May 2018 Cady Plan Commission Meeting

The Cady Plan Commission (P.C.) held their meeting last night to discuss the new draft of their zoning ordinance, Title 13. There were 10 Cady residents in attendance (besides those on the Plan Commission and the Town Clerk), all of which are included as recipients of this email. So please, if any of the following information is inaccurate, let me know right away and I will be glad to make the necessary corrections. However, some of what I have to say are purely based on my perceptions and are simply my opinions.

The meeting began on time, but immediately, the P.C. Chairman, Ken Greiber, took what I would call an adversarial posture by stating that this is the time for public comments, and once the public comments portion of the meeting was over, there would be no more public comment allowed because "you are here to listen and we are here to discuss" (this is a quote to the best of my memory). It was clear to me that the P.C. was willing to tolerate our presence because they had to, not because they were interested in what we might have to say.

The first resident to speak brought up a rather long list of concerns regarding the proposed ordinance. Her primary concern was in regards to the apparent divergence from the town's Comprehensive Plan which emphasizes the promotion of agricultural activities in Cady. She pointed out that the proposed zoning ordinance list of "permitted uses" is much shorter than the list of "conditional uses", especially as they relate to agricultural uses.

There were questions and concerns from several other town residents as well regarding

• Accessory Dwellings
• Burden of obtaining "conditional use" permits, including long timeframes
• Additional town bureaucracy in the addition of a Zoning Administrator (1) and Appeals Board (5)
• Limits on garage sales (2 per year) - is this really a problem in Cady?
• "Animal Units" not defined in the codes
• All non-commercial lots are planned to be zoned "R-1 Rural Residential" without input from property owners
• Burden of Proof on property owners to prove non-compliances pre-existed the ordinance
• How non-compliances are going to be investigated, policed, and enforced

It was suggested to the P.C. board that perhaps the land owners might have the opportunity to choose for themselves which zoning district their property would be subjected to, rather than just automatically zoning everyone to R-1 Residential and then requiring them to go through the burden and expense of having their property re-zoned later. They are considering their options for how to communicate to the land owners that they can submit a request to have their property subjected to a particular zoning district before the ordinance and map are adopted by the town. We'll have to see what they ultimately decide to do.

Following public comment, which lasted for approximately 35 minutes, the P.C. members discussed the ordinance among themselves. The topics of their discussion were primarily limited to the following:

• Talk to Eric Anderson of West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (WCWRPC) regarding incorporating some of the concerns of the town residents
• They believed that they could still vote to adopt the ordinance even though it may not be in it's final form yet
• If residents wanted to choose their zoning district, the deadline would have to be at the Public Hearing
• They believe that they have to work towards a timeline of having the Public Hearing announcement posted in time to have the hearing by June 21.
• They believe that they are ready to recommend to the Town Board that the ordinance be formally adopted.

A motion was made by Bob Klanderman to approve the ordinance, subject to the discussed planned changes (which there is no way of knowing what the P.C. notes say regarding these changes), and seconded by Brian Wang. Motion passed.

A motion was made by Bob Klanderman to recommend to the Town Board that the ordinance, subject to the discussed planned changes, be adopted after the public hearing. Motion passed and the meeting was adjourned.

After the meeting was adjourned, one of the Cady residents respectfully expressed a great deal of concern that the P.C. thought that it was acceptable to approve the ordinance and recommend that the board adopt it before the July Town Board meeting, even though it is not yet completed and the Cady property owners have not even had a chance to read it and comment on it. It was pointed out that they were continuing with their past behaviors of trying to force this through the system without taking the necessary time and actions to ensure that it was done right, with the appropriate involvement of the people of Cady. Ken Greiber was noticeably frustrated and said "What is the right way?" as if this was the only way to do it.

If things proceed according to the P.C.'s wishes, there will be a Public Hearing around June 21, 2018 with a board meeting following in which the proposed zoning code will be adopted. After this, it will have to go to the County for review and approval.

I urge all Cady residents to review this new draft zoning ordinance and the corresponding map. Consider the restrictions that the Plan Commission is expecting you to live under and the amount of land-use control that you would be surrendering to the town government. If you have questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact your public officials who are responsible for this ordinance. Their names and phone numbers are listed below for your convenience.

CADY PLAN COMMISSION:

Chairman:  Ken Greiber  715-772-4570
Mike Fitzjarrell  715-772-3259
Bob Klanderman  715-698-2384

Mike Ellefson  715-772-4586

Brain Wang  715-772-3186

CADY TOWN BOARD:

Chairman:  Mike Tully  715-772 4578
Supervisor: Bob Klanderman  715-698-2384
Supervisor:  Jim Mikla – 715-556-8816

If you are interested in helping to resist this ordinance, whether you want to change it or abolish it, please email me or leave a comment below. If you stand with us, we will stand with you.

"Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." - John Adams

St. Croix County Referendum - Change the 1st Amendment? NO WAY!

Regarding the St. Croix County Referendum on the April 03 ballot, it is the position of the Cady Liberty Caucus that if anyone wishes to effectively get the money out of politics, what must first be done is to significantly reduce the power of government to affect businesses. Take that power out of government and there will no longer be any influence for businesses to purchase, and less opportunity for corruption.

