The Forum

Registration papers on the Wisconsin State Elections Board website indicate that Sheldon Wasserman will run against Alberta Darling in the November, 2008 election cycle.



One registrant, Sandra Pasch of Whitefish Bay has signed up to run for Wasserman’s soon to be vacated seat.

Comments

1. "Way to go Sheldon. That's great news. He gets our vote!!"
- Kelly Knoke, 8/17/07

News coverage in Shorewood hit rock bottom this week. This past week, there were literally 0 stories about Shorewood in either the print or online versions of NOW. The only things added to NOW this week were two stories about athletics in other North Shore communities, a fashion blog, a feature letting you locate area sex offenders, and a press release announcing the sex offender locator tool.

Some might conclude that the absence of coverage means nothing is going on in Shorewood. So I checked around to see what a reporter might have covered, had s/he covered Shorewood this week. Here are some headlines you might have seen, if any reporter had been paying attention.

1. Streetscaping begins on Oakland Avenue
2. National night out a big success
3. Momentum slows for Shorewood Wi Fi network
4. Records show athletic field maintenance included in previous referendum
5. Fundraising underway for Atwater Beach renovation
6. Capitol Drive rebuilding to begin in Fall 2007
7. Neighbor dispute over trampolines taken to Village Board
8. Historic UWM Chancellor's house up for sale

I am sure there are other stories as well. The point is, there are things going on in Shorewood to cover. It has been brought to my attention that a number of North Shore notables have been kicking around the idea of starting an alternative news source to counter the continuously declining quality and quantity of what we are getting through the Journal Sentinel and CNI combination.


Comments

1. I agree 110%
- John Ackeret, 8/16/07

2. Hi. Although we'd like to think the media is looking for news, the reality is that the news typically comes to the media via press releases, phone calls, e-mails, personal contacts. If we want Shorewood in the news more, we need to market ourselves to the media.
- Katrina, 8/19/07

I received a reader comment on the trampoline issue, questioning who requested the trampoline ordinance in the first place. Because the person who requested the ordinance commented at the Village Board meeting, her identity is a matter of public record, and will be recorded in the official minutes of the meeting. As such, I believe it is fair game to report.

The person who brought this issue to the board was Barb Caprile, the Marketing Director for the Shorewood Business Improvement District.

-------------------------
Steven, can you take one more comment about the trampoline issue before you bounce it from your blog? f what the trampoline owner suggested in her letter is true, I think there's still an issue to explore. Shouldn't someone look into whether or not the person making the complaint got an unfair advantage from a relationship with the village or the board?

It's just not good for a community to let people try to use this kind of influence to retaliate against neighbors. If what the trampoline owner said is true, isn't it a little funny that someone who markets our mostly friendly village took such an unpleasant approach to life in the community? If you're wondering why many people choose not to leave their names on this board, maybe it's because they don't want someone who disagrees to try to write an ordinance against their backyard grill! P.S., I agree with the person who said "What a waste."
- Shorewood blog reader, 8/9/07
--------------------------

At Monday's Village Board meeting, a group of residents complained of houses in their neighborhood falling into serious disrepair and being used as party houses. Although I arrived late at the meeting, and did not get the exact addresses, the houses mentioned in their complaints were located in the area of the 3800 and 3900 blocks of Farwell, Prospect, and Maryland.

The residents went through a litany of complaints about the houses, including exceeding residency restrictions, frequent raucous parties, constant noise from the parties, party goers moving from party to party up and down the alleyways, trash strewn in the front and in the rear of the house, beer cans, cigarette butts and used condoms in the yards and alleyways, discarded furniture and mattresses, materials from incomplete renovation projects being left out for years at a time, sagging roofs and walls, overgrown yards with 4 and 5 foot high weeds, couples having sex in parked cars, drug use, and disruptive and menacing late night visitors.

The owners of these blighted properties were described as being mostly small scale absentee landlords rather than owner-occupiers or larger management companies. Residents of these properties appear to be predominantly students, though with a smaller mix of non-students. One property was described as a "boarding house," where many individuals had keys and would come and go freely.

The group of residents mentioned various steps they had taken to try to counter the growing problem, but complained of a lack of coordination of responses from the various bodies of Village Government. They advocated a coordinated response of large citations from the police, fines from the DPW for discarded waste, stronger ordinances from the Village Board, and more effective enforcement of the current nuisance ordinance.

Because the item was not on the published agenda of the Village Board, discussion and response from board members was limited. However, several trustees discussed putting this issue on the agenda for a future meeting. This would allow for a more comprehensive discussion as well as possible actions, since the Board is only able to act on items that are on the published agenda.

The trampoline ordinance was dropped today at the committee level. The Judiciary Personnel & Licensing Committee unanimously recommended that the full Village Board take no action on the ordinace.

