To the Editor-
I attended and participated in a meeting at the Hi-Rise on Thursday, Feb. 9, 2017 as a member of this district held by district challenger Tori Jennings.
Later I see it was intended for Hi-Rise residents (only?). This might explain why I had to be let in as doors normally lock at 6 PM. This raises one question.
I was anxious to hear Ms. Jennings’ ideas and plans for the district, though I was suspicious of a potential motivation to run for office, as a way to further the Stanley St. bike lane re-striping issue and biking issues in general. This was in part my feeling do to fact that Ms. Jennings has previously made “no comment” her response to being asked to discuss her alder positions with the Stevens Point City Times, and her numerous presentations of this and being chair of the Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
This in my opinion was the case, as we were told two videos on conversion/road diet would be presented (in reference to Stanley St. and Division St.). Much of the talk, even during question portion came back to this issue.
Other issues discussed were bicyclists not obeying road rules (stop signs/middle of street/multiple wide), and rentals (I prefer to call them non-owner occupied properties) came to brief discussion. After this a brief discussion with questions asked by Ms. Jennings followed. We were shown videos with discussion. A suggestion from the audience was made that more meetings may be beneficial to many.
After this gathering I have felt it necessary to make MY feelings and views of this topic known.
At this time, it appears to me the motivation for running for alder by Ms. Jennings is some basically singular issue as displayed by this meeting. The fact that there is total resistance to discuss anything with papers, City Times per say, I find most disturbing for anyone wanting to be in public office.
These are these reasons, at present I currently cannot support Ms.Jennings. At this time I feel best choice is our incumbent alder.
I did have a discussion with Ms. Jennings later regarding my views and opinions on her singular view of issues and the reporter issue, and advised she work out any misunderstandings. I pointed out that many times how we think we come across is not always reality. Much of this is the perception we give and how others have viewed/seen/perceived our comments. Such can be seen on her comments posted on City Times website regarding the article on the Hi-Rise meeting.
She feels she did not suggest rental licensing or historic district expansion. To me, asking a question is a form of suggestion. Webster says “put forward for consideration” or “to mention or imply a possibility”. My point of our perception and others are not always in accord (I know only all toooo well).
I also discussed the fact that an alder is to REPRESENT the people of the district. Re-striping Stanley St. may or may not be a wise idea (though it does NEED to follow proper channels and procedures), but this is not really a 1st District issue.
There are others that are more specific/pressing by many people’s views to the district. We also viewed the northern portion of the district, discussing owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied dwellings. Looked at real examples of issues, messes, parking on lawn-mud, not enough parking, more people living in unit than it is zoned for. And the issue of how can this be enforced. Many folks are either tired of reporting, not sure where or who to report to, or tired of it for assorted reasons.
I do feel this discussion was beneficial. I hope a positive result will be seen in future campaigning, meetings and discussions to sway my opinion.
I do believe she has energy and ideas that may be beneficial to our district and Stevens Point, if they are done properly and with the district constituents best interest in mind.