING ON -

Once again, the reports you cite are faulty because they treat dynamic in reality variables as being static. How on earth can these reports make accurate and logical conclusions when they contain such a flaw?

Come on guys, let's get real and don't put so much blind trust in the so-called and self-declared 'experts.' Instead, let's start using our own brains and do some real analytical thinking for ourselves.

James R. Hoffa, these studies look at historical REALITY not future fantasy. IF YOU ARE WRONG, we all pay higher taxes, and wind up with pollution, traffic, congestion, crime, noise etc. that comes with any big box you care to look at. And you claim that the studies that looked at these developments all around the country are "wrong"? They simply analyzed facts that actually occurred. Will you personally pay the entire cost of any tax increase that results if your analysis, not based on any actual factual review as the studies have done, turns out to be incorrect? of course not. Once they are there, it is too late..... it is often said that those who are not able to learn from human history are doomed to repeat it. apparently you are unwilling to learn from the hard-won lessons other communities have had to face when they had the same kind of fantasies that rage among the "pro-big box development" people who refuse to accept the fact that serious and detailed reviews show that these things don't tend to work out "as advertised" by the developers.

@San -

"IF YOU ARE WRONG, we all pay higher taxes"

Why? This makes no sense. This is only true if our elected officials allow it to be.

Once again - TAXES ARE NOT A STATIC ISSUE as you appear to think they are.

If a parcel of property/development is costing a community more in services than it is paying to the community in tax revenues, NOTHING is preventing that community from issuing that parcel/development a special use assessment that would either equalize the outlay/pay-in differential, if not completely shift it into a positive for the community.

So why are you acting like a community has no power to tax a property owner that makes heavy draws on services appropriately? Why do you assume that local elected officials will always opt to raise everyone's taxes first, as opposed to issuing special use assessments against heavy service users?

You make the same faulty and erroneous conclusions as the reports do because you ASSUME the tax issue to be static as opposed to dynamic as it truly is. Essentially, you're claiming that you can accurately predict how elected officials will choose to apportion taxes in the future.

Sorry, but Hoffa doesn't have any faith in future tellers, nor any 'reports' / 'studies' that make conclusions premised upon limited interpretations about what could happen in the future.

Stop being so closed minded!

the report references other studies that show that big box actually COSTS more than it brings in generally. In caledonia's case this would be quite evident. the size store and magnitude of the 24/7 proposal would yield numerous police calls day and night. Mt. Pleasant had almost 1000 in a 2 year period. That would force a couple of more officers onto the payroll and even ONE is more than the proposed tax revenue, without looking at all the road maintenance for many miles for the added traffic, or other costs. So big box is NOT the answer for Caledonia. In terms of other development that should be encouraged, a lot of hopes were placed on the commuter rail but it was killed by the State government so that is not going to happen. There are areas where development can and should take place and the other studies referred to in the Ehlers report actually list the types of development that contribute positively rather than negatively to the tax base. I applaud the idea of moving toward a positive discussion of how to develop "positively" in our community and if we were not regularly under pressure from Walmart to try to locate inappropriately in our community, we could focus more on these positive things. I believe that would be a great subject for a different blog series and i encourage the Patch to develop such for a free ranging discussion on this subject.

and maybe you will win the powerball lottery, even though you have a bigger chance of getting to be president of the USA than winning the lottery. why, if the review of communities all over the USA shows that big box costs more than it brings in, would caledonia be so "lucky" to not have a similar experience...

@San -

Gee, I don't know. If the Caledonia politicians hold the line on a fair taxation structure for such a development, then why wouldn't such a development be beneficial to the community?

Were the communities that are used for the basis of the conclusions in the studies upon which you rely more apt to award such developments with tax breaks in exchange for the jobs and economic activity that such developments bring as opposed to insisting upon a fair taxation structure? Were those communities possibly competing with neighboring communities for jobs and developments that would bring badly needed economic activity?

Caledonia might be unique in that it's location is something that WalMart desires even more than a beneficial tax structure, which would thereby permit the local politicians to arrange a fair tax arrangement with WalMart with relatively low legal hurdles, and thereby effectively alleviating all of the concerns that you're presently arguing against big-box retail developments.

Nah, that couldn't possibly be the case, could it? Let's stick with your ASSumptions instead of keeping an open mind and taking the time to find out the truth of the situation, as predisposed reactionary hatred of others appears to be the American way, at least according to you.

Come on man. There are other logical, rational, and distinct possibilities present with this situation. Instead of assuming the worst, why not find out the TRUTH before jumping to conclusions!

Yes, read the comments.

From the comments, it appears that Caledonia Confused is indeed confused over the contents of the Ehler's report and Caledonia Land Use Plan.

Nor is Caledonia Confused capable of engaging in factual debate, instead preferring to ask vague and pointless questions.

By the way, Caledonia Confused, I continue to wait for your answer to my question.

By the way, since Caledonia Confused appears to enjoy cross referencing Patch commentary, let’s add some cross-referenced commentary originating from Caledonia Confused:
------
Caledonia Confused
6:10 pm on Wednesday, October 10, 2012

You can buy most anything you need at Caledonia's new Walmart.
You can buy most anything you need at Caledonia's new Walmart.

