No Brain Necessary: Trumpers in Waukesha, Wisconsin

Weekend Reading

Low-Income Workers See Biggest Drop In Paychecks
What Does The Average Rent Get You In These U.S. Cities?
Donald Trump Is Rich Because His Dad Was Rich
New Study Argues Hedge Funds Are Even Worse Scam Than We Thought
A More Accurate Measure Of Economic Output
The Stock Market Is Not The Economy
Wage Growth Continues To Be The Key To Social Security Solvency
Tax Cuts Do Little To Spur Job Growth
Waukesha Doesn't Need Lake Michigan Water
Waukesha Plans For Lake Michigan Water Raises Worries
Waukesha Request For Great Lakes Water Should Be Nixed
The Antidote To Economic Anxiety Is Better Government

Open For Business?

Golden Guernsey in Waukesha suddenly closes, sources say

The Water Is Right Here

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has been critical of the City's dealings with Waukesha over diverting Lake Michigan water for Waukesha's "needs". This is another example of the Journal's approach to economic development - Just Do It! (Nevermind The Consequences).

Oak Creek, Racine and Milwaukee - a coalition of the coastal - should join forces and lure businesses from Waukesha. If you need water that bad, it's more environmental to go where the water is than to divert the water to you. So how about forgetting about dealing with Waukesha under their demands.

Why should these naturally-advantaged locations [water] continue to subsidize and enable sprawling development, and their own decline, because of these suburban sprawlers' "needs"?

Isn't this exactly how those free-market Waukesha conservatives live their lives? Water is expensive because it's, more so, becoming a finite and localized resource. Supply and demand. What is the reasoning behind providing such water welfare to Waukesha?

Funny how such strongly held principles and world-views are so pliable when the advantage is in someone else's hands.

Just as those in Waukesha have been so helpful in promoting rail in the area. Or as they have been so helpful in employing inner-city residents with their suburban employment expansion over the past few decades.

Suddenly, sharing (socialist!) policies make good economic sense.

The Suburban Apologist & Revisionist

Pat McIlerhan is - again - defending the poor suburbs against the big, bad city. When Milwaukee wants a fair price for its water, when continued sprawl is pointed to as an environmental issue, Pat is there to label such as anti-suburban. No such counter claim (anti-city) is ever mouthed when policies - highway expansion, sprawl, autocentrism, etc. - hurt the city.

Pat writes, "Waukesha's problem is that its well water is tainted with radium, put there by God and declared unacceptable by the EPA." Hey, if that radium-laced, god-given water is just fine, Waukesha doesn't need Milwaukee's water. The EPA is obviously another liberal, overzealous regulatory body working in concert with the Democrats' plans to turn the U.S. into a communist nation. Waukesha, continue drinking your radium-laced, god-given elixir.

The idea that Milwaukee simply receiving money from the sale of water will solve all problems is juvenile and short-sighted. Sure, the extra money would help the Milwaukee budget. More money tends to help any budget. But the continued sprawl of Waukesha will hurt the region as a whole, while continuing metropolitan competition for new jobs and expansion. Until we have regional revenue sharing policies, whereby the region benefits from growth, rather than one municipality, it is a (nearly) zero sum game.

And, why must Milwaukee always be the bigger person (especially in allowing policies that primarily benefit other communities)? Where are the suburbs in supporting regional rail transit? Or anti-poverty programs? What the City wants, what might benefit a large portion of our poor residents, Pat dismisses. But anything the suburbs want, that is part of a larger natural progression. A blessing to us all which we would be fools to not support. Give me a break!

Pat then claims, "Milwaukee's revival will come not by forcing the most urban area in Waukesha County to hand over money." Yet that's exactly how the suburbs grew. By forcing city-dwellers to hand over their tax dollars to allow for highway expansion and home mortgages, after WWII, which fueled suburban growth.

He closes with the absurdity, "The region can thrive if its parts cooperate." So, Pat, tell me one thing the suburbs have wanted to cooperate on with the city? Cooperation is not a one-way street.

Growing Pains

James Rowen, at the Political Environment, has covered, in detail and with clarity, the expensive, sprawl-encouraging, Waukesha water diversion proposal. He also critiques the unthinking and misguided Journal Sentinel editorial page's support for such exurban development. Though the editorial does mention an environmental impact study, this seems more an obstacle than a true concern. There is no sense of caution for the underlying environmental issues. Growth is good, keep the sprawl train moving.

