Santosh Krinsky

33719 116th Street

Twin Lakes, WI 53181

262 877 9396

santoshk@msn.com

 

October 6, 2004

 

Randall Smart Growth Committee

Randall and Twin Lakes, Wisconsin

 

Written Responses to Interview Questions

 

I have put a substantial amount of thought into the interview questions and have developed the following written responses, which I am submitting to you for inclusion in the review of the residents’ comments to the Interview Process.  Please treat these written responses as my formal statement on the concerns raised in those questions:

 

  1. What attracted you to the Twin Lakes/Town of Randall area:

The low density residential nature of the community and the open space and peace and quiet of the area.  Good community for raising children and the fact that there was no heavy industry or any polluting industry in the area.

 

  1. What is causing you to stay here?

We have been here for quite some time and have built our life here. 

The same qualities that led us to come here are causing us to stay here.  We would be very concerned if anything were to occur to destroy either the quiet, residential and rural character of our town, or the peace and quiet.

 

  1. Growth rate for the town of Randall:  I believe it should grow at a lower percentage rate, given the following issues.  As the base population increases, the percentage should decrease as it represents a larger number of actual increased residents when the percentage is applied over a larger population base.  Thus, a 2% growth on a 5000 population represents 100 people more each year; while a 2% growth on a 4000 population only represents 80 more people each year.  The real issues is the ability of the community to ABSORB the NUMBER OF PEOPLE (not a percentage of growth) that are added each year.  The increases come about in various ways that have different effects on the community and the infrastructure.  Some examples:

 

  1. CONVERSION OF PART TIME TO FULL TIME:  about 30% of the homes in our community are currently “part time” residents.  Many of these are not counted in the population census as they make their primary homes elsewhere.  If these homes are sold to “full time” residents, or if these part timers decide to move here and join the community full time, there is additional population without any pressure of added home construction.  Depending on the structure of the families moving in (young starting families, older people retiring here, etc.) there will be a variable impact on infrastructure.  This is a BUILT IN potential population growth that cannot be CONTROLLED through permit process for the most part as these are existing facilities simply changing the nature of their current use from part to full time.  There is probably some statistical reduction in the part timer rate over the last 10-20 years that is already occurring as existing homes get used more intensively, and thus, there is a “built in” growth rate in the community using existing homes.
  2. FAMILY BUILDING THROUGH BIRTH RATE:  As more young people have moved into the community, naturally the family building process will create a larger population.  There is an existing demographic mix already at work in our community and in all likelihood we are experiencing some “built in” growth rate through family building at this time, which is one of the reasons we see the pressure on the schools to expand.
  3. FAMILIES MOVING INTO THE COMMUNITY BY DEMOGRAPHIC EXCHANGE:  There is of course a dynamic of people who move out of the community selling houses to people moving in.  In most cases we can suspect that this represents people who have already raised their families moving elsewhere, such as retiring to Florida, while people moving in tend to be younger and desirous of building their families in a quiet, safe and peaceful environment.  This factor once again represents a “built in growth rate” without need of new construction and simply alters the demographic mix of age group populations in our community.
  4. FAMILIES MOVING IN BASED ON NEW CONSTRUCTION:  As people desire more and more to move from Illinois primarily, there is ever increasing “growth” pressure.  This is accommodated through conversion of current “open space” to housing development, and in fact is the only one of the “growth factors” that can be at all “controlled” through the zoning, permit issuance and approval processes of the village.  It is wrong to therefore say that restriction of new building permits necessarily implies “no growth” as the other 3 factors above actually represent a certain amount of built in steady growth potential whether or not any open space is converted to housing development!  Of course, it is this factor that most excites the people who want to “get rich quick” by converting DEDICATED A-1 agricultural reserve land to housing developments!  And it is the pressure by these big money interests who have the chance to get rich quick that is driving the current debate about how fast to “grow” the community and how to control this conversion process (or not).

 

The problems of growth are essentially several fold.