Will that loud person be bringing the pictures with the circles and the arrows and the paragraph on the back of each? What were they about? Littering!
------

So I ask you, Caledonia Confused: Do want to invite such littering into Caledonia? Go visit the Highway 11 Walmart store in Mount Pleasant and note all of the litter on the adjoining properties. Heck, I'll save you the trip and allow you to view the pictures that I've posted to this blog. See? It's a disgrace.

Why would a Caledonia Walmart not also result in trash accumulating on adjoining properties? And who is going to clean it up? The Village, paid through tax dollars? You? It's all one big joke to you, right?

James Hoffa, NON CALEDONIA RESIDENT: you obviously do not appreciate nor understand the systematic and aggressive action that Walmart takes in avoiding taxes. There is no such thing as an "iron-clad" agreement because a year or two down line, they will simply protest it and drive up the legal bills for the village until they compromise simply because they cannot afford it. When you have unequal powers competing in the legal system, the power with the enormous wealth and "reach' advantage has the upper hand. And given the historical record around the country, Walmart aggressively USES that power to hammer local municipalities. Regardless of what you are saying, there are numerous additional negative impacts that no amount of tax negotiations are going to solve! And none of those "conflicting uses" in the area have been addressed: traffic, air pollution, crime, congestion, noise pollution, parking lot run off (water pollution), congestion, road damage, light pollution, impact on local residents and their ability to enjoy their property as residential properties without having the immediate zoning overturned on them to their detriment, etc. etc. etc. Walmart is not innocuous. They have a big impact wherever they go, and they want to go to an area NOT ZONED NOR APPROPRIATE for what they want to do, and not part of the land use plan the community developed for that area. Why should people not be free to have peace, quiet and enjoyment of their property without walmart?

@patchreader 123 -

Shouldn't those who are committing the littering be charged with the costs of cleaning it up?

Are you saying that a WalMart store causes people to litter?

Patchreader, you don't like my dry sense of humor.

See Alice's Restaurant, the song and movie.

A song that keeps on going and going and going, just like the repeat comments here. I will let the readers look for other similarities.

Do we?

Why don't you begin.

the traffic would have to be drawn from outside the community to support a development of that size. so it is not just those two roads and that intersection that get impacted. semi-trucks would have to travel for instance from either mt. pleasant or oak creek or come in off I-94 and travel for many miles to get into the heart of Caledonia's residential community, along roads not built for that traffic. Same with shopper vehicular traffic counts along numerous roads. Neither 4 mile nor green bay road by the way are built for that kind of traffic counts, anywhere along their "run". so we are looking at many miles of frontage torn up in all directions, road widening, ongoing maintenance issues, etc. A full-scale "impact" report should be commissioned and done. That is not something anyone can fully assess without a detailed analysis and lots of data. Look up "class B Highway" and you will see that it is not ready for the impact.

@San -

"the traffic would have to be drawn from outside the community to support a development of that size."

According to the 2010 census, Caledonia had a population of 24,705.

How much of a population base does it take to support a single WalMart store? Isn't a base of 25k more than adequate without having to rely upon outside traffic?

Are the designed traffic limits being exceeded already?

Care to comment on Item 10 in these minutes?
http://www.caledoniawi.com/files/Agendas_Minutes/Public_Works_com/Public_Works_minutes_20121114(1).pdf

Which roads do the people from Caledonia use to get to the Mt Pleasant Walmart at this time?

@Jameson Sinclair -

Who says that a WalMart in Caledonia would be "a tax cost," as opposed to "a tax benefit?" Aren't taxes dynamic? Aren't communities able to make special assessments if a parcel is costing more in services provided than the tax revenues it generates?

So, why are you blindly believing in such clearly erroneous conclusions?

Taxes are a dynamic issue, and not a static one. It's up to the local politicians to decide if they want to impose special use assessments or deny developments services beyond the cost of what they're providing to the community in tax revenues.

So please, do us all a favor, including yourself, and start thinking for yourself instead of trusting and believing the so-called and self-declared 'experts.'

James Hoffa, Caledonia resident: 25,000 people in a community is by far not sufficient to justify a 24/7 supercenter walmart store of that size. there are studies on that as well, including the 'saturation" study that was put into the land use planning done in Caledonia, but i appreciate that you don't like to deal with facts, just your own opinions as you have so frequently made clear today.

James Hoffa: your statements about tax cost versus being able to get it back from the big box store are simply incorrect as to how property tax and village budgeting works. it would be useful if we stuck to the real process instead of confusing the issue with a lot of mis-information. that is why in fact the studies are very useful because many people in many communities believed that they would get benefits from that type of development, and they suffered afterwards when they found out they were wrong and could not do anything about it but raise the taxes on themselves. poor people relied on the type of approach you are suggesting rather than learning from the experience of thousands of other communities around the country and "looking before they leaped".

@San -

Please cite for Hoffa the statute that prevents a community from issuing special use assessments for extraordinary draws on services, as Hoffa is personally unaware of such a restriction on special use assessments.

