New analysis give some of us pause to think about how policy is actually set here in our village.
Who is responsible for putting it all together, who gives it direction and who is responsible when it all falls apart like the Sunrise project?
Are any of our elected officials responsible, individually and collectively? When they do something by consensus doesn't that make them all responsible? And if they are wrong, then what do we do with all of them?
Do we actually observe that the Sunrise project is not really rising and roll over and go back to sleep?
Policy is set and people seem to be working based on that policy, but where is it taking us? Are candidates for “powerful” positions in local government responsible to anyone after they are elected to office? Are they only responsible to themselves? Then, if that is the case, what is their purpose?
What about the underlying election rhetoric, the notion that our property taxes will be reduced and our policies are aimed toward that principle goal? When has their consensus produced a tax reduction during their time in office?
It doesn't seem that in the evolution of our community here in Shorewood over the past three or more decades that our taxes have been reduced. Does this mean that all policy based on reducing our taxes has failed?
It does seem that way.
Now on another question:
Should we try to increase our school enrollment for the purpose of reducing our taxes or is our purpose, our policy of increasing enrollment, in some way to improve the education of children?
I believe the improvement of education, the expansion of knowledge and of our knowledge base is more important than the expansion of the tax base?
It seems that converting duplexes into single family units to attract young people with children to Shorewood is falsely based, especially when we now learn that rental properties and duplexes have also been attracting young people with children. (See Steve Koczela's new analyses).
One of our former trustees seemed more interested in removing rental property and duplexes than improving the education of young children.
Still the larger question, as to whether we improve education by attracting more children has not been answered.
So how can we make policy based on any of these premises? Do we make policy simply on faith? Faith in what?
Our policy makers had faith in the rising sun project but it didn't rise. Are we going to just let this project get out our hands now and fall apart? Are will simply going to ignore this event? Now what do we do?
Some important questions need to be asked about where we go from here, so that we can set wiser policy based on real knowledge and on new events.
But then let's discuss these questions openly and publicly, not on the faith in one's own prejudices, so that we can base our new policies on knowledge that reflects real community needs.