Local elections on Tuesday April 1 will have an impact on jail plans. Please spread the word, write down the names you want to vote for, and take a friend...
election info
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Public Access TV Discussions
These were originally broadcast on Eau Claire Community TV.
Eau Claire Jail Expansion History
County Board and our ever expanding jail
Cost of the Jail, Alternatives, and new Data
Eau Claire Jail Expansion History
County Board and our ever expanding jail
Cost of the Jail, Alternatives, and new Data
Friday, March 28, 2008
A personal message from Emily Fleisher Beach:
As we all know, and as was mentioned at the CAJE meeting last night, City Councilman Brandon Buchanan has declared himself to be completely in our court in terms of where he stands on the "No Jail on Our Waterfront" issue. He joined us at our last rally and he will be of great help to us in the upcoming voting when the city council has to decide on whether or not to allow rezoning for the planned mamoth jail downtown. Brandon is running for re-election this coming Tuesday, April 1st. CAJE as an organization can not endorse candidates but as an individual I highly recommend this industrious, young progressive candidate and encourage you to vote for him and ask your friends and neighbors to do the same.
Simultaneously running for county board are; Tammy Schraufnagel, Ken Fulgione, John Prince, Eric Zeegers, Ardyth Krause, and Ted Barr, all of whom are not only fine and qualified candidates but also solid supporters of the No Jail cause.
Brandon Buchanan has lots of yard signs at the Democratic Headquarters. You could stop and pick one up on your way through town. If transportation, or time, is a problem and you'd like one, please call me 552-0179 and I'll be happy to bring one to your home. Or email me and give me your address. Likewise, I know that Ken Fulgione has yard signs and possibly others. All have leaflets and information. Let me know if you would like some information to share with friends and neighbors, and I will connect you with the right person. It would be nice to acknowledge the fine work that these incumbents have done and the good work that we hope the new candidates will be able to do. Emily
As we all know, and as was mentioned at the CAJE meeting last night, City Councilman Brandon Buchanan has declared himself to be completely in our court in terms of where he stands on the "No Jail on Our Waterfront" issue. He joined us at our last rally and he will be of great help to us in the upcoming voting when the city council has to decide on whether or not to allow rezoning for the planned mamoth jail downtown. Brandon is running for re-election this coming Tuesday, April 1st. CAJE as an organization can not endorse candidates but as an individual I highly recommend this industrious, young progressive candidate and encourage you to vote for him and ask your friends and neighbors to do the same.
Simultaneously running for county board are; Tammy Schraufnagel, Ken Fulgione, John Prince, Eric Zeegers, Ardyth Krause, and Ted Barr, all of whom are not only fine and qualified candidates but also solid supporters of the No Jail cause.
Brandon Buchanan has lots of yard signs at the Democratic Headquarters. You could stop and pick one up on your way through town. If transportation, or time, is a problem and you'd like one, please call me 552-0179 and I'll be happy to bring one to your home. Or email me and give me your address. Likewise, I know that Ken Fulgione has yard signs and possibly others. All have leaflets and information. Let me know if you would like some information to share with friends and neighbors, and I will connect you with the right person. It would be nice to acknowledge the fine work that these incumbents have done and the good work that we hope the new candidates will be able to do. Emily
I'm running as a write-in candidate for the county board in District 28, which includes the east side hill. Since the county board refused to allow the citizens a voice by referendum, I have decided that we here in District 28 need an alternative to John B. DeRosier, who has voted repeatedly for the project which, as you know, will cost more and be larger than what is currently proposed.
Please forward this to anyone you might think is interested enough to show up at the polls on Tuesday, April 1. They need to write my name in the appropriate space under the District 28 heading.
Thanks,
Ted Barr
Please forward this to anyone you might think is interested enough to show up at the polls on Tuesday, April 1. They need to write my name in the appropriate space under the District 28 heading.
Thanks,
Ted Barr
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Vote for our town!
A few of us attended the Televised presentation by Public Access TV of candidates for County Board the other night. This program will be shown soon on PAC TV.
Four pairs of two candidates, each running in opposition to the other, took questions from the audience regarding their qualifications for the job and their views on town issues. Not surprisingly nearly an hour of the 90 minute show was devoted to issues concerning the building of the jail.
The candidates were equally split in their views on the jail. Each of districts 13,19,22 and 26 had one candidate who was "pro jail on the waterfront" and one who was definitely for saving our waterfront from having a huge, expanding jail on it.
The individuals who expressed their support of the waterfront and historic district and are in favour of placing the jail outside of town are:
District 13 - Eric Zeeger,
District 19 - John Prince,
District 22 - Ken Fulgione,
District 26 - Tami Schraufnagel,
District 28 - Ted Barr.
I felt that all four candidates spoke very well defending their positions on the jail this evening and most importantly, expressed their concern for wanting to hear from the public they are running to represent. It was brought up that the public has often, especially of late, felt completely disenfranchised where county issues are concerned. The issue was raised about the lack of will many incumbents seem to have had in holding a referendum for the much debated jail issue, leading their constituents to feel marginalized.