You're right, we do need to stick with reality, but you're the one who's denying it - not Hoffa.

In reality, it is up to the LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS as to whether to issue special use assessments, raise everyone's taxes, or limit the amount of services provided. This is all within the discretion of the local government.

You ASSume that all local level governments will automatically raise everyone's taxes as opposed to issuing special use assessments or limit the amount of services provided just because that's what a majority of the local level governments in the study you rely upon have done in the past.

If you think that you can accurately predict what people who haven't even been elected yet will do in the future regarding tax policy in a local community, then all Hoffa can say is WOW!

Instead of blaming big box retail, as you prefer to do, why not hold the local elected officials accountable for their actions regarding local tax policy?

Hoffa, why are you referring to yourself in the third peron. Unbelievable you feel the. Red to post under multiple aliases on a Walmart thread. Do you work for Walmart or what. Unreal.

@Jameson Sinclair -

Multiple aliases?!?!

Hoffa only posts under the screen-name 'James R Hoffa.' There are no other aliases.

Sorry - try again ;-)

And no, Hoffa never has and probably never will work for WalMart.

James Hoffa, it is up to YOU to cite the statutes that you believe would allow "spot" taxation of one business in a community and to address the issue that big box retailers have big legal teams and regularly fight any kind of taxes being levied by any taxing authority with enormous costs to the taxing authority and years of time....Walmart in particular by the way has a long history of resisting tax levies from taxing authorities big and small.

@San -

You're the one who originally made definitive assertions about tax policy on this board - you should be providing the proof to back up your assertions.

But, because Hoffa is a nice and generous guy, he'll play along. Sub-chapter VII of Chapter 66 of the Wisconsin statutes cover special assessments that may be made by municipalities. If you read the entire statutory scheme, Section 66.0701- Section 66.0733, you'll see that it works exactly as Hoffa has been describing it.

Like Hoffa said before, let's stick to the FACTS. If you think that Hoffa is wrong, back it up with a statutory cite.

Otherwise, kindly admit that you just prefer to blame big box retail as opposed to holding local politicians accountable for their tax policies.

James Hoffa, the statutes you cite unfortunately do not cover the situation where many miles of road need maintenance years ahead of time due to generally increased traffic counts. they do not cover added police coverage in a community that comes from all that extra traffic and all those extra people and all the extra 24/7 opportunities that arise. the cost of "proving" and overcoming a walmart "challenge' to that effort in court is an impossible burden for any small community up against the resources of a multi-billion dollar corporation with a fleet of lawyers on staff and a known history of aggressively fighting and overwhelming local communities. talk about 'get real'. look at what has happened all over the country when small municipalities try to get walmar to "pay up":

@San -

Please explain how the statutory scheme that Hoffa cited does not work in the way in which Hoffa has described it as working here. And please provide cites to appropriate case law to back up your argument.

In REALITY and FACT, it works exactly as Hoffa has described it here. The local government must be able to prove with sufficient evidence the foundation upon which it makes the special assessments - this is actually expressly spelled out in the cited statutes.

And if the studies upon which you rely are correct, accurate, and irrefutable, then those local governments have the proof that they need to make such special use tax assessments against big box retailers that would successfully stand up to any legal challenge.

But, if the big-box retailers have been successful in defeating such assessments in Court on a regular basis in the past, as you complain about else where on this board, then doesn't that mean that those studies that you rely and base your conclusions upon aren't as correct or infallible as you're making them out to be?

And doesn't that mean that perhaps you need to do more research on this matter before making a conclusion - that is of course if you want your conclusion to be well informed and balanced?

Please, keep to the FACTS instead of your emotional and personal opinions.

James Hoffa, NON CALEDONIA RESIDENT. statutory schema works when the parties have relatively equal resources and risks in carrying them out. Walmart has both the firepower and the history of using that firepower to overwhelm local governments and push them around to get settlements or make the costs of fighting so enormous that they simply "get their way". If you let a bully into your neighborhood, you have to expect to be bullied. The State of Wisconsin, the city of Tomah and others in Wisconsin, as well as many all around the country (some 40% of Walmart stores get their assessments challenged by Walmart--so it is not an occasional dispute but a serious pattern on their part) have been victimized this way. Second, the statutory schema deals with direct, provable impacts at the area of the site, but if the overall road maintenance budget, for instance, goes up because of the semis and extra vehicular traffic throughout the village to get to and from the walmart, the ability to get this paid for is unlikely. You are asking our community to deal with the negative quality of life impacts AND the risks of the tax revenue versus expenses, but you have no risk and no down-side to this occurring. So you are simply being a provocateur but not part of the community that will pay if your suppositions (which are contrary to experience all over the country) prove wrong.

@San -

The doom and gloom conclusions that you make about WalMart would logically lead one to conclude that WalMart, or any big/large commercial or industrial business for that matter, is in fact not appropriate to be located anywhere in this nation.

Bottom line is that you personally despise all big business and premise such a opinion on cherry picked and non-definitive studies that make a lot of assumptions and treat dynamic issues as being static, when in fact they aren't.

