by Tori Jennings

Stevens Point First District Alder

Significant municipal change should occur openly, transparently, with public discussion among all stakeholders. As such, the muted discussion surrounding the city/county property exchange or “land swap” raises red flags about the decision-making process. Silence obscures the proposal’s origins and its implications. Is the public well informed about the proposal? Do we know and understand the long-term fiscal, social and environmental impacts a land swap will have on our community? The simple answer is, no. Never the less, a course is being set for the permanent separation of city and county facilities and a development pattern that favors sprawl over density. How did all this happen and who pays?

According to the proposal, the City would give 20 to 25 Business Park acres, the Lincoln Center (ADRC) and Public Library (both now city-owned) to the County in exchange for the County Annex and Law Enforcement Center (jail). The County would build a new courthouse, fleet garage and jail in the Business Park near Crossroads Commons. The City Hall would move into the former Annex and the Law Enforcement Center would be redeveloped or razed. The current court house’s fate is undetermined.

Limited information has been provided about the complexities and implications associated with a land swap. On March 28, the first public forum about the possible swap was held and several speakers opposed the proposal. Officials assured the large crowd that a land swap was merely “conceptual” and “very preliminary.” Silence followed the public session until June 18 when the County Executive advocated for the land swap in a Gazette article, and announced that the County Board of Supervisors might take preliminary action that very evening.

At the June 18 County Board Meeting, spectators overflowed the meeting chambers. Those non-supervisors who spoke against the swap included former Portage County Judge John Finn, UWSP and UW-Extension land use and planning experts, and other residents with a long history of civic engagement and knowledge about city and county government. Not surprisingly, the many speakers pointed out that the land swap idea appeared to come “out of the blue.”

In addition to concerns about transparency, citizen speakers and several County Board Supervisors raised critical questions about how moving county facilities to the urban fringe would affect residents and businesses, reshape our region for generations to come, and make our city poorer in the process. These long-term, macro-level questions require thoughtful consideration. Fortunately, a good deal of information and research answers questions about the importance of government facilities in downtowns.

For example, reports and articles from UW-Extension, Yale Law School, and urban planning institutes around the country align on several key points about government buildings: (1) Buildings housing government functions should be easily accessible to the public via public transportation and adjacent to other services and buildings housing government functions (e.g. courthouses, post offices, libraries). (2) Municipal buildings are important socially and economically to downtowns. Consequently, moving public facilities out of central business districts contributes to a “decline in retail activity as local people invest their energy and spending elsewhere.” – Ryan Zigelbauer (3) A healthy downtown (which municipal buildings are an integral part) is a key revenue generator and makes a major contribution to the city’s bottom line and economic prosperity.

Opponents of a land swap and new county facilities on a greenfield worry about the impacts of urban sprawl this development will spur, a concern sometimes shared by outgoing Director of Community Development Michael Ostrowski. Urban sprawl, or rapid urbanization, has negative impacts and unforeseen consequences on transportation, community development, natural resources, and even health outcomes.

Importantly, sprawl development is expensive. Development on the outskirts of the city requires new roads, water mains, sewer pipes, ground and surface water mitigation, and other costly infrastructure. In addition, services such as police and fire, snow plowing, garbage collection and street maintenance must be provided and paid for. However, the tax revenue associated with sprawl development is much lower than that generated in the urban core. In sum, tax payers living in the center of Stevens Point subsidize suburban development that benefits remote areas.

Decades of debate surrounding space needs at City Hall and the Law Enforcement Center must be resolved through responsible fiscal policy, sustainable land use planning, and transparent legislation. The conceptual plan for the new county facility merely replicates what already exists. Purported cost savings of a new facility on the urban fringe does not include long-term infrastructure, socio-economic or environmental costs. The proposed land swap is no bargain and residents should be wary of political silence on this important issue.