FoxPolitics.net - Appleton, WI News - What's really going on in the Fox Cities

FoxPolitics.net Blogs

FoxPolitics News

Local/State Govt Links

Salaries

• Appleton School District, 2007-08
• City of Appleton
• Town of Grand Chute
• City of Menasha
• City of Neenah

Candidates

City of Appleton

• Elected Officials
• Salary Watch
• Directory
• Mtg. Agendas/Minutes

Advisory Board

Blogroll

Selected News Sources:
Business Jrnl of Milw
Christian Science Monitor
Daily Caller
Drudge Report
La Crosse Tribune
Milw Journal Sentinel
National Journal
New York Times
Public Policy Forum
Real Clear Politics
Stateline
The Hill
TPM
Washington Examiner
Washington Post
Washington Times
WI State Journal
Selected Blogs - from the Right:
American Mind
Blaska's Blog
Boots & Sabers
Charlie Sykes
Dad29
Freedom Eden
Heritage Foundation
Jerry Bader Blog
Life Voice
Marketplace of Ideas
Marquette Warrior
Natl Review Online
No Runny Eggs
Patrick McIlheran
Real Debate Wisconson
RedState
Rhymes with Clown
Shark and Shepherd
The Lote Tree
Vox Populi
Wall Street Jrnl, Opinions
WI State Jrnl, Opinion
Wigderson Library & Pub
Wisconsin Family Voice
WPRI
Selected Blogs - from the Left:
Big Money Blog
Blogging Blue
Brenda Konkel
Caffeinated Politics
Capital Times
FightingBob
Folkbum's rambles
Griper Blade
Huffington Post
Lost Albatross
MAL Contends
Mid coast views
Moneyed Politicians
One Wisconsin Now
Open Left
Playground Politics
Political Environment
Rock Netroots
Talk to Tony
Uppity Wisconsin
Waxing America

Today's Blog: Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie
My husband and I and a couple hundred friends watched in Green Bay as ...(more)

Search Archives

Blogs

Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie (6/28/2011)

Time for Gov. Walker to talk more about the cake (3/4/2011)

Today, reality hits home (3/1/2011)

FoxPolitics News going on hiatus (1/28/2011)

Brown County Executive candidate forum Feb. 8 (1/28/2011)

Education done right (1/27/2011)

To Obama, the ‘We’ is Government (1/27/2011)

(more)

4/18/2007
Greenville - To grow, or not to grow

Greenville is a close-by example of the many Wisconsin municipalities that just don’t know what they want to be when they grow up.

Wisconsin has been abuzz with land conservation for decades. We’ve been saving precious woodlands and wetlands. We’ve been saving our lakes and our lake shores, enforcing, for example, controversial lake frontage and pier length and density rules. And of course, we’ve given lip service to sprawl and have long lamented disappearing farmlands, now disappearing at the fastest rate in the nation (losing about 5% of cultivated acres annually).

So in areas like Greenville, growing like weeds, good planning means lots of contradictions.

Residential and urban growth continues where it is most often least expensive to grow – on farmland.
Many who move “out to the country” want their “space,” their piece of heaven, but you know the rest … want then to restrict further growth of the town.
As demonstrated by two failed PDR (purchase-of-development-rights) referendums in Wisconsin in April’s election, folks want to preserve the rural character of home, but they don’t want to pay for it.
And that’s not to even mention the constant discussion of property rights – how a community can and should be allowed to control what you do with your property.

One of the recommendations of the Working Lands Initiative (WLI), a series of proposals to preserve working lands in Wisconsin, is to increase overall average residential density 20%. Everywhere. Urban, suburban and rural settings. Smaller lots. Would you say that’s not something many Wisconsin folks are thrilled about?

That perpetual conflict. Give me mine, but change the rules for everyone else.

Greenville Town Chairman Randy Leiker was elected with his campaign motto “Keep the Green in Greenville.” However, according to their web site, the Town is “a rapidly growing community located west of the City of Appleton with a population of 8750 and growing.” (sic - I guess they’re really growing.) So just how do they “rapidly grow” AND “Keep the green?” How do they satisfy folks who want lots of land beneath their feet AND who know the state needs to do something to control the loss of farmland?

Needless to say, what you end up with is a town with bipolar tendencies that’s having a tough time developing a plan that will do what it takes.

Here’s just one small example of the bipolar clash. Shortly after Chairman Leiker was elected in 2005 (remember, “Keep the Green….”), the Greenville Town Board increased the minimum lot size within the sanitary district to 16,000 sq. ft. from 13,500 sq. ft.

In other words, the town’s answer to preserving farmland was to require each new home being built in the community to consume more land, thus speeding the conversion of agricultural land for residential development.

If any municipality wants to preserve open space AND continue to grow, it simply must find a way to encourage higher density development (=smaller lot sizes = more houses on each acre of land).

Like many towns, Greenville is currently working on its Comprehensive Plan. Growth will be inevitable. With all their interweaving policies, all Wisconsin municipalities must do whatever it takes to very intentionally provide incentives to achieve a higher density, well-planned community that allows for growth, preserves farmland, and indeed keeps the “Green in Greenville.”