James Hoffa, since you do not know me, or my background, i suspect that your opinion about what i believe in or not is totally based on your own prejudices, and biases and opinions. I have not once made any hostile remarks about you, or any business. I have however not closed my eyes to the business practices of the business that is trying to locate in a residential community, nor have i closed my eyes to the impact that type of business has on village finances and quality of life issues all over the country. I am personally a great believer in business development and have often stated as much. There is however a time and a place and a circumstance for everything. And when big business gets to the point that it ABUSES the system and BULLIES others rather than playing on a level playing field, those businesses need to have some checks and balances. Our entire system in the USA is based on such checks and balances. That is also why we have antitrust laws and various other regulatory developments to help protect society from abuse. Before those rules, we had businesses dumping raw sewage or industrial waste into rivers and the groundwater. I am not against business. But i want them to be properly regulated to protect our air, water, land and communities. There needs to be a BALANCE.

if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. the studies looked at actual results all over the country. just because we put our heads in the sand, it does not mean that we won't "get our butts kicked".

the world according to your viewpoint is that we should disregard facts, disregard the experience of many other communities, disregard anything except our own desire to do whatever we please and forget about the consequences, and if things don't work out, magically hope that the village can arbitrarily and unilaterally find a way to make the developer or big box store pay "after the fact" without affecting anyone else. This unfortunately is not the way public policy, or the law, or the real world operates. many people have fallen into the very same trap you propose and they are crying over their high taxes, traffic congestion, noise, crime and pollution in communities all over this country right now......

@San -

So, just because other local elected officials decided to spread the tax burden around by raising everyone's taxes instead of issuing special use assessments for providing an extraordinary amount of services to the developments utilizing the high level of services means that we need to assume that ALL local elected officials will react in the same way?

You do know what they say about making ASSumptions, don't you?

If you and the 'experts' are so good at predicting the future, then how come unemployment is still so high? Remember the so-called 'experts' in the CBO and OMB that claimed that Obama's stimulus, if passed, would result in unemployment below 5.6% today?

That didn't happen, did it?

How a locality decides to tax developments is solely within the discretion of the local elected leaders. To claim that you can predict what people who haven't even been elected yet would do in the future is EXTREMELY naive and to base a conclusion upon such a prediction extremely IDIOTIC.

Get real!

do you live in Caledonia? "un-zoned" community?

Yeah Hoffa... Yours is the sort of community the rest of us have to subsidize.

@Jameson Sinclair -

Hoffa's township isn't subsidized by any of the surrounding communities or state/federal governments. In fact, our school district receives the least amount of revenue sharing per capita in the entire state.

Hoffa's township is able to survive with low taxes and well funded schools because it minimizes government services/intrusions and manages and contains the costs of it's school district appropriately, which just so happens to be ranked in the top 12 districts academically in the state.

The reality of the situation is that Hoffa's township, and others like it, subsidize your community, the large urban and suburban areas, and your ultra high recipients of state revenue sharing school districts such as RUSD.

Hoffa is getting sick of paying for you people - pay your own damned way for a change!

@San -

If Hoffa is wrong about special use assessments, then please provide proof by citing to the applicable state statute.

James Hoffa, non-caledonia resident: i would be willing to bet you are not paying for all the services you use in society. You use roads i suppose. You use all kinds of infrastructure. You depend on clean air and water. You buy foods that are brought to your vicinity by the infrastructure that is in place. You are obviously able to erad and write and have basic understanding of the language so you have had benefits of the educational system. If you are employed, you likely have future availability of medicare and social security to assist in your retirement. You have available to you emergency health services, police and fire services, all developed through common investment by the community. It is doubtful that you are "self-sufficiently" funding everything that you take for granted. Many of us are grateful for the United States of America, the principles on which it was founded including the "common defense" and the promotion of "the general welfare" that are enshrined in the founding principles of the country, and for which we all pay our share. All of these general things have a cost and everyone pays for them through various means. Your rant has nothing to do at this point with the proposal facing those of us who live in Caledonia, and is unfortunately both misguided and misapplied to this discussion.

@San -

Hoffa never claimed to be wholly self sufficient. Only that Hoffa has ALWAYS paid his fair share and then some, while many others get away with not paying their fair share or even nothing at all, taking even more from the system than they give into it. Hoffa is also a job creator.

@San -

You really need to reply in the right thread, as it makes it much easier to follow the conversation.

Hoffa already did this for you above, but will report here as well for you.

BTW - You're the one who originally made definitive assertions about tax policy on this board - you should be providing the proof to back up your assertions.

But, because Hoffa is a nice and generous guy, he'll play along. Sub-chapter VII of Chapter 66 of the Wisconsin statutes cover special assessments that may be made by municipalities. If you read the entire statutory scheme, Section 66.0701- Section 66.0733, you'll see that it works exactly as Hoffa has been describing it.

Like Hoffa said before, let's stick to the FACTS. If you think that Hoffa is wrong, back it up with a statutory cite.

Otherwise, kindly admit that you just prefer to blame big box retail as opposed to holding local politicians accountable for their tax policies.

