Walker muzzles First Amendment

[Scott Pitta]

Friday, the legislature joint finance committee added a measure, with no financial impact, that would remove control of shoreline regulations away from counties and give them to the state.

Walker likes bigger government.

Using the budget to sneak in a bill means there is no public hearing or comment.

This is typical of Walker, who has a history of limiting public comment and hearings about issues that he does not want discussed.

If you love the First Amendment, and smaller government, do not vote for Scott Walker.

[n david]

This was interesting until I read more on it. Yet another hit piece by a disgrunted delegate to the Wisconsin Conservation Congress.

I'm not even for Scott Walker, but I'd like a little honesty with threads like this.

The zoning changes were proposed by Rep. Adam Jarchow (R-Balsam Lake), who is not a member of the finance panel.

"The idea that this is some sort of sea change is a little bit of doom and gloom," Jarchow said.

Instead, he said, it gives property owners more control over their cabins and removes disincentives for making upgrades. An attorney, he said he has represented property owners in disputes with counties over building projects.

All of the committee's work must be approved by the GOP-controlled Assembly and Senate and signed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

This isn't a Walker proposal. Hasn't even been approved by the Assembly or Senate yet, much less signed into law by Walker!

On May 29, the Republican-controlled finance panel tucked a motion into the 2015-'16 state budget that would bar counties from imposing stiffer zoning requirements along shorelines than those in state law.

This is pretty important to know, right?

Instead of posting partisan lies and claiming WALKER is muzzling the First Amendment and WALKER is for bigger government, why not just post the truth of the issue?

I know, the truth of the issue is less sexy for you. The truth of the issue is there are zoning requirements already in state law and the counties routinely go over what the state law requires. So to give property owners some breathing room, they're telling the counties that the counties must abide by state law, and taking away any option to override it.

In Waukesha County, officials have so far not wanted to add more restrictive limits, according to Dale Shaver, director of parks and land use. But he said the county — with some of the most developed lakes in the state — is planning to write new zoning regulations later this year. The finance panel has limited what the county could do, he said.

Just in time apparently.

Republicans gave Democrats on the finance panel an hour or so of advance warning before zoning was debated with other controversial natural resources issues, such as funding for land purchases and cutting DNR science staff.

So much for muzzling the First Amendment. This was debated between both parties.

The thread title is not just misleading, it's a complete lie.

Source Link

[Scott Pitta]

The state does not want counties to exceed the state standard. It is not the first time local control fought with the state over regulations.

If this were a stand alone bill, there would be public hearings. As a part of the budget, there are no public hearings.

This new item was placed into the budget Friday. There are no fiscal implications for this shoreline control issue. Why is it put into a budget ? To avoid public hearings.

Walker is the governor. If he did not want it in the bill, he would not have permitted it to be in it.

Several naturalist organizations, the tribes and environmentalists have joined together to fight this addition and all for the same two reasons. Control and public hearings.

Senator Olsons office staff informed me that many calls have come in over this very issue.

So, no, it is not one man complaining. It is one society resisting a fool.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

The state does not want counties to exceed the state standard. It is not the first time local control fought with the state over regulations.

And this is a problem, how/why? If there is a set state standard, why should a county be allowed to exceed the set state standard?

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

If this were a stand alone bill, there would be public hearings. As a part of the budget, there are no public hearings.

But there WAS debate over the issue. Anyone legislator against it had an opportunity to present their argument. Ergo, the First Amendment was not muzzled as claimed.

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

This new item was placed into the budget Friday. There are no fiscal implications for this shoreline control issue. Why is it put into a budget ? To avoid public hearings.

Right, it's all politics. Republicans sneak anti-abortion language into bills and Democrats sneak regulations into bills all the time. Has no bearing on the issue at hand, but it's how politics works.

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Walker is the governor. If he did not want it in the bill, he would not have permitted it to be in it.

Walker is the governor, not dictator. You're trying so hard to make this some scandal against Walker, but the answer is right there. It's not what you want, since it means Walker wasn't involved in this being added to the Budget, but it's there:

An attorney, he said he has represented property owners in disputes with counties over building projects.

Rep. Adam Jarchow was the one who proposed it. He had experience as an attorney fighting against counties whose regulation exceeded what the state had on the books. His previous experience is what caused him to propose the measure, not a call from Walker's office.

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Several naturalist organizations, the tribes and environmentalists have joined together to fight this addition and all for the same two reasons. Control and public hearings.

Let me guess, the Wisconsin Conservation Congress is against it, right?

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Senator Olsons office staff informed me that many calls have come in over this very issue.

So, no, it is not one man complaining. It is one society resisting a fool

It's not one society, it's a group of environmentalists. I doubt they represent the feelings of the majority of property owners affected by these regulations.

What happened to property rights? Why should some environmental wacko be given control over what a property owner can do with their property -- over what the state has already regulated?

The "fool," Rep Jarchow is standing up for property rights. I'm for property rights.

[Carl]

Thanks n David for explaining what is happening in my state!

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Carl

Thanks n David for explaining what is happening in my state!

How many of us are from, or living in WI???

[Scott Pitta]

I live in the Dells.

Those of us who do not live in Madison do not like being pushed around by politicians who cater to out of state interests at our expense.

I remember needing to explain the impact of the iron mine in Ashland County to my reps. They had never been up north and had no concept of what they were voting on.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

I live in the Dells.

Those of us who do not live in Madison do not like being pushed around by politicians who cater to out of state interests at our expense.

How is streamlining regulations and protecting property owners catering to out of state interests?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Carl

Thanks n David for explaining what is happening in my state!

Had to help the disgruntled delegate. Obviously he didn't know what it was about, since he claimed Walker was muzzling the First Amendment.

Also, the internet allows world wide viewing of state's measures and bills, so unlike a couple decades ago, one doesn't have to live in a state to know what's going on in the state.

[Scott Pitta]

Stand alone bills have public hearings. Additions to the budget do not. Hence, once again, public comment is muzzled.

Walker's modus operandi is to cater to outside money at our expense. If Walker did not want this in the bill, he would say so.

Counties want shoreline regulations that are important to them. Under the new rule, they cannot exceed the minimal state regulations.

Walker loves central control. This is but more power grabbing by Madison.

I keep in contact with environmental groups and naturalists groups. I do my homework before posting something. My senator did not contest my view or tell me my assessment was incorrect.