West Bend Common Council Approves Loan to Bring Delta Defense to West Bend
Here’s the part of the West Bend Common Council meeting tonight where they approved a loan of $167,000 to Delta Defense LLC. There’s some good information on the business, the jobs they are bringing, the average wages, the ROI for the city, and whatnot. There’s also a funny incident of a lefty teacher interrupting the meeting and being removed.
Nice work, council.
Now THAT’S some funny stuff. And I’d be remiss not to mention that lady who vowed a while back in that editorial, never to visit the library again after they decided to allow CC. She will never drive down this block again. Evil gun district. Thanks for posting this Owen. And thanks to our Mayor and our Common Council. West Bend is getting healthier and stronger on your watch.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 0812 hrs
I’m actually critical of this loan—government picking and choosing winners. Loans of this type were a disaster for Men. Falls.
The lefty teacher was irritating, but I thought the Common Council did, unfairly, cut her off.
Even on very contested issues, I like to see everyone have their chance to speak their point. That’s at least the policy I live by.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 0914 hrs
Sorry, but I disagree. It wasn’t a public hearing. She was told it wasn’t a public hearing. They’re not required to have a public hearing. She was told she would have a chance to speak her mind at a future public hearing.
So sit down, shut up…or leave!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1007 hrs
So sit down, shut up…or leave!
I don’t consider that good government.
As a member of Village Board, I think its important to let citizens speak, even if the agenda item is not scheduled for a public hearing. I constantly insist those that want to address a topic, are allowed to do so.
The idea that a citizen can only address the full council at a public hearing, especially when the government hides behind the fact they do not have to have a hearing because state law does not force them to….is absurd.
Good government here would have been, if you don’t want to take comments here, schedule a public hearing, even if its not required.
That is the decent thing to do.
Let people get their concerns out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1014 hrs
This is a perfect use for the funds set aside for economic development in West Bend. Not only will the city be getting the money back, it will bring good paying jobs to the city, create 9 NEW jobs in the city and put a building that is currently producing no property taxes, back on the tax rolls. The loan is not for the business, it is for the acquistion of a property that would otherise put another 20,000+ square feet to sit empty downtown. This is a great example of how West Bend is being creative by using all the tools in our toolbox to show that we are open and willing to accept businesses who want to be here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1031 hrs
Adam,
Is this a risk venture? Naturally, it is.
It sounds good, unless, the business goes out of business.
I hope it works, and does not turn out to be another government boondoggle.
The question is: why can’t this business get private financing like everyone else?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1043 hrs
I don’t consider that good government.
Please don’t take this the wrong way Kevin, but village boards are NOTORIOUS for doing this.
Under the Open Meetings Law you can’t allow a bunch of people on one side of an issue to make their case to the government, when the people on the other side are sitting at home, blissfully unaware that they should have been at this meeting, which was allowed to morph into a public hearing.
So often what seems the “decent” thing to do isn’t the legal thing to do, and in this case wouldn’t have been the fair thing to do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1047 hrs
Under the Open Meetings Law you can’t allow a bunch of people on one side of an issue to make their case to the government,
If the item is on agenda, yes you can.
If item is NOT on agenda, you cannot address, comment, or take action if a lot of people take advantage of public comment section at end of meeting. In that context, you are correct.
If the item was noticed on agenda, and you fail to show up and you feel government made wrong decision, that is your fault. The solution is not to stifle input for the people that took time to attend vs. the people that sat at home.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1054 hrs
I agree with Duke and PP. This wasn’t a meeting with public input and wasn’t advertised as such. If it was, perhaps someone like me who supports the venture would have intended. Since it wasn’t, I didn’t. It would have been bad governance to let the lady - and possibly others - say their piece when I was told there wouldn’t be an opportunity to do so. The Mayor handled it perfectly.