@San -

Regarding court challenges, it all comes down to burden of proof. If WalMart was successful in defeating such assessments in the past, then it must be because they had better or more definitive proof than the studies you rely upon, because if the studies you rely upon are indeed correct, accurate, and irrefutable, then WalMart never would have won those cases.

Come on man - THINK FOR YOURSELF PLEASE!!!

James Hoffa, NON CALEDONIA RESIDENT. i am glad to learn that you contribute positively to society and help to create jobs for others. While you claim to pay in more than you take out, i have my doubts, because you probably don't include your share of things like national defense, interstate highway system, centers for disease control, etc. which support everyone but are hard to "calculate" by individual contribution. Be that as it may, the rant about who pays what and how much is really not part of the discussion about the siting and zoning of a Walmart in a residential community to which you do not even belong.

@San -

So, it has come down to conspiracy theories and essentially a class warfare argument.

If your studies are indeed correct, accurate, and irrefutable, as you claim them to be and rely upon in making all of your arguments here, then there is no way in hell that WalMart or any other big business could ever win in Court unless they had judges in their back pockets (wherein your conspiracy theory argument derives from).

The fact that WalMart is successful in defeating so many of these lawsuits is due to the FACT that your relied upon 'studies' aren't 100% correct, accurate, or irrefutable.

So, why do you continue to place such an overwhelming emphasis on 'studies' that have failed to hold up in a court of law on so many occasions in the past?

You've been exposed as being anti-big business and anti- anyone with more money.

And no, thankfully Hoffa does not live in Caledonia and never would. As previously stated, Hoffa lives in an un-zoned township with minimal government 'services' (really intrusions) and minimal taxation, and Hoffa aims to keep it that way because Hoffa loves FREEDOM and PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS!

Cheers!

James Hoffa: it does not come down to "conspiracy theory". it comes down to the fact that Walmart systematically challenges and opposes property tax assessments and valuations around the country and uses their on staff counsel and legal team to overwhelm small municipalities. the state of wisconsin, the city of tomah, wisconsin and many others have felt the weight of walmart's ability to avoid, minimize and reduce taxes. so the tax revenues that are even 'expected' when the village reviews a proposal are not necessarily the tax revenues "received" when all is said and done, because walmart consistently pays less taxes than "advertised" up front. it does not take a "conspiracy theory" to understand that a powerful legal team from a multi-billion dollar company can overwhelm the pocketbook of any small municipality which deters legal action against them, and forces settlements that otherwise would not work. they use their "club" effectively and there are many studies on that as well. Since you are not a Caledonia resident, why are you inserting yourself in the conversation among caledonia residents who will wind up with the risks, the tax bills and the quality of life concerns of putting a walmart here? We are the ones who have to "live with" the consequences and you have no risk.....

@San -

Well then, isn't that all the more reason that the local politicians insist upon an iron clad tax deal with someone like WalMart before granting them approval to develop a location?

@KEEP ON KEEPING ON -

You're joking, right?

An owner and taxpayer of a privately owned parcel of land wanted to split that property and he had to essentially go begging for other's approval and permission to do so. And you approve of this, and in fact appear to advocate for even tighter restrictions/controls on private property rights.

THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for heaven's sake! Wake up!!!

Let the poor guy split his property without having to beg for other's permission to legally do so!

What is the matter with you people?!?!

Doesn't anyone value FREEDOM anymore?!?!

No wonder Obama won - the people of this country are losing their desire for FREEDOM. Incredible and actually quite sad.

James, I am well aware of the country we live in and the freedoms we are blessed with. That by no means comes without some checks and balances. If you want people to have absolute freedom to do whatever they want, let someone put a rendering plant behind your home. Don't insult my intelligence by having to read your response. Bottom line was this was a rushed favor for someone on the PC to get what he wanted without any of the safeguards and expectations any other residents would be held accountable for. I have personally seen the hoops some people have to jump through. This was a joke. And the reason it was mentioned is one could only hope our PC and Board would be more diligent in holding Walmart or any other development of that size or scope accountable for the reports, studies, etc., the ordinance demands. They most certainly overlooked all of that in this situation. Don't turn this into political sides...you may actually be surprised on which side of the aisle I consider myself aligned with. This is about a PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INCONSISTENT WITH ZONING AND LAND USE INTENT. EVERY person speaking on this forum has to live within boundaries as set forth in this Village. Can you have a dog kennel? Can you have a fence? Can you burn leaves? Can you park your boat? GIVE ME A BREAK with your talk of Obama, freedom, USA. If you live within this community, you live by restrictions and rules. Just as they may limit you, they protect you, and should protect all.

@KEEP ON KEEPING ON -

So wait, you're trying to tell Hoffa that your organized system of zoning and having to beg for board approval as to how you can use your land is preferable to Hoffa's system of un-zoned and un-regulated freedom safeguarded by the ability to prosecute after the fact based on nuisance law, even though you're basically admitting that your system of zoning and board approval for land use isn't infallible and is actually easily prone to cronyism, favoritism, and corruption.

Yeah, that's a great argument all right ;-)

Hoffa agrees that rules are needed, but prefers to give the power to the PEOPLE instead of to the government. That's why we have a long and developed history of nuisance law in this country.