The only incumbent among the four was Tami Schraufnagel whom I very much hope will be voted in again, along with the other three. The reason it is so very important that we get all four of them in to office in this election is that this would give us the much needed majority on the county board to possibly overturn the plans for the current jail site in the Historic Randall Park Neighbourhood, on the water front.
If you live in any of these districts please speak to your friends and neighbours about these fine candidates, and by all means get out and vote on April 1st, or vote by absentee ballot before then if you want to make sure to get your vote in. I believe that the ballots are already at City Hall. Every single vote is extremely important. Individuals in the past have won on margins as small as 3 to 8 votes. You could be the one person who tips it in a direction that will save our town.
The future of the quality of life in our city is truly at stake. Thank you for all you do.
an email from Emily
Four pairs of two candidates, each running in opposition to the other, took questions from the audience regarding their qualifications for the job and their views on town issues. Not surprisingly nearly an hour of the 90 minute show was devoted to issues concerning the building of the jail.
The candidates were equally split in their views on the jail. Each of districts 13,19,22 and 26 had one candidate who was "pro jail on the waterfront" and one who was definitely for saving our waterfront from having a huge, expanding jail on it.
The individuals who expressed their support of the waterfront and historic district and are in favour of placing the jail outside of town are:
District 13 - Eric Zeeger,
District 19 - John Prince,
District 22 - Ken Fulgione,
District 26 - Tami Schraufnagel,
District 28 - Ted Barr.
I felt that all four candidates spoke very well defending their positions on the jail this evening and most importantly, expressed their concern for wanting to hear from the public they are running to represent. It was brought up that the public has often, especially of late, felt completely disenfranchised where county issues are concerned. The issue was raised about the lack of will many incumbents seem to have had in holding a referendum for the much debated jail issue, leading their constituents to feel marginalized.
The only incumbent among the four was Tami Schraufnagel whom I very much hope will be voted in again, along with the other three. The reason it is so very important that we get all four of them in to office in this election is that this would give us the much needed majority on the county board to possibly overturn the plans for the current jail site in the Historic Randall Park Neighbourhood, on the water front.
If you live in any of these districts please speak to your friends and neighbours about these fine candidates, and by all means get out and vote on April 1st, or vote by absentee ballot before then if you want to make sure to get your vote in. I believe that the ballots are already at City Hall. Every single vote is extremely important. Individuals in the past have won on margins as small as 3 to 8 votes. You could be the one person who tips it in a direction that will save our town.
The future of the quality of life in our city is truly at stake. Thank you for all you do.
an email from Emily
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Jail Advisory Team Meeting Friday
I wanted to call your attention to a meeting on Friday regarding the future of bicycle/pedestrian/transit issues around the proposed site for the Eau Claire County Jail. The "Community Advisory Team", which supposedly will have input on the outward appearance and public function of the jail/courthouse and the jail/courthouse site, is having a meeting to seek input from their hand-picked community representatives. I have gone to these meetings and advocated for bicycle/pedestrian/transit issues in the past, but now finally they are focusing on those issues with an agenda item. Regardless of your opinion on the jail, we need to make sure they know we value the bike trail that it is proposed to be near, and we want transit and bicycle access to be viable so that they take fewer houses for parking now and in the future.
The remodeling of the current courthouse is also a factor here - for example, they are thinking about having only one public/employee entrance to the courthouse which would face the west parking lot and ultimately discourage people from walking from the downtown.
If you want to come to this meeting and debate the merits of the location, site plan or the exterior of the jail that is fair game too, as you can see on the agenda below. Do not let the early 7:30am time for the meeting discourage you -- that is one way the county has gotten this far.
-- Jeremy Gragert
The remodeling of the current courthouse is also a factor here - for example, they are thinking about having only one public/employee entrance to the courthouse which would face the west parking lot and ultimately discourage people from walking from the downtown.
If you want to come to this meeting and debate the merits of the location, site plan or the exterior of the jail that is fair game too, as you can see on the agenda below. Do not let the early 7:30am time for the meeting discourage you -- that is one way the county has gotten this far.
-- Jeremy Gragert
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Great turnout to support City Council
TERRIFIC RALLY LAST NIGHT! Thanks to all who attended and all your efforts at getting the word out. It paid off. There were about 75 people lining the sidewalk in front of the City Hall last night waving banners and signs to the support of honking cars along the street. Among those present were both County Board and City Council members. The mood of SUPPORTING THE CITY COUNCIL TO STAND UP AND SAVE THE WATERFRONT was certainly evident. It was very festive and yet very serious at the same time.PETITIONS: Special thanks to all of you who gathered lots and lots of signatures. Our "woman on campus," photographer and student friend, Allison, gathered over 150 by herself and with friends. I saw people everywhere gathering signatures. It was great. And the tally is that we have 713 new ones, as of today, in addition to the 1000 that were gathered a year ago.
CAJE ON TV: There was a wonderful special program on public access TV this past week where Ken Fulgione, Jeff DeGrave, Will Fantle and Maureen Slausson had a round table discussion about the proposed jail and showed us what the implications are for the future of our city if we expand the jail once again in the down town area. I don't know if it is playing again but if you missed it and want to see it, please let me know. I taped it. What struck me was that even though I knew that they were all four on the same team the program was objective, factual, and very informative. It was clear that a lot of time and care went in to the preparation. Great job done.