    1. The “saturation” of the current community area.  As the population grows, particularly if it comes about through “open space” conversion, the community loses its characteristic ambient feel of relaxed, low to mid-density population with a quiet, peaceful rural lifestyle, the very characteristics that have drawn people to come here in the first place and invest their lives and their money in this community.  Thus, we go about destroying the positive qualities of our community as we approach this saturation point.  Therefore, the first thing that has to be determined is what represents “saturation” and how do we control growth to the point that we do not go beyond this saturation.  This implies that some people currently owning Reserved A-1 Agricultural land will not be permitted, at some point in time, to convert this to some form of “get rich quick” real estate development!  Any management of a growth process involves trade offs where people are not simply free to do “anything they want” with their land.  If we however look at the issue in “equity”, we can see that the developers who own A-1 Reserve Agricultural land bought it KNOWING it was reserved for agriculture, paid lower rates per acre, paid and continue to pay preferentially lower tax rates, and thus, they are not harmed by it remaining dedicated to the use under which they bought it.  They could not have had any reasonable expectation that this land would suddenly go from A-1 to some high value commercial or business purpose, and thus, their harm is minimal.  On the other hand, all those people who bought land and houses here at high and ever increasing rates, who have paid interest on those ever increasing land and home values, and who paid and continue to pay ever higher property taxes as the assessed values increase on the property, have a real vested interest in not destroying the character of their community through over-development and exceeding saturation (or through changing the nature of the community by bringing in non-conforming uses such as polluting industries, mining, or heavy noisy industrial activity), both financial because of the investments they have made, and in terms of quality of life and the ability to raise a family in a healthy, safe and quiet environment.  They had a right to expect that the community would not willy-nilly “change its characteristics” and that reserved A-1 Agricultural land would remain for the most part A-1 reserved agricultural land, thereby preventing over-saturation, non-conforming land uses, and destruction of the quality of the community that made it attractive in the first place.
    2. The demands on the infrastructure.  Whether growth comes from the first 3 mechanisms that do not involve new home construction or conversion of agricultural land to development, or from the conversion/development process, any increase in absolute population begins to draw on community services and infrastructure for each person added.  Some of these factors are more demanding on certain services than others, so we could see certain issues becoming more critical depending on how the population growth occurs and the nature of that growth.  Some examples:
    1. PRIMARILY YOUNG FAMILIES:  An influx of a large number of young families puts a heavy burden on the school districts in addition to the general impact caused by population growth in general.
    2. GENERALLY:  there are impacts on roads, water table, sewer systems, libraries, medical services, administrative services, fire department and police services.  Police service needs tend to increase based on the demographic reality of young adults being more prone to violating laws or getting in trouble, in general, than an older population, so if the population is aging in the community, the need for police services tends to decline.  Conversely if the population is getting younger then we can anticipate a higher need for police services.  There is also an increased need for support businesses to cater to the increasing community such as restaurants, Laundromats, service stations, and groceries, etc. 
    3. We can already see that pressure on a number of our roads is increasing, which leads to breakdown of the road surface and need for more frequent repair or renewal, as well as increased traffic congestion.  As more people enter the community we will see this problem increasing further requiring extensive review of the road infrastructure which was not built to sustain a large population increase in the area.
    4. We can also already see the very serious pressure on the schools representing many millions of dollars of expansion needs at all levels of schools in the community.  The existing population base also has a concern because they are being asked to finance the costs of building new schools through high increases in property taxes while the benefit of those buildings goes primarily to future residents.  This burden shifting of the use of the facilities by future residents to a cost borne by the present residents is one that can quickly fuel resentment and taxpayer revolt, and there is some issue therefore in terms of managing the growth so that the infrastructure pressure is manageable and self-sustaining.  It would not do, for instance, to allow large developments to go in, without at the same time dealing with the increased need for roads, sewers, water and schools, as well as the fire, police and administrative services.

 

CONCLUSION:  Given the existing limitations of the roads and the schools it would be consistent to allow the community to have some time to absorb the growth it is already experiencing through the “built in” growth factors without adding the complications, costs and dangers of unrestrained A-1 agricultural land conversion and housing development.  Certainly the community should also avoid any “non conforming” uses so that any development that takes place fits clearly with the rural/low to mid-density residential nature of the existing community, and that is also clearly what the residents of this community have said in their response to the survey questionnaires.  This would mean that absolutely out of the question in this area would be things like proposed heavy industrial uses or, for instance, open pit mining activities.

 

  1. Do you agree with the development and land use decisions that have been made and what would you change:

Basically, I believe that there has been very little serious planning done and much of the development has occurred on a “case by case” basis without looking either at the big picture or the community infrastructure.  I have witnessed some major developments go before the town board that were being approved without any consideration whatsoever as to the impact on the infrastructure such as the schools, and there is no coordinating body or mechanism to ensure that this is actually ever accomplished.  Until this is in place, there is a very serious danger that we can fall into the position of destroying the character and value of our community through unrestrained development where we lose the ability to maintain the quality and availability of our infrastructure and where we begin to burden our existing residents with more and more costs to finance the development that is destroying their community!  This is obviously both unfair and will breed resentment. 