The more I am reading from Hoffa, the more I like... Hoffa should run for office. I like the land of freedom viewpoints. Why do we treat decent citizens as if they are criminals and only slap the hands of offenders in our society most of the time? In this case, if its someone's own land... and they want to split it, despite a QUICK check to ensure they arent doing something well out of line with usage and regulations, let it happen. Why can't common sense be applied anymore? There is a difference between someone wanting to split their property into two and someone wanting to turn their property into a complete subdivision.

Can someone please tell me when is the next meeting we should attend re this issue? Thank you so much.

@Jameson Sinclair -

Hoffa already provided the statutory cites pertaining to special assessments in two separate postings now. Where's your proof of what you're trying sell?

James Hoffa: NON CALEDONIA RESIDENT. There are zoning laws for a reason. there is and never has been ultimate freedom in terms of property rights because we are all part of one society. it has nothing to do with Obama, or freedom or anything else other than common sense of society. No one has a right to a zoning change. The zoning is set up to protect OTHER property owners from actions by ONE property owner that can be detrimental. For instance, putting a toxic waste dump next to a school. Or putting an adult bookstore next to an elementary school. Or putting a noisy, polluting industry in the middle of a residential area. And there are common interests in the community such as roads and costs of providing services, etc. that are impacted by what goes where and under what conditions. It is obvious that you don't live in any "organized" community, so why are you trying to argue about people who do defending their right to their enjoyment of both their property and their community in an organized way? The history of zoning goes back a long way. it was not invented in the last election....it has been supported by republicans, democrats and other parties as well since everyone has an interest in a civil society "working". Try to put a non-conforming use in any community and they will object to it.

@San -

If what you say is accurate and true, then how on earth has Hoffa's township managed to remained un-zoned for over 100 years and not turned into the type of chaos that you're now referencing?

Are the people that live in Hoffa's township special or different than others who live elsewhere? Are the people of Hoffa's township more civil than those who live in Caledonia?

Hoffa is most curious and awaits your explanation as to how Hoffa's township can be un-zoned and not be chaotic to the level you've described here.

James Hoffa, Non Caledonia resident: your system of everyone getting along works fine possibly in a simple rural environment, but in a complex society with urban infrastructure and huge industrial issues that are by nature polluting the environment and causing health issues, it does not work. for instance, a power plant in a residential community can put heavy metals, particulate pollution etc. into the environment, pollute wells, and harm people's health. the best way to handle this is through zoning to try to segregate these polluting industries from the residential areas. businesses who run adult bookstores have certain free speech rights under the constitution, but zoning helps us ensure that elementary school students are not put in the proximity and thus, potentially becoming victimized by the patrons of the business. residential zones need to keep children safe, have a quiet environment for rest and relaxation, and thus, zoning was set up to provide a framework. unfortunately your simplistic approach may work in your own limited circumstance but does not work for the rest of society. this does not mean that the zoning framework is perfect or could not be improved; and it does not prevent some corruption which needs to be rooted out, but we as a society still need a framework that keeps conflicting uses away from each other.

San: PONY-LOVING, DEVELOPMENT-ADVERSE CALEDONIA RESIDENT. I mainly want to post this just to point out how goofy doing that type of thing is. You don't like when people use the pony or NIMBY angles, yet you keeping throwing out the ridiculous NON CALEDONIA RESIDENT tag on Hoffa. To me, it only makes you and your arguments seem lesser. I do not think everyone has to be a Caledonia resident to chime in on this or to have the proposed location still be of interest to them as consumers.

JW, i pointed out "non caledonia resident" simply because James Hoffa was repeatedly making extreme statements about why we should allow a walmart in our midst, when he had NO RISK and NO POTENTIAL COST and NO DOWNSIDES to the positions he was taking whatsoever. It is very easy to tell someone else to take steps that can harm their community, but to make repeated and strong assertions about something without any "skin in the game" needs to be pointed out. It is a PRINCIPLE of society that those who participate in that society are the ones who have the right to speak for that society, or else, be clearly identified. We do not allow Europeans to vote in our US elections, and we do not allow the Chinese to intervene in our debates about national policy in the USA. To the extent they want to air their opinions, they are free to do so, but they are IDENTIFIED as being from Europe or China. It is extremely relevant to know that someone telling you to "jump off the cliff" is not going to jump with you....

San, I think EVERYONE gets WHY you point out the NON-CALEDONIA RESIDENT... I just wanted to point out what I do not think you get... that it just makes you look bad to constantly do that. When it comes down to policies and changes to policies, I think the votes of all (or the majority at least) of the citizens of Caledonia should be the ones behind what happens. ALL being able to vote... not just the sign holders who squeal the loudest... or at least give their opinion in a manner beyond just some public meetings that are really hard to gauge and excludes the majority of the population. Anyway, when it comes to discussions and viewpoints and insight, I think EVERYONE's opinion matters equally... Hoffa's viewpoints counter yours, San, regardless of whether he lives here or not.