OK, WHAT'S NEXT? *We're still gathering signatures for another few weeks so keep 'em coming. When you have a bunch either turn them in to Just Local or Eclectica, or call me, Emily, #552-0179 and I can come around and pick them up.
* We are all keeping our eyes and ears open for anything going on in relation to our cause. If you find out about anything, like a meeting happening that might be of significance, a news article about us, anything at all that might be important for us to know about, please let me know and I'll pass the word on. Hope you all saw the coverage on the front page of the Leader Telegram this morning. Now they all must know that we're not giving up.
*Keep the letters to the Editor coming.
*Write the City Council members and urge them to not re-zone the city waterfront property for a huge jail that will only keep expanding in the years to come. Snail mail is good but if what you have time for is email, that's good too. When you send an email it will bear more weight if you sign it with your full name and street address. Here is the string of City Council email addresses.
The link to the city council page.
* COME TO THE NEXT RALLY, if you are getting this email, you will get an announcement of when it will be.
*COME TO THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETINGS AT THE FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH, AND BRING A FRIEND, EVERY MONDAY AT 7 PM. SEE YOU THERE. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO.
from an email via emily with photos from jeremy
Keeping the Pressure On
Front Page in Tuesdays Leader Telegram.
Also a great "It seems to me" by Maureen Slauson.
And will you take a moment to vote in the online poll at WEAU?
Also a great "It seems to me" by Maureen Slauson.
And will you take a moment to vote in the online poll at WEAU?
Monday, March 10, 2008
Which site plan is it?
As a part owner of Just Local Food Cooperative, I have taken a keen interest in the jail proposals. I hope this letter can clarify how this plan is negatively impacting our ability to plan for successful growth of our downtown grocery store.
We moved our grocery to the location on First Avenue, a former food distribution center, for many reasons, among them: the location along the river, adjacent to a neighborhood and the University, across from the regional bike trail, and to be a part in of a unique small business district revitalizing downtown Eau Claire. While I personally oppose the jail plan as proposed, I write today with concern on how the small businesses are being treated. I have spent the past two years trying to figure out how our buildings fit into the jail plan. And as of this week, they still don't know!
As a contrast to this, the Historic Ivey house on Second is shown standing in all scenarios.
An aerial view released March 4 shows no laundromat, no grocery store buildings, but a small
parking lot on corner is the same, about 20 spaces. This, of course, is "just a drawing", but it shows the Eclectica building, theater, and others quite realistically. And it isn't consistent with other drawings that show either the laundromat and grocery existing; no laundromat but with grocery; or just a parking lot. Which is it, County Planners?
According to the site plan released Feb 27, the laundromat is gone and the
770-774 buildings are shown standing, but ominously titled "parking 18 current 46 future". Look closely at the drawing and you will see that they are tearing down the laundromat, a long-standing well-appreciated service in town, with customers like the fire department and fire victims, for exactly six parking spaces.
The buildings occupied currently by Just Local Food Cooperative equal six parking spots too, Lannigans Heating and Cooling six, as well as an adjacent building with retail and housing, would then count for the remaining 10 parking spaces to be added along the river.
In this aerial view from just a few weeks ago, Feb 14, we see the buildings of
770-774 intact. What changed? The Eclectica and Theatre buildings are still remarkably realistic, but the buildings on First have changed. Will they reappear in April? Also, in that Feb08 County update the map inside again shows the buildings standing and overlaid with parking! Which is it!?!
It appears that nothing is clear when it comes to these properties. The county claims the landlord is willing to sell. The owners were willing to sell to the grocery co-op at a fair market price, then the county announced their expansion plans and started buying nearby properties at above market prices. Of course the landlord is willing to wait to make more money, and won't invest in buildings slated for parking spaces in the meantime. The grocery, growing, needs small but serious investments in the buildings to grow through the hot summer season. Without a clear plan from the county, the grocery is forced to close or move at their own expense. Is the County obligated to compensate individuals and businesses directly affected by their expansion plans?
My request is simple:
Will the county be ripping these buildings down for parking?
If so, please tell the businesses located in them to move so they can survive, now.
If not, please officially declare the buildings off the future County campus map and allow whatever businesses choose to locate along the beautiful Eau Claire riverfront to invest in the properties without fear of them being torn down for parking spaces.
Sincerely,
aaron ellringer
We moved our grocery to the location on First Avenue, a former food distribution center, for many reasons, among them: the location along the river, adjacent to a neighborhood and the University, across from the regional bike trail, and to be a part in of a unique small business district revitalizing downtown Eau Claire. While I personally oppose the jail plan as proposed, I write today with concern on how the small businesses are being treated. I have spent the past two years trying to figure out how our buildings fit into the jail plan. And as of this week, they still don't know!
As a contrast to this, the Historic Ivey house on Second is shown standing in all scenarios.
