On Woman cuts herself, injures officer

Posted on June 3 at 4:58 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Ummmmm

Well, she is not at the punishment stage yet.

On Woman cuts herself, injures officer

Posted on June 3 at 4:25 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Did she get anything?

On Young mayor has vision for town and he’s not afraid to talk about it

Posted on April 13 at 11:10 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

Lydia, to this day I have yet to see you say one good thing about Edgerton. While it is more than apparent that you were wronged by this town in your childhood, there is no reason to relive it over and over everytime there is an article written about the city. Stop the cycle. Do your part to embrace and encourage positive change, or consider remaining mute. Your point was made long ago. You think Edgerton is destined to remain the trash it is. Your point is taken into consideration. The rest of the open-eyed public views Edgerton as an imperfect, but ever-improving city taking the steps needed to continuously build on the great foundation it has established over the years. The hate in Lydia's writings acts as a noise that covers over any meaningful message she has. When I see Lydia's name on a ballot is when I will consider her to be anything other than antagonistic noise.

On Weekend snow not expected to make flooding worse

Posted on March 27 at 11:15 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

It turns to water.

On Water, concerns keep rising

Posted on March 27 at 1:02 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

Rep_of_1, your on the right track! While reading your post I get the feeling you see what I am saying is an expensive, but necessary bullet to bite in order to come to the best solution for the macro-majority over the longest of long-run scenarios. Essentially a continuous effort over a indefinite amount of time. Sure, certain parts will have defined goals and measurable timeframes to accomplish those goals, but by indefinite I mean a timeless effort into establishing a sustainable buffer habitat. That will take time, but with a little help getting going may make for large scale volunteer projects. Like I said, the more we are able to harness the talents, brain power, investment monies, and time of the people who have an interest the lower the initial costs will be for the tax payers. There are interest groups, private investors, municipal bodies, a Lake District, business owners, vacation residents, and primary residents that can make this an important tissue if they step up. Expensive undertaking, a goal, a bullet to bite, or a gift to your grandchildren; whatever it takes to get you and your neighbor on board.

On Water, concerns keep rising

Posted on March 27 at 1:02 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

Sandman wrote: "This seasonal cycle isn't going to stop, and taxpayers shouldn't foot the repair bill year after year for flooding damage to the same homes. We could never afford to dredge a lake the size of Koshkonong, and all it would accomplish is to make it deeper anyway --additional/seasonal water volume would still add height to whatever level at which the lake is normally maintained and thereby result in the same flooding."
------------------------------
It would be expensive, but the benefits to nature, sportsman, shoreline home owners, boaters, and the greater economy would be added to the reduced taxpayer payouts for court costs and flood damage enabling us to offset those costs over time. A bit of a non-designated TIF district without the tangent tax complications that come with a TIF.

As to your point about the water being much deeper you are correct! That is the idea. You should go by Smartman rather than Sandman. The larger "bowl" if we can use that analogy, would in essence hold more water. Assuming the size of the lake does not determine the volume of water that enters it, then we can rightfully assume the added capacity would contain the same volume of water in a much smaller footprint in even the worst of conditions. The restored habitat that could replace the artificial, and badly eroded shoreline that exists now would provide even more holding capacity in the worst of floods like we saw last year. Certainly this would not eliminate all flooding, nor would it allow for land-grabbing of the new shoreline. It would create a public land that could still allow for John or Sally Landowner to have a pier if they already have one. Those details could be something that is worked out. Marina like areas with restored habitat on one side, or grouped piers could provide the balance. They are ideas for a workable solution for the greater public as opposed to fruitless head butting by the two sides. There is a solution, and there is a compromise. Whether that is realized before the key players pass away of old age is to be left up to the determination and willingness to step up by those that want something better for the majority. Not the majority of people on one side of the legal fight, but the majority of the vast group of people, species, and economies that are directly or indirectly affected by this great resource we are so lucky to have right in our own back yard.

On Water, concerns keep rising

Posted on March 26 at 4:23 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Partarican1, you are not correct. Take out the dam and you have a widened, deeper river that has an even stronger current causing more erosion. You would have a flanking body of water that still resembled more of a lake than the river it is. You would have the same damage you have now to the homes on the river, and possibly much worse due to the more focused volume and current. The economy would suffer due to property value loss, decline in tourism, as well as an increase in legal battles by property owners like you have never seen. The lake would still in essence be there, only the benefits would be reduced to all. That is the side of the DNR. That is the side of the gun clubs and waterfowl hunters. That is the side that you obviously not willing to budge so that a compromise can stop this stalemate, put their well intentioned hard heads together and create actual change that benefits more than just their individual causes. Right now the people facing floods would like to be preparing their seedlings or boats for this spring not sandbagging again.

On Water, concerns keep rising

Posted on March 26 at 11:38 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

Maybe it is time to consider dredging the lake. Expensive, but at least we could solve a few problems:

*allow the lake to hold more water

*better protect wetland areas from flooding

*restoring a shoreline buffer with natural habitat in many areas where there is currently no realistic usable residential shoreline

*find a balance of restored habitat, views, beaches, and usable dock space.

*increase tourism

*less bottoming out & propeller damage
better habitat along shoreline for spawning, nesting, hunting, and fishing.

*restored shoreline vegetation would act as a natural wave protection reducing shoreline erosion

*restored shoreline vegetation would act as a biofilter reducing or eliminating the runoff of the fertilizers, pesticides, and rainwater containing bacteria from animal waste.
-------------------------------------------------
All of this would be expensive. It would also require a balancing act that would turn the opposing sides in the court case to put their guns down in an attempt to put their vast knowledge and resources together for a cause. As it stands, both sides are attempting to win outright. Judging by their support, both sides have large numbers backing them meaning if one side wins, the other large group looses. Compromising on a undertaking as outlined above would benefit both sides. In addition, and more importantly it would benefit many more people not currently vested in the more than 50 year battle. Animals, additional tourists, children and future residents of lake and river property, flood victims of the past and future, marinas, and the greater local economy. Best of all is the realized savings to the tax paying public that funds the needed, but preventable cost every time there is a flood. The only losers will be the lawyers in the ongoing court battle unless they live or vacation here, or are skilled in drafting a formal plan of action needed to pull the various sides together.

On Woman: Give police grant money to teen center

Posted on March 17 at 5:24 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

The people of these neighborhoods do not need a place to hang out. These kids need their parents to act as teachers, disciplinarians, and role models. Get a job, pay your bills, educate your kids, and spend time with your kids so that the cycle can be broken. Have some respect for yourself before demanding respect. Then, and only then, will the rest of the community back these areas of neglect.

On Community center seeks city funding

Posted on March 17 at 5:22 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

"Proponents say a community center at the vacant Case Feed building could preserve history and revitalize the Fourth Ward and Look West neighborhoods—if the city kicks in $450,000 for restoration."
??????
"I could make a $1,000,000 if I opened a new business selling ___(FILL IN BLANK)___, but I need $450,000 to open up shop," the mans proclaims to the lender. "Have you drafted a business plan?" asks the lender. "No, but all of the people I have talked to say my business could turn the entire Fourth Ward and Look West into gilded wonderlands!"