JW, i am glad you recognize why i pointed this out. Hoffa's comments were not fully understood as being those of someone who, while entitled to an opinion of course, is not going to share the potential negative consequences of the results of his opinion in this community. because he made numerous extreme suggestions, i replied to them in sequence with the "disclaimer" so that people would recognize that his suggestions and comments were based on not having to potentially pay the higher taxes resulting from big box, nor face the consequences of non-conforming uses in an area, or the quality of life deterioration issues for our community. If non-residents want to comment, and make suggestions that could seriously erode quality of life and increase costs for those who are residents, it should be clearly known and recognized and not simply inserted as someone who is involved with consequences. If Hoffa chose to insert himself into the discussion, he should have made it clear that he was not a caledonia resident in a very visible way with his own disclaimers. with all due respect, his failure to do that is the only reason i took steps to make sure each of his extreme positions was "notated" properly. A suggestion must be understood in "context". it is really easy to throw around extreme ideas when you have no risk and no cost...it is another matter for those who have to PAY for the impact of those suggestions.

@Richard Head -

While you may be content in selling out your FREEDOM and AMERICAN PRINCIPLES to the political parties, Hoffa isn't.

What a sad, sad state of affairs that our country is getting itself into. What is the matter with all of you people and why are so willing to give up the FREEDOMS that many have previously fought and died for?

Hoffa is getting ill reading all the commie bull on this page!

@San -

The end goals that you describe here can be achieved via enforcing and prosecuting harmful behavior by others to you or your property under nuisance law, and doesn't need to arbitrarily and prematurely be settled by the use of zoning restrictions and having to obtain board approval for practically anything that one wants to do on their own privately owned land.

Hoffa lives in an un-zoned township and everyone gets along just fine - it is not the chaos that you describe. In fact, farmers typically drive their big and heavy machinery on the public roadways without having to pay registration or carrying insurance on such vehicles, and no one complains about it.

Get real and try again.

@San -

You're not understand Hoffa. Hoffa isn't advocating for a "free for all," but rather a better way to deal with such issues - nuisance law and fair taxation.

James Hoffa NON CALEDONIA RESIDENT. I understand it all too well, but it comes out to about the same as "free for all". "nuisance" laws dont work if a power plant goes into a residential area and pollutes and harms everyone's health. "nuisance laws" don't stop "free speech" adult bookstores from locating next to elementary schools, for which public policy has a serious interest to restrict. Once a business or activity is located in a non-conforming area, they have a 'presumed right" to do what they do, and some of these things are by nature offensive to residential community interests and needs because they are non-conforming, so there is then a 'defense' against "nuisance". In other words, this does not work in a complex technological urban society with numerous conflicting industries and land use requirements, and that is why the principles of zoning were developed, yes, in the "land of the free" the USA....and why just about all people support using zoning as a reasonable approach to sorting out these conflicting issues in advance before investments and "facts on the ground" prove too difficult to "fix" afterwards. A little advance planning actually benefits by reducing the conflicts and opportunities for harm to the rest of the people in the community. In terms of fair taxation, that is why i object to Walmart coming into the community as they cost more than they bring in, raising everyone else's taxes, based on lots of historical data.

a write in campaign 3 days before the election, with no extensive campaigning against well-regarded incumbents was intended to get visibility and was never expected to win without a full scale campaign in the community (not possible in 3 days). the one competitive race that had a full campaign, on the ballot was one party who was for the following of the land use plan, and one who was openly for wide open development. the "land use plan" candidate won. I suspect that is a more accurate gauge of sentiment, which follows with the land use plan itself that was widely participated in throughout the community over a several year period with lots of input from all stakeholders. You thought you were in the majority of opinion for the school board, but i understand you lost that race...maybe you misunderstand the majority sentiment and the "minority" sentiment.

@San -

Funny how the majority sentiment opposed Mr. Dey in the election, but then immediately proceeded to bellyache when their property tax assessments for the RUSD school district rose significantly, isn't it?

And let's not forget that RUSD is one of the largest recipients of state revenue sharing, thus anyone who pays state income tax technically has a vested interest in the management and workings of RUSD, whether the local residents would care to admit to such a fact or not.

Brian, you fail to mention that for Trustee No. 5, a very vocal proponent of Walmart was soundly defeated by someone who opposed it 45% to 31% (w/ undervote of about 23%). Neither was a write-in candidate.

You also fail to mention that the votes for each write-in candidate incurred about a 30% undervote.

San- Apparently, you neglected to read the part of where there were only 50 people at the most recent meeting. Your assessment of Kevin Wanggaard is not an accurate guage and has never overtly or covertly supported a "wide open land use plan."

And all it takes is one look at the Land Use Plan map that suggests it offers little room for businesses to locate in Caledonia.

Further San, I never claimed to have a majority in the school board race, that is why I ran, to get a majority of support. Big, big difference. And I see you haven't moved your business to Caledonia yet.

patchreader123- And that candidate was the aforementioned person who is now a NIMBY, need I say more?

"And that candidate was the aforementioned person who is now a NIMBY, need I say more?"

Any NIMBY application to the aforementioned person was not of issue when that person ran for, and lost the election. If anything, when running for election, this person openly criticized all opponents of Walmart as NIMBYs. Perhaps this contributed to this person's loss? Who knows?