An aerial view released March 4 shows no laundromat, no grocery store buildings, but a small
parking lot on corner is the same, about 20 spaces. This, of course, is "just a drawing", but it shows the Eclectica building, theater, and others quite realistically. And it isn't consistent with other drawings that show either the laundromat and grocery existing; no laundromat but with grocery; or just a parking lot. Which is it, County Planners?According to the site plan released Feb 27, the laundromat is gone and the
770-774 buildings are shown standing, but ominously titled "parking 18 current 46 future". Look closely at the drawing and you will see that they are tearing down the laundromat, a long-standing well-appreciated service in town, with customers like the fire department and fire victims, for exactly six parking spaces.The buildings occupied currently by Just Local Food Cooperative equal six parking spots too, Lannigans Heating and Cooling six, as well as an adjacent building with retail and housing, would then count for the remaining 10 parking spaces to be added along the river.
In this aerial view from just a few weeks ago, Feb 14, we see the buildings of
770-774 intact. What changed? The Eclectica and Theatre buildings are still remarkably realistic, but the buildings on First have changed. Will they reappear in April? Also, in that Feb08 County update the map inside again shows the buildings standing and overlaid with parking! Which is it!?!It appears that nothing is clear when it comes to these properties. The county claims the landlord is willing to sell. The owners were willing to sell to the grocery co-op at a fair market price, then the county announced their expansion plans and started buying nearby properties at above market prices. Of course the landlord is willing to wait to make more money, and won't invest in buildings slated for parking spaces in the meantime. The grocery, growing, needs small but serious investments in the buildings to grow through the hot summer season. Without a clear plan from the county, the grocery is forced to close or move at their own expense. Is the County obligated to compensate individuals and businesses directly affected by their expansion plans?
My request is simple:
Will the county be ripping these buildings down for parking?
If so, please tell the businesses located in them to move so they can survive, now.
If not, please officially declare the buildings off the future County campus map and allow whatever businesses choose to locate along the beautiful Eau Claire riverfront to invest in the properties without fear of them being torn down for parking spaces.
Sincerely,
aaron ellringer
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Sign the Petition Online
Sarah has created an online version of the Jail Petition that folks can sign. Since this is being combined with our other petitions, you should not sign both this and a paper petition, nor should you go to this site if you already signed the 2006 petition.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Rally at 6PM on Monday
Citizens Plan Rally at City Hall to deliver Support Petitions
The Citizens for Accountability in Jail Expansion is in the process of collecting additional signatures opposing the current location of the County Jail and supporting other alternatives. The petitions are available in several locations throughout Eau Claire and at the website: www.eccaje.blogspot.com Citizens can get a petition to pass or to sign by calling 552-0179. Volunteers will also be collecting signatures at various times at the Public Library, US Post Office & downtown coffee shops. More details available.
At this time there are well over 1200plus signatures that have been collected. Those signatures collected by Monday will be delivered to the City Clerk to be forwarded to the City Manger and City Council after the Rally in front of City Hall at 6:00PM on Monday March 10th.
The Rally at 6PM on Monday in front of City Hall is being held to Support of the City Comprehensive Plan and to let our City Council know that many citizens will support their efforts to oppose the location of the expanding county jail on our downtown river front. The Rally is attempting to raise awareness of this issue as it relates to the city council.
CAJE is trying to let citizens know that this issue will be coming before the City Council soon for required re-zoning. CAJE and other citizens in Eau Claire believe that the City can and should tell the County to go back to the planning boards and select one of the many other alternatives available for the jail location. The Rally will also stress the importance of letting the city council and the plan commission members know how you feel about the heritage we will leave for Eau Claire by selecting this location for an expanding Jail facility.
Citizens, Taxpayer & voters can make a difference and this issue is not over until the City Council votes on the required re-zoning of this area. The Rally on Monday is intended to focus attention on just that issue.
For additional information about this press release please feel free to contact Ken .
The Citizens for Accountability in Jail Expansion is in the process of collecting additional signatures opposing the current location of the County Jail and supporting other alternatives. The petitions are available in several locations throughout Eau Claire and at the website: www.eccaje.blogspot.com Citizens can get a petition to pass or to sign by calling 552-0179. Volunteers will also be collecting signatures at various times at the Public Library, US Post Office & downtown coffee shops. More details available.
At this time there are well over 1200plus signatures that have been collected. Those signatures collected by Monday will be delivered to the City Clerk to be forwarded to the City Manger and City Council after the Rally in front of City Hall at 6:00PM on Monday March 10th.
The Rally at 6PM on Monday in front of City Hall is being held to Support of the City Comprehensive Plan and to let our City Council know that many citizens will support their efforts to oppose the location of the expanding county jail on our downtown river front. The Rally is attempting to raise awareness of this issue as it relates to the city council.
CAJE is trying to let citizens know that this issue will be coming before the City Council soon for required re-zoning. CAJE and other citizens in Eau Claire believe that the City can and should tell the County to go back to the planning boards and select one of the many other alternatives available for the jail location. The Rally will also stress the importance of letting the city council and the plan commission members know how you feel about the heritage we will leave for Eau Claire by selecting this location for an expanding Jail facility.
Citizens, Taxpayer & voters can make a difference and this issue is not over until the City Council votes on the required re-zoning of this area. The Rally on Monday is intended to focus attention on just that issue.