Each of the committee members stated different reasons for rejecting the ordinance. Trustees Michael Phinney, Dawn Anderson, and Jeff Hanewall make up the Judiciary Personnel & Licensing Committee.

Comments

1. What a waste. As the disturbed resident finally made herself very clear, she said, "I don't want a trampoline next to my fence. I don't want a trampoline under my window." Note - the summation didn't mention safety. It was about how she'd like a bigger yard, or for her neighbors to have a bigger yard. Well, she lives in Shorewood and there are a lot of great things about Shorewood but the distance between the houses isn't that great. It's usually about 20 feet or so.

The people here are great. Bringing this crazy issue to the Board wasn't great. Talking to her neighbors - that would have been really great. Next time, before doing external research on an "issue", let's look at ourselves and see if this is one strange incident (non-communicant resident) or if it is an issue that is spread village wide. What a waste.
- Fellow Trampoline Owner, 8/7/07

2. It's too bad some people can't just walk over to their neighbor's house and say, "Hi, I'm sure you don't realize, but I'm being bothered by... and I was wondering if you have any ideas on how we can find a solution together?" Why run to the government to solve the problem? Then again, I don't like the other poster's insinuation that the Village Board shouldn't bother to get outside information when making decisions, as if everyone here knows all things at all times. Maybe if we took a look at what other villages do, and why, more often we'd be less likely to come up with silly ordinances that go too far in serving someone's persnicketiness and less likely to make expensive or dangerous mistakes because no one bothered to do any research.
- Shorewood Person, 8/8/07

3. Another of the great things about Shorewood is the absence of Homeowners Associations making arbritary rules about what we can have or do on our own property. Banning trampolines would be the slippery slope towards this. I am personally neutral on the subject of trampolines but strongly in favor of the freedom to bounce at will on one's own property. Thus I applaud the Village Board's decision.
- Shorewood Resident, 8/8/07

From Steve: Out of pure curiosity I have to ask, why do commenters rarely include their names? I can tell they are different people by the IP addresses attached to each comment, and I can tell when the same person leaves a series of comments. But I do often wonder who they are. Any thoughts on why people generally do not leave their names?

I receive this letter from Lisa Erdman, whose trampoline apparently prompted the trampoline ban ordinance.

------------------------
To: Steve Koczela
From: Lisa Erdman
Date: 8/3/07

It my trampoline that is in question, so I feel it is very important to respond to the ridiculous level this issue has come to.

My neighbor whom has an issue with the trampoline never spoke to me about the concerns prior to the offical notice from the village of Shorewood. We have no prior negative history. It offends me that this issue could not have been dealt with between the two of us. I still extend the offer to her to call me if the children are to noisey in the yard and she is trying "to nap in the afternoon."

You are correct the issue at hand is not a safey issue. The trampoline has a net around, is 3 feet from the fence, and 3 feet from there house. Our insurance automatically covered the trampoline under play ground equiptment, the same as a swing set. It is a fact that if trampolines damage other peoples property and many claims are made insurance would exclude or charge more for covering them.

At the last board meeting the argument was that the 18 foot trampoline could blow over and damage our neighbors home. I can not find a single case of this ever happening. As far as I'm concerned there are many trees in our neighbors yards that could fall on our house, the point you can't start making rules for what if's in life.

Shorewood is a child friendly community. I think it is my disgression for whether a trampoline is safe for my family, not the village board. There is another meeting August 6th regarding this issue, I encourage anyone interested to attend. At the last meeting an ordinance was already written and if we hadn't attended the meeting this ordinace would have been placed because of one couples complaints. Without notifying anyone else in the community. If this trampoline is taken down we are going to put a swing set in it's place. So I have a feeling this isn't the last you'll hear from me.

I would also like to address the 'privacy issue' that trampolines supposedly present. Under the current ordinace the trampoline must be 10 feet from all structures. Guess what. We live in the city and 10 houses can see in my back yard from there up stairs porches. Creating a community that families can work together to fix issues is the answer. The trampoline in question is NOT in front of the bedroom window nor any of the neighbors home. It is at the rear of the house 5 feet back and 3 feet from there fence.

I urge the complaintant who has taken it to such extremes to talk to me about the issue. We have a very close neighborhood, no one knows the complaining couple, good or bad. However I would like to point out the close relationship they have to the board, she does much of the marketing for the village of Shorewood.

I feel this is an ordinance written for one resident whose complaint is not safety it is the noise of children playing in the yard in the afternoon. So I encourage them to speak to me and come to a conclusion rather than involve the entire city. With a trampoline or not there will be children playing in my yard. Lets not make all the children in Shorewood lose a healthy and fun way to enjoy the summer because of your inability to compromise with us.

- Lisa Erdman, 8/3/07
---------------------------