As for the issue itself, I agree with Adam. This was an appropriate use of business development funds. The reason programs like this fail so often is because they are poorly managed and/or the council just gives risky loans to their buddies and leaves the taxpayers holding the bad. In this case, we’re talking about a small company that is growing very quickly in an industry that looks like it will continue to strengthen even in a bad economy. It looks like a pretty safe bet that benefits West Bend in a number of ways (tax base, jobs, hotel business, etc.).
Posted by Owen on January 31, 2013 at 1058 hrs
“attended” not “intended” ugh
Posted by Owen on January 31, 2013 at 1059 hrs
In this case, we’re talking about a small company that is growing very quickly in an industry that looks like it will continue to strengthen even in a bad economy.
If this is correct, why can’t the company get private financing?
If the company can get private financing, is public financing needed?
I’m fascinated by “economic” development loans, aide, and grants. Usually, economic development money is because it’s too risky of a loan/project for private sector to fund.
(I guess I want to know when Washington County will let other owners in on the pork…I mean “economic development”.)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1107 hrs
Is this a risk venture? Naturally, it is.
With anything involving money there is always an element of risk. It is all in the mitigation and management of risk that makes programs like this successful. With a financial background, I would not gamble with taxpayer money, and this was no exception.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1125 hrs
I admire Kevin’s consistency in questioning any government picking of winners and losers.
It’s odd to to see some defend this ( I have no issue with filling the building that might indeed go empty but hey, I am lefty )
But the question that begs to be asked is if the support comes from Owen and others comes specifically because of what that business does .
What if the business were dedicated to information about and use of Clocks, not Glocks.? Would you be such full throated supporters of this?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1322 hrs
If it was a profitable, growing business that would bring jobs and tax revenue to West Bend? Yes. If you have one in mind, let’s get it in front of the city. There’s still money in the pool that’s available for this kind of incentive.
As I said before, I don’t mind these kind of economic development programs as long as the risks they take with taxpayer money is reasonable and justifiable. They’ll get it wrong from time to time, but that’s why it’s called risk.
Posted by Owen on January 31, 2013 at 1354 hrs
As I said before, I don’t mind these kind of economic development programs as long as the risks they take with taxpayer money is reasonable and justifiable. They’ll get it wrong from time to time, but that’s why it’s called risk
Isn’t this what a bank does?
If a bank would not do it, is it “reasonable and justifiable”?
That’s the part that fascinates me.
I guess I’m going to have to look into this economic development stuff. Government economic development pork has really become part of the marketplace and the rest of us business owners look like suckers for not taking advantage when possible.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1402 hrs
I am all for any business coming on board not to mention the city gaining more jobs. lets just be sure these members sitting on the economic development boards and the alderman as well have no personal business tie ins now or in the future with this new firm.
Example… If Mr. Maley (sorry Mark) sat on a economic development board and/or was an alderman and pressed to complete this venture and months or years down the road his personal company was hired to remodel the museum space into office space or his wife’s company was contracted by this firm for I don’t know lets say building maintenance this would be a conflict of interest.
In a nutshell no personal strings should be attached or promised when using taxpayer funds.
To be clear I have no reason to think that is the case here but have heard horror stories about it in other areas/states.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1410 hrs
Ordinarily, I would agree with others that government should not be in the business of picking winners or losers. One look at our local King of Pork, our $30M County Fair Park that needs nearly $500K annually to stay open and you can see my fears are well founded. That said, this bunch of folks appear to have a different agenda.
Craig and the Council have accomplished something rare in government, replacing bureaucrats. This has allowed them to honestly examine WB’s government and, from what I have seen, get more bang for the taxpayer buck. From my vantage point, this crew looks more like public servants than the self-serving politicians that dominate our government. A rarity both locally and up the government food chain. (And to those who are public servants, thank you very, very much.) Unlike M-Falls, I would believe the Council did their due diligence and made the best decision for taxpayers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1415 hrs
Ordinarily I don’t like the gov’t picking winners and losers, but in this case, I like the winner they picked, and I like the people who did the picking! So I’m gonna be a hypocrite and pretend I’m not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1534 hrs
I don’t consider that good government.