The land use plan as developed for the “smart growth” group originally set aside quite extensive parts of the community for remaining A-1 Agricultural and I appreciated that very much.  The decision to ABANDON that plan and start the map with a clean slate appears to be driven by pressure and money coming from big developers who want to “get rich quick” by converting the open space that has been RESERVED and has received preferential tax treatment for decades into high density residential communities which have a serious impact on the infrastructure, thereby both destroying the community’s main positive characteristics while burdening the existing residents with added costs to finance it.  Further, it appears that the Town Board is even willing to entertain things like enormous open pit mines in our community which does not fit any of the land use planning or conforming use patterns anywhere in the town, and that is a very disturbing factor, and will probably lead to expensive litigation as existing residents fight to preserve the rural/low-density residential character of the community and prevent polluting, noise creating non-conforming activities from totally destroying the area we live in.  And of course, we residents will then have to finance the legal fees of “our representatives” on the Town Boards who entertain these non-conforming uses, in direct contradiction to the express wishes of the residents and voters of this community and in direct contradiction to the platforms on which these “representatives” have run for office!  This direction is therefore very distressing and should be reviewed, clarified and stopped before we all waste a lot of time, energy and money on something that should not even get to “first base”.

 

  1. Top Priorities for Smart Growth:
    1. No non-conforming uses approved for our rural/residential community.  This would imply no mining, no heavy industry, no big box retailers, no polluting industries, no businesses that would disrupt the quiet, clean and residential/rural nature of our town/village.
    2. Manage the growth such that INFRASTRUCTURE needs are fully dealt with in any development that is permitted, such that existing taxpayers are not asked to pay for the costs associated with development.
    3. Maintain open space, and a quality lifestyle in the community regardless of what development occurs.
    4. Abide by the clearly expressed community development viewpoints of a majority of our residents as set forth in their survey responses.  Any variance should have to go before the electorate at a major regularly scheduled election rather than determined by a Board acting on its own, possibly in contradiction to the will of the people.  Since these are in many cases IRREVERSIBLE actions by the Boards, it is unfair to simply say that the people can “vote them out” if they don’t like what they did.  If they want to do something other than the will of the community, they should let it occur in a manner and time and place where the community can understand the issue and have a real opportunity to vote on it.  Otherwise the Boards should carry out the known mandate of the people as it exists.  If there is confusion about that mandate, then it should go to binding referendum at a regularly scheduled major election before anything is changed or acted on or approved.

 

 

  1. What kind of future land use or development would you like to see more or less of:  (speaking for the TOWN not the VILLAGE as it would differ)

a.  Housing   

i.   Single Family Detached     more  (current characteristic)

ii.                     duplexes                             less

iii.                     townhouses                        less

iv.                    condominiums                    less

v.                    apartments                          less

vi                    mixed types                         less

vii.                   seniors                                 more (serious need for our long-term aging community members)

 

b.          Retail Development

i.  neighborhood commercial         more (current characteristic)

ii.  downtown retail:           more (current characteristic)

iii.  big box                 NONE.  Kills local businesses and increases traffic

 

c.           Other Commercial development:

i.          business office/professional use   more (good support for the population, low pollution, high support value of service

ii.  non-professional services        more (good support for the population, low pollution, high service support value)

 

d.          Light Manufacturing/Assembly:  VERY LITTLE.  It would clearly depend on WHERE it was to be located, how much would be brought in, and what type of work it is.  The problem is that the community has a very clear characteristic as a rural/residential community and bringing in these types of activities could dramatically affect certain characteristics such as traffic and noise and air pollution from truck traffic, bring congestion, destroy roads infrastructure, etc.

Anything FURTHER THAN Light Manufacturing/Assembly should NOT be entertained at all. This would include all forms of heavy industry, big retail such as car dealerships, and any kind of mining or heavy production activities.  These clearly fall into non-conforming uses and should simply not be permitted whatsoever within the framework of our community.

e.  Agricultural/working farms:   SAME.  I do not believe it is possible to increase agricultural nature in the community, and it is probably very close to the point where any further deterioration of the agricultural base will have serious negative consequences.  Some of these consequences include the loss of open space, the increased population density and infrastructure costs discussed above, and the fact that a working farm brings more revenue into the community than it draws in services out, while residential communities tend to increase the costs to the community in relation to the taxes they generate, since they are non productive.  For instance, working farms make much lower demand on schools or roads or police services than a similar sized residential development.