For additional information about this press release please feel free to contact Ken .
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Question ~ The $64 Million Dollar Question
Watch Cable Channel 11 on CTV ~ Saturday at Noon, Sunday At 5pm & Monday night at 10pm
Will Fantle, Jeff DeGrave, Maureen Slauson & Ken Fulgione put together a panel discussion about some of the issues and concerns surrounding the proposed new Jail project called “The Question ~ The $64 Million Dollar Question"
“We tried to present this with as much open and full disclosure of information as we were able.” Ken Fulgione said ..... “We all talk too much on this panel.... but we did the best we could... Hope you find it accurate and informative
The program is set up as a panel discussion on
-how we got to where we are (a study in expansion & mis-communication or lack there of)
-concerns with the proposals presented &alternatives that still need to be discussed
-concerns about financial impact & how it might effect new programs just being started as well as a discussion about staffing needs yet to be presented
-discussion on how the jail fails to relate to the city’s comprehensive plan for downtown & the neighborhoods and why the county refused to participate
-Recommendations for what community members can do and what is next on the agenda for this project
PASS THE WORD
The program will replay Saturday at Noon (12:00pm), Sunday At 5pm & Monday night at 10pm on cable channel 11 thanks to Community TV
Will Fantle, Jeff DeGrave, Maureen Slauson & Ken Fulgione put together a panel discussion about some of the issues and concerns surrounding the proposed new Jail project called “The Question ~ The $64 Million Dollar Question"
“We tried to present this with as much open and full disclosure of information as we were able.” Ken Fulgione said ..... “We all talk too much on this panel.... but we did the best we could... Hope you find it accurate and informative
The program is set up as a panel discussion on
-how we got to where we are (a study in expansion & mis-communication or lack there of)
-concerns with the proposals presented &alternatives that still need to be discussed
-concerns about financial impact & how it might effect new programs just being started as well as a discussion about staffing needs yet to be presented
-discussion on how the jail fails to relate to the city’s comprehensive plan for downtown & the neighborhoods and why the county refused to participate
-Recommendations for what community members can do and what is next on the agenda for this project
PASS THE WORD
The program will replay Saturday at Noon (12:00pm), Sunday At 5pm & Monday night at 10pm on cable channel 11 thanks to Community TV
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Dear City Council Members and Eau Claire press
Dear City Council Members and Eau Claire press,
I would like to bring your attention to a report released at the very end of February by the US Department of Justice entitled Eau Claire County Local Justice System Assessment (US Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, Jail Division, NIC TA-08J1010). According to the report, it was commissioned by the Eau Claire County Board of Supervisors and the Eau Claire County Criminal Justice Collaborating Council. You can read the entire report before many members of the County Board, including an appendix. For anybody interested in Eau Claire's jail issue, the report is informative, engaging and easy to read. It also appears damning.
In current discussions regarding the jail, the generally accepted premise has been that the need for increased capacity is obvious. But, according to the report, this is hardly clear. Further, in highlighting the paucity of information on the jail and the jailed, the report explains that plenty of data is available but little has been done with it. This, in turn, explains the public's lack of knowledge, and thus participation, in the entire jail expansion debate. The report clearly suggests that the county has too little information for it to know what it needs in terms of a new and expanded jail facility. In fact, an overall tenor of the report is that Eau Claire is jailing more people than the state or any of the other counties in their comparative analyses.
According to the report, the authors/consultants were in town on 19th-21st of February 2008 to conduct assessments of jail capacity and occupancy (page 14), the very day that the County Board of Supervisors voted to pass the first $25 million bond toward the jail. It is inconceivable to me how the county can confidently state that $59.1 million will fix the problem when, as the report demonstrates, it is clear that they do not even understand the problem. Unless I am missing something fundamental, it is nothing short of unbelievable that the county ramrods the jail through before examining the report and openly debating its recommendations. The findings, the questions the report raises, and the recommendations are numerous, extensive and hardly trivial. They include encouraging public involvement in defining the purpose of the jail, tapping into expertise at UW-Eau Claire (Political Science, Criminal Justice and those with information skills), and exploring the various alternatives to incarceration.
Because the county knew that this report was still underway but very near completion at the time of the 20 February Board meeting (a board meeting with up to a hundred anguished citizens in attendance), it will be very difficult to convince our community that the county was trying to be anything other than deceptive. If I were a County Board of Supervisors member, I would be livid to have had this information withheld, voting to spend millions of dollars on a cart before knowing anything about the horse.
Below, I have pasted a few excerpts from my quick reading. These are not intended to take statements out of context, but to provide evidence that jail inadequacy, the apparent driver for the current expansion, is not how discussions should proceed. In fact, the more I consider the report, the more it seems that specific plans for a jail and its expansion are premature. Thus, any talk of WHERE to put the jail is inappropriate when we do not know its purpose. Until the system wide and policy problems are understood and addressed, building a new jail will – as some county supervisors even expressed concern over on 20 February – bring us back to where we are now.
We expect, and hope for, a row when the public learns of this report, its findings and recommendations.