I’m not a member of a Village Board, or any board for that matter. I’m a private citizen…and as a private citizen, I reserve the right to tell another private citizen to sit down, shut up…or leave.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1602 hrs
I reserve the right to tell another private citizen to sit down, shut up…or leave.
That’s not very inspiring in terms of open government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1644 hrs
I’m not talking about “open government”...I’m talking about me (a private citizen) having the ability to tell another private citizen to sit down and shut up, or leave.
Get over yourself, already.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1957 hrs
I’m not talking about “open government”...I’m talking about me (a private citizen) having the ability to tell another private citizen to sit down and shut up, or leave.
If a citizen was recognized on the floor and had a couple minutes to say their concern and another audience member said that to the citizen on the floor, I’d ask the Chair to ask you to leave.
That may be appropriate for you in how you treat others in everyday life, but not at a public meeting in terms of decorum.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 2043 hrs
Ah Mr PelicanPanties - can’t take you seriously because you hate the Packers.
And, in this situation, must agree with Kevin. You can’t have open government only for the people with whom you agree.
I think Kraig was respectful, but he could have burned a couple of minutes listening to his old teacher.Posted by Charlie Hillman on January 31, 2013 at 2223 hrs
Crusher, always like to be in the center of conflicts of interest and agree with your premise.
VA Politico - well said.
Charlie , you are agreeing with Kevin. Is this the End of Days ?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 2244 hrs
“I guess I’m going to have to look into this economic development stuff. Government economic development pork has really become part of the marketplace and the rest of us business owners look like suckers for not taking advantage when possible.”
Mr. Schuenemann is dead right on this issue,. No, I’m not joking. He is finally taking a consistent approach rooted in sound conservative principles and taking on his fellow colleagues. Elvis has left the building…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2013 at 0006 hrs
“He is finally taking a consistent approach rooted in sound conservative principles…”
I better clarify. Mr. Schuenemann is being consistent in his argument, for once. He always had conservative principles.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2013 at 0008 hrs
If a citizen was recognized on the floor
THAT’S THE PROBLEM!! She wasn’t recognized on the floor!
And Charlie, I wasn’t talking to you. So sit down and shut up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2013 at 0702 hrs
Charlie, Mark, greencarman,
...alll questioning government spending here. Wow.
Greencarmen is right. Repent. The end must be near.
Pelican,
THAT’S THE PROBLEM!! She wasn’t recognized on the floor!
1.) So you don’t have a public hearing on a controversial topic. (True it not REQUIRED, but WB could have had one.)...
2.) A mayor that will not let anyone speak on the topic (if we accept the notion mayor did not want to recognize her)....
If that is good government, then we have the Chicago Obama standard of government going on in West Bend.
Let her say her piece and then all 8 of them can vote for for the “economic development” anyway. (If she ends up saying something that makes them uncomfortable about voting for the proposal…that is an issue that needs to be dicussed…don’t you think?)
Now the WB Common Council looks like they were jaming this through without public input. It just looks bad, especially on controversial winner and loser picking with economic development.
Now that it is through. I hope it works. If it fails, the entire Common Council deserves heat over it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2013 at 0754 hrs
2.) A mayor that will not let anyone speak on the topic (if we accept the notion mayor did not want to recognize her)....
If that is good government, then we have the Chicago Obama standard of government going on in West Bend.
That is just utter crap. We have meetings that allow public input and those that don’t. By your standard, any jackass can show up at any meeting - legislative sessions, committee meetings, etc. - and sound off without restraint. The reason that we have these rules about open meetings is so that the government has to provide us notice of when they have open sessions so that everyone who wants to say something knows and has the opportunity to show up if they choose. What you are suggesting is some sort of anarchy where every government meeting should be permitted to devolve into a shouting match of whoever decides to show up.