Therefore, a constitutional amendment is really not needed. What is needed is for the federal government to operate within the enumerated powers already established by the constitution.



The referendum is as follows:

“Shall the County of St Croix adopt the following resolution? RESOLVED, that “We the People” of the County of St Croix, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights ─ not corporations, unions, nonprofits or other artificial entities, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.”

There is an excellent editorial in the Hudson Star Observer on this referendum "Viewpoint: We don't need a First Amendment change".

The wording of the referendum itself shows the author's ignorance of our system of government. It says "RESOLVED, that “We the People” of the County of St Croix, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending." Someone should have stayed awake in civics class. Then, they would know that Section 4 of the US Constitution states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." A "democracy", which is a tyranny of the majority over the minority, was soundly rejected by the founding fathers in favor of a representative republic.

The Cady Liberty Caucus is recommending a "NO" vote on this St. Croix County Referendum.

Bill Reusch for St. Croix Board of Supervisors - Dist. 19

The Spring Election is on April 3, and there are several important elections and referendums on the ballot that could impact life, liberty, and property in the Town of Cady.

First of all, there is the Sr. Croix County Board of Supervisors. The Cady Liberty Caucus is endorsing Bill Reusch for this seat against the incumbent, William Peavey.

William Peavey's voting record is available here: William Peavey Votes

• Has a history of approving budget increases
• Voted for the purchase of land in Baldwin for new county maintenance facility
• Supports spending 10s of millions of dollars on bicycle/pedestrian trail
• Supports the county wide mass transit planning/study

I don't know where William Peavey stands on the discussion of making St. Croix county a sanctuary county or on the "living wage" idea, but it is clear that he is more interested in spending other people's money than he is in preserving liberty and personal property.

The Cady Liberty Caucus encourages you to go and vote for Bill Reusch on April 3, 2018.

Wisconsin Supreme Court - 2018 Primary Election February, 20, 2018

There is another election coming up next week. This time it is a primary election for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Sitting Justice Michael Gableman did not file to seek re-election. Three candidates have filed to run for the seat being vacated by Justice Gableman. All three candidates will be on the ballot on Tuesday's primary, and the two candidates who receive the most votes will advance to the general election which will be held on April 3, 2018.

Rebecca Dallet

· Dallet was first elected to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2008 and won re-election in 2014. As of the 2018 election, she still holds the seat. Dallet's previous experience includes 11 years as a prosecutor in the offices of the Milwaukee County District Attorney and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin as well as three years spent teaching law at Marquette University.

· In her June 2017 announcement speech, Dallet pointed to her past experience: "I have the right experience to return independence and balance to what has become an increasingly partisan Supreme Court." Dallet's campaign website argues that she has "spent my career, first as a prosecutor, and now as a judge, working to make our community safer" and identifies the economy, crime, healthcare, and criminal justice law as areas of dissatisfaction, arguing that Dallet is "prepared to fight and represent our values on day one."

· Dallet has received endorsements from former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler, former Gov. Tony Earl (D), Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge Lisa Stark, and Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm (D).

· Watch interview with Rebecca Dallet on Wisconsin Eye

· Stated that a police search of a black man was acceptable because Diggins was leaning against the wall for five minutes “with no real obvious purpose for being there.” She sentenced him to two years in prison and two years of extended supervision.

The District 1 Court of Appeals unanimously threw out the ruling in 2013, finding prosecutors’ claims that there was reasonable suspicion of drug dealing “beyond thin.”

“More than mere presence (i.e. hanging out) in a public place is required for reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot,” Judge Joan Kessler wrote for the court.

Michael Screnock

· Screnock was first appointed to the Sauk County Circuit Court by Gov. Scott Walker (R) in 2015 and was elected to a full term in 2016. Screnock's previous experience includes time spent in private practice and, prior to earning his law degree, in municipal management.

· In his June 2017 announcement speech, Screnock referred to his stance on the role of the judiciary: "I share ... the belief that it is the role of a judge to say what the law is and not what it should be...Judges must respect the different roles of the court and Legislature and should not legislate from the bench." Screnock's campaign website argues that his "experience as a judge adds to the experience I gained as a local government official and an attorney, and uniquely prepares me for service on our state’s highest court." Screnock describes his judicial philosophy as a belief that "the role of a judge or justice is to interpret and apply the law, not rewrite the law" and that it is "important that the judicial branch serve as the stable branch of our government."

· Screnock has received endorsements from Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices Daniel Kelly, Michael Gableman, and Rebecca Bradley, as well as former Justices David Prosser and Jon Wilcox

· Watch interview with Michael Screnock on Wisconsin Eye

· Michael Screnock was arrested and ticketed for trespassing and obstructing officers twice in 1989 when he participated in large protests at a Madison abortion clinic. He reached plea deals that dropped the obstructing citations and required him to perform community service for the trespassing charges, according to Screnock and public records.

“In the context of my life, it’s not something I’ve ever regretted doing,” Screnock said.

Tim Burns

· An attorney with experience in insurance-related law, Burns has not previously run for elected office.