Sincerely,
Paul Kaldjian Dan Drumm
Excerpts 1) "Eau Claire is safe and its people are pretty well behaved (page 18)."
2) "The jail is used to house a wide range of inmate types. It is attempting to do too much. Almost anyone can be admitted. A very wide variety of federal, immigration, out of state, state, and local inmates reside there. It is a mixture of three distinct groups: "people we are afraid of, people we are upset with and people we do not know what to do with (page 19)."
3) "More clearly defining the purpose of the jail is a first step in managing the flow into the jail and the length of stay. This will help define the number and composition of the jail population. Until and unless this is done, the jail will remain crowded (page 19)."
4) "The predominant view, the predominant strategy for coping with the growing workload has been to seek additional resources, add jail beds, and add program capacity. This represents a near singular strategy aimed at trying to outrun growth by adding capacity. But the system is up against substantial resource limits and the strategy is coming under increased scrutiny because, to some, it does not seem to be working (page 20)."
5) "A first conceptual trap has been the view that jail crowding is "the problem." A related notion is the view that jail crowding is "the Sheriff's problem". It turns out that jail crowding really just a symptom. It is a symptom of problems within the larger justice system. Success requires a system-wide approach. One must literally go outside the perceived "problem" in order to solve it (page 20/21)"
6) "Some of the people who were interviewed seem to believe that a new jail will "solve the problem". In fact, a new jail, by itself, may not change very much. New bed space may be filled quickly. It is also possible that the new emerging programs will expand the total number of people under correctional supervision, also fill to capacity, and have very little impact on the number of people in jail (page 24)."
7) "Recommendations include increased public participation and better analysis of existing data to provide information on the jail population, its characteristics and needs, put into a proper form, analyzed and routinely reported out. . . . Understanding these population dynamics is essential to understanding why the number of people in jail is increasing (or falling) (page 29)."
8) "Between 2002 and 2006, the Number of Index Crimes Reported to law enforcement in Eau Claire County decreased -14%. . . . . When these numbers are adjusted to account for increases in the countywide population during this period, the decreases are even larger (page 11)."
9) "Adult arrests in Eau Claire County increased by 24% during this period. This is in sharp contrast to the declining Index crime rates in the County, and in contrast to the statewide adult arrest trends (page 12)."
10) "The Eau Claire County crime prone age group (age 15-24) can be expected to peak in 2010, then decline substantially by the year 2020. This age cohort is expected to grow at about one half the rate of the general county population through 2030 (page 12)."
11) " The basic message: These trends do not support the view that the general County population has become more criminogenic. Instead, the increase in the demand for criminal justice services appears to stem from changes in the response of the criminal justice system. In conjunction with the other analyses that have been prepared, it appears that a larger number of people have been placed under correctional supervision, under more stringent behavioral requirements, and for longer periods of time (page 12/13)."
12) "Utilization of the Jail bed space resource is not well understood by justice system officials, general officials of county and city governments, or the public. The jail data was not organized to permit analysis. It was difficult to determine how the jail space is being used. The classification system is a mystery. Bookings and length of stay of the various inmate types are not being analyzed. The prior studies that have been done have been uniformly weak in detailing and describing the various subtypes of inmates in jail and how much space they occupy (page 19)"
I would like to bring your attention to a report released at the very end of February by the US Department of Justice entitled Eau Claire County Local Justice System Assessment (US Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, Jail Division, NIC TA-08J1010). According to the report, it was commissioned by the Eau Claire County Board of Supervisors and the Eau Claire County Criminal Justice Collaborating Council. You can read the entire report before many members of the County Board, including an appendix. For anybody interested in Eau Claire's jail issue, the report is informative, engaging and easy to read. It also appears damning.
In current discussions regarding the jail, the generally accepted premise has been that the need for increased capacity is obvious. But, according to the report, this is hardly clear. Further, in highlighting the paucity of information on the jail and the jailed, the report explains that plenty of data is available but little has been done with it. This, in turn, explains the public's lack of knowledge, and thus participation, in the entire jail expansion debate. The report clearly suggests that the county has too little information for it to know what it needs in terms of a new and expanded jail facility. In fact, an overall tenor of the report is that Eau Claire is jailing more people than the state or any of the other counties in their comparative analyses.
According to the report, the authors/consultants were in town on 19th-21st of February 2008 to conduct assessments of jail capacity and occupancy (page 14), the very day that the County Board of Supervisors voted to pass the first $25 million bond toward the jail. It is inconceivable to me how the county can confidently state that $59.1 million will fix the problem when, as the report demonstrates, it is clear that they do not even understand the problem. Unless I am missing something fundamental, it is nothing short of unbelievable that the county ramrods the jail through before examining the report and openly debating its recommendations. The findings, the questions the report raises, and the recommendations are numerous, extensive and hardly trivial. They include encouraging public involvement in defining the purpose of the jail, tapping into expertise at UW-Eau Claire (Political Science, Criminal Justice and those with information skills), and exploring the various alternatives to incarceration.
Because the county knew that this report was still underway but very near completion at the time of the 20 February Board meeting (a board meeting with up to a hundred anguished citizens in attendance), it will be very difficult to convince our community that the county was trying to be anything other than deceptive. If I were a County Board of Supervisors member, I would be livid to have had this information withheld, voting to spend millions of dollars on a cart before knowing anything about the horse.