Posted by Owen on February 01, 2013 at 0834 hrs
Not saying “without restarint”.
In my experience, with attending WB common council meetings, many years ago, the mayor ALWAYS, after a motion was made and seconded asked for questions or comments from either the council, or audience.
Affording 2 minutes to each citizen concern is not out of line under Roberts Rules of Order.
It’s a judgment call from person in charge of meeting. It just looks better biasing towards those with concerns to yield a couple minutes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2013 at 0918 hrs
The owner of this company has more money than god. Why does the goverment need to give him more?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2013 at 1105 hrs
We have meetings that allow public input and those that don’t. By your standard, any jackass can show up at any meeting - legislative sessions, committee meetings, etc. - and sound off without restraint.
That is what the WB school board did. have not seen anyone on this blog complain about that.
i don’t think Kevin is advocating anarchy. He just wants people to have their say.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2013 at 1940 hrs
Kevin is correct tax dollars were spent in that meeting and no one from the public was allowed to say anything. The fact the Kraig is allowing someone to come back at a later meeting is ridiculous. The decision will be over and done with and no change will be made. the city council effectively rammed this through without having to take comment. It may be within the letter of the law but it still stinks. This is not the open government that i have heard conservatives demanding in this community for the last 10 or so years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2013 at 1955 hrs
Normally an economic development decision of this magnitude is yawn worthy and would not require a public hearing. It is the nature of this business that makes this somewhat controversial.
I think the real question must be whether this is a good investment for the City. Government makes all kinds of more significant decisions that affect economic development, such as zoning, TIF districts, and infrastructure.
It is sad to me that everything these days must be politicized.Posted by Charlie Hillman on February 04, 2013 at 2148 hrs
Charlie you know as well as I do that the movement to politicize everything came from some of the same people that are in elected office now. That includes both the school board and the city council.
It is sad, but it is the environment that has been created by certain factions of the community.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 05, 2013 at 1319 hrs
This is what happens when government controls economic resources…it get “politicized”.
It still shocks me that lefties are surprised by that concept. When its public money, everything is political.
By same token, conservatives should not act surprised that economic development, is political.
Public money is all about winner and loser picking.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 05, 2013 at 1334 hrs
Normally an economic development decision of this magnitude is yawn worthy
That’s what I thought when King Kraig says something about 25 jobs coming to West Bend - I guess there are a few new jobs being created, but Daily News said 20 are already in Jackson. Jackson is only 10 miles away - I know people who commute 30-40 miles to work. As far as economic development, this is akin to taking a drink out of your own bathwater. Better watch out Kevin, maybe the next “success” for West Bend Economic Development will be relocating a Kewaskum business to West Bend - just keep going down the freeway exits.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 05, 2013 at 1555 hrs
We don’t live in a democracy. (ironically, something this former government & law teacher seems to not understand, and she even called us a democracy in her editorial. she obviously is not a very good govt & law teacher since she doesn’t even know what kind of government we have) As such, the “public” doesn’t get a public hearing or input on every single thing government does.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 06, 2013 at 0942 hrs
Better watch out Kevin, maybe the next “success” for West Bend Economic Development will be relocating a Kewaskum business to West Bend - just keep going down the freeway exits.
I agree. That is also my concern here. A Washington county economic development agency poaching an existing Washington County business from a smaller Washington County community to be relocated to West Bend.
Steal the business from Milwaukee, Waukesha, IL, MN, i can possibly live with that.
But stealing it from Jackson?
This is what makes this “economic development” pork especially displeasing. If Washington County “economic development” is targeting other small Washington County communities, for the sole purpose of relocating to West Bend, I will openly rip its director over that.
For now, I hope this project works out and does not turn out to be another government boondoggle.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 06, 2013 at 0959 hrs
The counicl are generally quite inept so i do also hope it comes to fruition, looks like a very good project for the community.
Posted by south thames on February 17, 2013 at 0941 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 51
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/19/2013 04:51 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).