· In his May 2017 announcement speech, Burns referred to dissatisfaction with the Wisconsin Supreme Court as a factor motivating his run: "For the past 40 years, I've watched special interests chip away at the impartiality of our courts and it has got to stop."[6] Burns' campaign website argues that "this race isn't about Tim, it's about you and your rights" and identifies Burns' priorities if elected as voting policy, environmental regulations, and business regulations.[7]

· Burns has received endorsements from Bernie Sanders-aligned group Our Revolution, former Supreme Court candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg, and Rep. Mark Pocan (D).

· Watch interview with Tim Burns on Wisconsin Eye

· Burns — who is advertising that he's a Democrat in the officially nonpartisan race — thinks the state’s high court has titled its decisions to corporations instead of the average person.

This isn’t normal. Typically, court candidates avoid overtly stating their political affiliation or directly talking about issues that might come before them as justices — although they often provide hints about their leanings.

Please review all three candidates and choose the one that is most likely to serve in a manner that ensures that the state constitution is supported and defended. The candidate that values justice for all and will work to see that the natural rights of Wisconsin's resident's life, liberty, and property are protected equally and diligently.

We hope to see you at the polls.

Wisconsin Homeowner's Bill of Rights

Wisconsin Assembly District 28 Rep Adam Jarchow, and candidate for State Senate District 10, was the author of this bill that restores some justice to the Murr family, and adds some needed protections to other Wisconsin property owners.

Walker signature sweeps away SCOTUS ruling

 

WI Senate District 10 - Special Election 2017

Hello Cady Residents,

As you may or may not already know, Governor Scott Walker has appointed Sheila Harsdorf, our elected District 10 State Senator, to a to the office of secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. The governor has called for a primary election to take place Tuesday, December 19 with a special election taking place on Tuesday, January 16 to fill the vacancy.

The December 19th primary is only two weeks away and there are two Republicans and three Democrats running to be on their respective party ballots in the January 16 special election.

Republicans:

• Shannon Zimmerman of River Falls - Assembly District 30 Representative
• Adam Jarchow of Balsam Lake - Assembly District 28 Representative

Democrats:

• Rueben Herfindahl of River Falls - CEO of Digital Brigade
• Patty Schachtner of Somerset - St. Croix County Medical Examiner
• John Calabrese of Glenwood City - Cabinet Maker at Big River Woodworks

Libertarian

• Brian Corriea of Wilson - Unknown

As is the case many times with these local elections, there is not a lot of information readily available for each of these candidates. However, the Republican candidates are sitting Wisconsin State Asssemblymen, and will have a voting record associated with their service. You can see these records by following the links next to their names above.

Additionally, there will be a debate tonight at 10PM on "The West Side with Rich Kremer" on Wisconsin Public Radio. You can also listen to, or download the debate from their website.

The Democrats will hold their debate on Wisconsin Public Radio on December 14.

Please conduct your research and be sure to come to the polls on December 19. The Cady Liberty Caucus tries to provide comprehensive and accurate information on candidates that are running for public office in our area, and will only support candidates that are expected to hold to the principles of limited government for the protection of life, liberty and property.

Wisconsin will lead a property rights revolution... Really?

According to an article in the Lakeland Times by Rep. Adam Jarchow and Sen. Tom Tiffany, "Wisconsin will lead a property rights revolution". The article discusses the recent Murr v Wisconsin case in which the Murr family, who purchased some land on the lower St. Croix River, were prevented from selling one parcel of that land in order to make improvements on another parcel. The state of Wisconsin fought them through the court systems all the way up to the US Supreme Court, where the liberals on the court decided in favor of the state of Wisconsin that the Murrs were not entitled to use their property as they wished, nor would they be compensated for the loss of value that resulted from the state appropriation of control of said property.

In that decision, the four reliable liberal members of the Court, plus Justice Anthony Kennedy held that depriving the Murr family of the use or ability to sell an entire parcel of land did not constitute a compensable taking.

These state legislators who wrote the article are now promising to lead a property rights revolution beginning in the state of Wisconsin.

Today (July 21), we are proud to announce we will introduce legislation we call the Homeowners' Bill of Rights. This legislation will address a number of issues, chief among them, will be to reel in the state and local regulations that impacted the Murr family and others like them. Our bills will grandfather substandard lots and prohibit the deemed merger of lots. Our proposal will ensure property owners can repair and maintain existing structures. It includes eminent domain and regulatory takings reform. It will allow property owners to utilize inverse condemnation. This legal process allows property owners to receive compensation if a government regulation deprives the owner of a significant use of their property. In addition, our bills contain a number of other common-sense property rights reforms.

This all sounds very wonderful, but it was the state of Wisconsin who fought the Murr family in the first place. Do we actually need new legislation to prevent the state from abusing her constituents in the first place? Would it not be a good start for the state to just stop depriving families like the Murrs of the free use of their property BEFORE it reaches the level of the US Supreme Court? Pardon my skepticism, but I think I'll refrain from holding my breath on this lofty promise until I see some changes in behavior from state agencies that think that they have some divine right to take control of property that belongs to the individual taxpayers of the state.