 

  1. Do you understand how ordinances manage development?  If so, what would you do to change them.  

Right now the biggest problem is that development is NOT being managed effectively through either long-term planning, inter-agency cooperation and coordination, or through effective ordinances.  It is just about an open door for any developer with a plan.  Frankly, new development should probably be put on hold until such time as the Smart Growth plan is implemented and then the Boards should be bound to live within the framework provided by the Smart Growth plan.  The Smart Growth plan should specifically prohibit creation of “conflicts” of use where two different zones meet each other, and minimize the impact wherever these meeting points occur.  It should also use ordinances to ensure that sufficient environmental impact studies are required, bonding for all costs is covered, and impact fees are of a size and nature to ensure that the existing tax base will not be burdened with any costs of the development, and that these fees should go where they are needed, such as to schools, roads, etc.  To the extent that a development will cause a school to have to expand, for instance, it should carry the funding with it!

    1. Consider using following tools to manage development:

                                                               i.      Purchase of development rights:  it would depend on the circumstances.  It could easily turn into a mechanism for people who make claims that their “reserved” agricultural land is worth much more even though they have purchased it as such and gotten tax breaks on it for years.  This would be a dangerous slope to go down.  The only real exception would be to the extent that the community decided it wanted to have more parks or recreational activities by a clear showing of a large majority of the community and suitable land at a suitable price could be acquired in a suitable location.

                                                             ii.      Conservation subdivisions:  this is the new “buzzword” in many cases put forward by developers to try to convince people that they are doing something beneficial for the community.  Once again, it would depend on what is meant by this terminology, and certainly it must be ensured, whatever it is called, that the rural/low-density residential nature of the community be preserved and that all infrastructure costs be met by the new development and not put on the backs of current residents, such as in particular demands for school, police, fire and other services, as well as impact on roads, etc.

                                                            iii.      Impact fees:  yes.  These should be extensively used to ensure that infrastructure demands of new development are fully borne by that new development and not by the other taxpayers who gain very little if any benefit of that new development.  To date, the current residents have borne the COSTS with school referenda, road building, increased police and fire department costs, etc. and it is unfair that developers can come in, make a lot of money and saddle the residents with lots of future costs.  To the extent impact fees are assessed and collected they should not just go to the granting town or village Board, but should be applied where the real costs come up, which includes the schools, the roads, etc.

                                                           iv.      Subdivision land dedication:  In order to preserve some open space it is essential that subdivisions that are permitted include allocations for open space and parks and an ambient quiet atmosphere.

                                                             v.      Other:  Enforcement of Zoning and maintenance of the A-1 Agricultural reserve regions of the town.  Reduction of “spot zone change” permissions to very limited and clearly defined exceptions.

 

  1. Do you feel the Village and Town could benefit from shared services?  If so, in what areas?

YES.  The Town and Village are very much “inter-twined” geographically and it does not make sense to duplicate a lot of services or have many services duplicated.    We should be looking at creating cooperative districts possibly including municipal services, fire, police, sewer, zoning and planning, wherever it may be feasible and result in a reduction of costs and better management of our entire town/village community as a whole.

 

  1. How important on a 1-5 scale for the following:

a.  Parks                         5

b.  Recreation                 4

c.  Open Space               5

d.  Economic Development Incentives:        1  (contrary to community character to bring in lots of economic development—no need to subsidize business)

e.  multi-use recreational trails   5

f.   schools                      5

g.  preservation of ag. Land for farming   5

h.  library                     5

i.  public safety             5

j.  fire rescue                5

k.  community center       2-3

l.  roads and infrastructure    5

m.  other                     

 

  1. MORE IN TAXES?

Unfortunately the existing taxpayers have already been severely burdened with ever increasing taxes to pay for the added costs of development that has occurred so far, and it is unfair to burden these taxpayers even further.   What would be appropriate however is to restrain growth sufficiently to allow funds to be reallocated more toward the important issues for quality of life and community that are represented by the “5” items in the above question, and to ensure that any development that takes place creates enough impact fees and property tax revenue to ensure that none of these community needs is a burden to the existing taxpayers and is able to create more of the needed infrastructure and improve and enhance it.