By the way, you did not answer my hypothetical regarding Rebecca street.

Anyway, I've spent way too much time commenting today and have work to do. As you know, bills don't take no for an answer.

Until next time............

What a fine point Jeff! Let's look at the Walmart in Antigo-RIGHT OFF HWY 45. Let's look at the one in New London-RIGHT OFF HWY 45. Let's look at the one in Merrill-RIGHT OFF TRUNK 64 AND HWY 51. Appropriate location, sustainable, but I wonder at what cost to the smaller local grocers?? I have been driving up there and shopping in Antigo for over 30 yrs. Used to have 3+ local grocery stores. Gone. And none of those towns have towns 10 minutes or less away (MP, Sturtevant, Racine), that including their own have 4 Pick n Saves, 4 Piggly Wigglys, 2 Walmarts, GFS, 2 Aldis, several local markets, Sentry (or used to), countless Walgreens and 2 huge Woodmans due South and North. Holy crabcakes!! How did I ever survive without a 24 hr 185,000 Sq Ft Walmart plopped 10 houses down from my front yard? Give me a break. And unless you took a poll in these towns, how do you know that no one complained?

it is not the location that has to be looked at for the area being targeted by walmart, but the traffic patterns. it is not antigo that supports the store, but all the surrounding communities that are drawn in. that is the point. the population of antigo does not support such a store, nor the population of caledonia, but a much larger draw, which is why a number of people have suggested the location, if there needs to be one, should be in RACINE. that is also where the employee base would be coming from for the most part. There was an interesting study in the land use plan development work that showed the population and saturation issues for big box. in any case, it is not about WALMART's wishes, but the community's need to not have its quality of life messed with (traffic, noise, congestion, light pollution, crime, air, water and land pollution, etc.) or have our taxes go up as is generally shown to be the case around the country with big box development costing more than it brings in to the municipalities who wind up being the "host" communities. it is not our job to determine Walmart's ideal location demographics for their own business needs. We also cannot determine from outside whether any particular store is thriving or not, or whether the people in that community are "enjoying" the experience or not.

Thank you, i stand corrected. I thought Butch's closed.

Well, now that we have Antigo's market supply established, do you give any credence to the 2005 and 2011 market studies done for Caledonia? Do you give any credence to the 2011 market study done by MP, which includes Caledonia in the market trade area study? Do you aknowledge that this community was asked in 2005 in 2 different surveys about what development they wanted and concerns they had about big box retail? Would you agree that if our board as of last year was discussing re-examining our land use plan and soliciting public discourse, now would be a very appropriate time for them to do so? Questions have been submitted to them in the last 2 months. No response. 4 members of our current board are up for re-election. Do we not deserve to know their thoughts on development and specifically the Walmart Plan as presented to them?

45 and 64. Completely surrounded by all the other commercial retail there.

these big box stores do not depend on the population of a single village or town but on a demographic drawing "area" and much higher population count. that causes enormous influx of traffic and shoppers in town who put the pressure on the roads and social services but do not have to either pay the local taxes to maintain them, or put up with the quality of life issues, congestion, noise, pollution that the local residents have to put up with. Walmart tends to try to take advantage of small towns and villages where they have more "clout" but then draw their shoppers from a much larger target area. you should look at the saturation study that was done as part of the land use plan review.

none of this means we should bring in a big box development that tends to cost more than it brings to the village, will raise taxes further and radically change the nature of the community as to traffic, congestion, crime, noise, light polllution, and other factors. they are not an "answer" to any of the issues you cite...in fact, they tend to exacerbate the problems not relieve them.

I think most people in your area would pay the $100 more per year taxes on a $200,000 home if you told them that they would have places to shop and eat in their community rather than have to drive across town or go to Oak Creek for anything. Caledonia's taxes are dirt cheap. I am surprised you allow cars on your roads and not horse and buggy only. Maybe you could recruit Amish to live in a Caledonia with no shopping.

At the first meeting for the Walmart 31 and 4 prosposed location, I heard with my own ears someone very well known in the conservancy group expressing concern to the Wal-Mart broker about people from Jacato Dr coming to Caledonia to shop.

they also have the most employees on Food Stamps. Through manipulation of both wages paid and hours worked, they keep most of their line workers below the level they can feed, house and clothe a family. And as the largest employer in the USA, they force all the others to "compete" which means they set the "standard" for slave wages. Henry Ford understood that successful business requires paying a fair and decent wage to his employees and this has been forgotten by companies today, led by Walmart. While the Walton family (biggest owners of Walmart) collectively own as much wealth as 40% of the population of the entire country, they begrude their workers enough income to care for their families and they force the rest of us to pay taxes to cover the health care and food stamps needed to supplement the wages they pay. Over the last 40 years the gap between the richest 2-3% of people and the rest of us has been growing, and we are destroying the middle class which is the basis for long-term economic development in this country. Walmart, as the largest employer and the one that other retailers need to "compete" with, is one of the big factors in this long-term unhealthy change. This in addition to the other negatives in terms of local property tax costs versus revenues, and the quality of life issues, must be considered.