The editorial page's boosterism is surreal. They state the water diversion must be studied and done carefully. Yet, in their closing, "Growth in the region helps the entire region. And making sure Waukesha has a safe water source should be in everyone's interest." Basically, let's go through the steps, but, in the end, let's find a way to keep growing at the edges.

If only the Journal Sentinel were full of such vigor in pushing for improvements and pointing out the strengths of the City. How about editorializing for an more integrated public transportation system connecting inner-city poor with suburban job growth? What's good for the City is good for the region, too.

Encouraging enclaves of segregated growth only increases income inequality and solidifies the isolation between suburb and city.

For Further Reading:
More Suburban Shopping Lifestyle
The Suburbanization of Poverty

Extortion?

James Rowen sums up the "water war" nicely here.

Water for Work

James Rowen, at the Political Environment, raises an excellent point regarding Waukesha's discriminatory hiring practices and its want for Milwaukee water. It's one thing for Milwaukee to allow continued suburban growth through water sales, but Waukesha should at least try including the highly-concentrated jobless of Milwaukee in that growth.

Water v. Roads

Milwaukee is supposed to be conciliatory with regards to giving water to every deprived suburb, yet those same suburbs still basically have the "screw Milwaukee" attitude concerning every social, political, and/or regional issue that arises. [Hat tip to James Rowen at The Political Environment.]

I hope Milwaukee's water gets really, really expensive for the suburbs. Sorry, but I've said it before, this is our only trump card. If the City has to provide for the majority of the State's poor, pay for mass transit options for the region, and shoulder the majority of costs for similar issues, why not charge the real cost of water, and use the revenue to fund such programs?

Waukesha (as stated in a Waukesha Freeman editorial) doesn't feel the need to cooperate regionally. They have no interest in light rail. And no general interest in a regional transportation network. Although they say they are for regional cooperation...but somehow they are against regional transportation cooperation. They feel such a transportation system would only benefit Milwaukee. [Maybe the editorial board needs to realize Waukesha wouldn't exist in the first place without Milwaukee.]

All Waukesha needs are cars and buses, or so they think. They see a future of hybrid double-decker buses (no, I'm not making this up). They find light rail impractical. The Milwaukee metro area is one of only two or three in the country that does not have, or are not planning, some form of light rail. Continuing to argue against light rail is illogical...but it seems that may be what the Waukesha Freeman editorial board was aiming for in their article.

Then the editorial has the nerve to state, "Transportation experts said Wisconsin needs to implement toll roads because the state doesn’t have enough money for road repair and construction in the region. Just think, all those taxes you pay and there still isn’t enough to fix our roads." Funny, they don't mention that their sprawling development patterns, full of new road building, is why we can't afford the maintenance. We keep building more and more roads, and as more and more money goes into new construction, less is available to maintain the roads we have already.

Another uprorious editorial statement, "The reason there is negativity toward a regional transit authority is because it is a bad idea that would cost taxpayers a lot of money." As opposed to the cheap cost of gas, car insurance, road and highway building and maintenance? And, lets not forget the environmental costs involved with road building and an automobile-dependent lifestyle.

Thirsty Suburbs

A May 13 Journal-Sentinel editorial, Unwarranted, chastised Clean Wisconsin for intervening, on behalf of the environment, in Waukesha's attempt to obtain diverted water from Lake Michigan. The paper concedes Clean Wisconsin meant well, but their input was unnecessary. We don't need debate, "pressure politics," or public education when we're dealing with such a non-issue like water?

But [thinking about the bigger picture] why not - regarding these water-starved areas - make them institute growth boundaries, population or usage limits, as a prerequisite of any water diversion? Obviously mother nature never intended such intensive uses and such concentrations of people in these areas. Also, the price should be much, much higher. Water is a vital resource becoming more and more scarce for certain communities. Those located in unsustainable areas should pay the real cost of obtaining diverted water. Meaning, a huge amount, an amount that encourages conservation and development in more sustainable areas.

Water & Sprawl

An excellent post by James Rowen of the Political Environment on Waukesha's thirst for Milwaukee's water and it's (apparently) never-ending appetite to sprawl.