Below, I have pasted a few excerpts from my quick reading. These are not intended to take statements out of context, but to provide evidence that jail inadequacy, the apparent driver for the current expansion, is not how discussions should proceed. In fact, the more I consider the report, the more it seems that specific plans for a jail and its expansion are premature. Thus, any talk of WHERE to put the jail is inappropriate when we do not know its purpose. Until the system wide and policy problems are understood and addressed, building a new jail will – as some county supervisors even expressed concern over on 20 February – bring us back to where we are now.
We expect, and hope for, a row when the public learns of this report, its findings and recommendations.
Sincerely,
Paul Kaldjian Dan Drumm
Excerpts 1) "Eau Claire is safe and its people are pretty well behaved (page 18)."
2) "The jail is used to house a wide range of inmate types. It is attempting to do too much. Almost anyone can be admitted. A very wide variety of federal, immigration, out of state, state, and local inmates reside there. It is a mixture of three distinct groups: "people we are afraid of, people we are upset with and people we do not know what to do with (page 19)."
3) "More clearly defining the purpose of the jail is a first step in managing the flow into the jail and the length of stay. This will help define the number and composition of the jail population. Until and unless this is done, the jail will remain crowded (page 19)."
4) "The predominant view, the predominant strategy for coping with the growing workload has been to seek additional resources, add jail beds, and add program capacity. This represents a near singular strategy aimed at trying to outrun growth by adding capacity. But the system is up against substantial resource limits and the strategy is coming under increased scrutiny because, to some, it does not seem to be working (page 20)."
5) "A first conceptual trap has been the view that jail crowding is "the problem." A related notion is the view that jail crowding is "the Sheriff's problem". It turns out that jail crowding really just a symptom. It is a symptom of problems within the larger justice system. Success requires a system-wide approach. One must literally go outside the perceived "problem" in order to solve it (page 20/21)"
6) "Some of the people who were interviewed seem to believe that a new jail will "solve the problem". In fact, a new jail, by itself, may not change very much. New bed space may be filled quickly. It is also possible that the new emerging programs will expand the total number of people under correctional supervision, also fill to capacity, and have very little impact on the number of people in jail (page 24)."
7) "Recommendations include increased public participation and better analysis of existing data to provide information on the jail population, its characteristics and needs, put into a proper form, analyzed and routinely reported out. . . . Understanding these population dynamics is essential to understanding why the number of people in jail is increasing (or falling) (page 29)."
8) "Between 2002 and 2006, the Number of Index Crimes Reported to law enforcement in Eau Claire County decreased -14%. . . . . When these numbers are adjusted to account for increases in the countywide population during this period, the decreases are even larger (page 11)."
9) "Adult arrests in Eau Claire County increased by 24% during this period. This is in sharp contrast to the declining Index crime rates in the County, and in contrast to the statewide adult arrest trends (page 12)."
10) "The Eau Claire County crime prone age group (age 15-24) can be expected to peak in 2010, then decline substantially by the year 2020. This age cohort is expected to grow at about one half the rate of the general county population through 2030 (page 12)."
11) " The basic message: These trends do not support the view that the general County population has become more criminogenic. Instead, the increase in the demand for criminal justice services appears to stem from changes in the response of the criminal justice system. In conjunction with the other analyses that have been prepared, it appears that a larger number of people have been placed under correctional supervision, under more stringent behavioral requirements, and for longer periods of time (page 12/13)."
12) "Utilization of the Jail bed space resource is not well understood by justice system officials, general officials of county and city governments, or the public. The jail data was not organized to permit analysis. It was difficult to determine how the jail space is being used. The classification system is a mystery. Bookings and length of stay of the various inmate types are not being analyzed. The prior studies that have been done have been uniformly weak in detailing and describing the various subtypes of inmates in jail and how much space they occupy (page 19)"
Monday, March 3, 2008
letter to L-T editor
Dear Editor:
In response to your editorial on Sunday, March 2 (“Jail Foes’ Protests Too Late To Matter”), apparently you have accepted the County Board’s version of what happened without checking with the citizens themselves. I was present at one of the first “community meetings” to which the proponents of the jail expansion are referring. That meeting was not held for the purpose of informing citizens and seeking their input. Mr. Draxler and Mr. Willett showed the group a set of optional plans and told us what was planned. I had to ask three times if the decision had already been made to build this jail expansion. Finally, when I demanded a “Yes” or a “No” answer, we were told that the decision had already been made, that there was nothing that could be done about that, and that we would have our opportunity to address our concerns at a later date. Very strong objections to the plan were raised by many persons at this meeting. To my knowledge, these objections were never recorded or passed back to the County Board, nor was there ever a “later date” at which we could raise these objections. In this whole process we have been told three or four times that any objections we wanted to raise were too early in the process and that they should be raised later; later never came. Each time, we were simply told it was too late. Did they even record the objections? This whole process has been staff-driven, and the staff have managed to avoid a full disclosure to the taxpayers while giving the impression that taxpayers had had the opportunity for objections all through the process and that those who did object and who object now are just a bunch of malcontents who do not express the opinion of the taxpayers. Where in this process were the taxpayers of Eau Claire County informed regarding the means to pay for this expansion? The County Board voted to raise the property tax levy by 15% and to spend a very large chunk of our property tax money, for the next ten to thirty years, without citizen input on that matter. The $59.1 million is just the beginning. The total cost, just to service that debt, will be $92 million. That will not include the full cost of equipping the buildings. And how will we pay for the 30 new staff for the jail?