COMMENTS

For all you folks who want to preserve farmland or open space, it is really easy to do. Just go buy it and own it-- it will then be your property and you can preserve it if you choose---but don't ask other folks to help you pay for something "you" want to do....imagine if everybody had the taxpayer pay for their little pet project...
Good. Good. (Well, you can preserve it as you choose, given zoning requirements - and that's another whole story!) JE

Paul Lauer (Wed Apr 18 07:42:37 2007)

With my knowledge of planning (I have a BS in Urban and Regional Studies from UWOshkosh) the biggest hypocrites in the whole fight against 'sprawl' are those who control the zoning laws in the areas facing the most development pressure. I fully agree with Jo on this, you cannot 'fight sprawl' by legally requiring more land to be used to house a certain number of people. In fact, in recent years I have been souring on the entire concept of zoning, it is in my opinion the biggest cause of 'sprawl' of all, this by preventing developers from building what the market REALLY wants, instead forcing them to eat up more land to build the same number of units and driving people further and further 'out' to find places to live and work. I'll go so far as to say that the entire concept of 'strict separation of uses' that is the hallmark of post WWII development control in the USA was a serious mistake, creating sterile 'beigeville' enclaves and not true 'neighborhoods' and legally requiring the sprawl that everyone is so decrying. If Greenville wants to really 'fight sprawl', they would allow much, much higher urban development density in their sewered area, substantially reducing demand for additional land for development. And _don't_ get me started on the legally enforced development patterns in their unsewered areas - driving around in those parts makes me think that the township is Hell-bent on eliminating every last vestige of agriculture from inside their borders as quickly as they can. BTW, under their zoning laws, the kind of development patterns that made the older 'village' part of Greenville so neat and attractive is *ILLEGAL* in the rest of the township.
I buy most of this Mike. Good. What do you do when what the market really wants is large, sprawling parcels for one large (or not so large) sprawling home? JE

Michael G. Koerner (Wed Apr 18 11:01:44 2007)

From the story: "In other words, the town’s answer to preserving farmland was to require each new home being built in the community to consume more land, thus speeding the conversion of agricultural land for residential development. " If Greenville was like other towns, that would be the case, however, since 2005, when Leiker took over as Chairman, the number of new lots and subdivisions that are approved has dropped DRAMATICALLY. The lot size increased, but the number of new lot approvals actually fell. The Town can't tell you what to do as far as building on property you own, provided you are within zoning restrictions. The Town does set the rate of growth for the future. That is what is happening. Realtors and developers (most who don't live in Greenville) are not happy with that because it cuts into their pockets. The sweet deal they seemed to have under Dean Culbertsons tenure is now gone. But apparently, according to the last election results, the overwhelming majority of voters in the Town seem very happy with the direction Greenville has taken in the past few years. Carry on, Greenville, and stay green!
TG, is the increase in lot size the primary reason for the dramatic drop in new lots and subdivisions? Do your thoughts go in the direction that those in Greenville now would prefer to have as little growth as possible? Whether or not that's true, do you think any of Greenville's policies hint of any elitism? JE

TG (Wed Apr 18 13:09:24 2007)

I would generally not prevent that, at least in sewered areas, and in fact plenty of that style of new development exists in places where it is NOT legally required, even in the current borders of the City of Appleton (see Purdy's Apple Hill Farm development for an example). On the other hand, I am aware of a place (I believe that it is Jefferson County, located along I-94 between Madison and metro Milwaukee) that has set a legal MAXIMUM lot size for new residential that may be SMALLER than what is needed to perk a typical septic system, this as a way that I would think would be quite effective at 'preserving farmland' and 'preventing sprawl'. Without the ability to perk a legal-sized lot, one cannot build an unsewered house, thus preventing such premature development without turning 'elitist'. Driving around in the Julius Rd/North Rd area in Greenville township is a real eye-opener, much of that farmland north of Wisconsin Av (WI 96) is already gone, swallowed up by unsewered big-lot developments. Clearly, legally requiring big lots for residential development does not do anything to address that.
Thanks Mike. Interesting thoughts. How do you respond to the argument that the large lots/homes in Purdyville are doing the vast majority of the heavy lifting as far as growth of Appleton's property tax base? JE

Michael G. Koerner (Thu Apr 19 09:27:13 2007)

This Greener Greenville piece reminded me of a meeting that took place a couple of months ago hosted by the regional planning commission. One of the presenters showed a two person 'house' that was more on the scale of a baronial mansion. McMansion or other catch phrase didn't do justice to this estate with six bedrooms and all for 2 people with no children to reside. Elsewhere I have heard the desire to have a huge house on a hill surrounded by a meadow, described as Narcissistic Autonomy. This narcissistic autonomy is not about community, it is about isolation. The desire for this type of isolation has been enhanced during the last 70 years or so by an 'easy motoring' society based on cheap gas and farmers using their property as an ATM machine for retirement. This narcissistic autonomy disregards the need for community services such as snow removal, school bus pickup and emergency services harder to obtain the further out and more remote the housing location might be. Children raised out in the country with no country school, no country playgrounds, no neighborhood country store and no neighbors within play or biking distances also suffer until they too can, at age 16 or so, become part of the 'easy motoring' society themselves (maybe.) Much of the planning I have seen envisions unlimited expansion of one sort or another. And expansion is somehow equated with the notion of 'beautification' rather than mixed use zoning which would include light industry reintegrated into living environments rather than discreetly segregated from the rest of life.

Lon Ponschock (Thu Apr 19 15:25:15 2007)

Post a Reply

Print this Article

Email Article to a Friend