Although a referendum is not required, because the approved amount is below the level which would require a referendum, a motion for a voluntary referendum was defeated by the County Board. There is no wish to provide a full disclosure to the voters or to present the whole case to the persons who are paying for it.. My strongest objections are to the lack of transparency on this matter and to the County Board’s disregard for any other factors than what the proponents of this jail want. I dislike deception; I dislike gross manipulation; and I dislike being treated with disdain as a voter and a taxpayer. By the way, it is not too late to object. The County Board still has the opportunity to alter the plans and truly involve taxpayers in the process.
Nick Smiar
In response to your editorial on Sunday, March 2 (“Jail Foes’ Protests Too Late To Matter”), apparently you have accepted the County Board’s version of what happened without checking with the citizens themselves. I was present at one of the first “community meetings” to which the proponents of the jail expansion are referring. That meeting was not held for the purpose of informing citizens and seeking their input. Mr. Draxler and Mr. Willett showed the group a set of optional plans and told us what was planned. I had to ask three times if the decision had already been made to build this jail expansion. Finally, when I demanded a “Yes” or a “No” answer, we were told that the decision had already been made, that there was nothing that could be done about that, and that we would have our opportunity to address our concerns at a later date. Very strong objections to the plan were raised by many persons at this meeting. To my knowledge, these objections were never recorded or passed back to the County Board, nor was there ever a “later date” at which we could raise these objections. In this whole process we have been told three or four times that any objections we wanted to raise were too early in the process and that they should be raised later; later never came. Each time, we were simply told it was too late. Did they even record the objections? This whole process has been staff-driven, and the staff have managed to avoid a full disclosure to the taxpayers while giving the impression that taxpayers had had the opportunity for objections all through the process and that those who did object and who object now are just a bunch of malcontents who do not express the opinion of the taxpayers. Where in this process were the taxpayers of Eau Claire County informed regarding the means to pay for this expansion? The County Board voted to raise the property tax levy by 15% and to spend a very large chunk of our property tax money, for the next ten to thirty years, without citizen input on that matter. The $59.1 million is just the beginning. The total cost, just to service that debt, will be $92 million. That will not include the full cost of equipping the buildings. And how will we pay for the 30 new staff for the jail?
Although a referendum is not required, because the approved amount is below the level which would require a referendum, a motion for a voluntary referendum was defeated by the County Board. There is no wish to provide a full disclosure to the voters or to present the whole case to the persons who are paying for it.. My strongest objections are to the lack of transparency on this matter and to the County Board’s disregard for any other factors than what the proponents of this jail want. I dislike deception; I dislike gross manipulation; and I dislike being treated with disdain as a voter and a taxpayer. By the way, it is not too late to object. The County Board still has the opportunity to alter the plans and truly involve taxpayers in the process.
Nick Smiar
letter to L-T editor
Hi Tom,
I wanted to point out a few things related to your editorial's theme: that the public did not object to the county jail project in time, and the public was given plenty of opportunities to have input.
From my perspective, as someone who followed the jail project closely from summer 2005 to now, the county has been fairly bad at listening to input from the general public. Early in the process the county officials would often say that input given was coming too prematurely, since the county had not entered the phase of the process for that type of input yet. Then, at a later point in time, that very same type of input would be brushed aside, when the county would say the input is coming too late, and that particular aspect of the decision was a done deal. And that is if a citizen managed to attend and speak at two public meetings on the issue -- not an easy task.
The county largely only had an interest in hearing from established groups and community leaders, such as businesses interests, and failed to take into account input from the general public. Often, these presentations only encouraged questions to clarify what was already planned, rather than input on the future or objections to past decisions. Few members of the general public got presentations or were invited to meetings or serve on committees related to the jail issue. Few if any established organizations were willing to stand up to the county or felt it was within their purview to comment on the jail issue. I saw one presentation in Spring 2007 while on the board of Downtown Eau Claire, Incorporated, and even a group like that had no interest whatsoever in providing official input on the jail plan. I had to approach Frank Draxler (Project manager for the jail) in order to get the county to give a presentation to the Student Senate in spring 2007 – which they would not have done otherwise.
I am a bit surprised that your editorial ignores, just as the county board did, that over 1,000 signatures were gathered in the summer of 2006 from across Eau Claire County objecting to the proposed location for the jail. The Student Senate, while I served on, in November 2005 passed a resolution objecting to the current plans for the project at the time – mainly its location that would destroy low-income student housing and put area businesses at risk. I count these are fairly substantial, and early, objections to the jail project but your editorial chooses to ignore them.
Finally, I find it disturbing that anyone would call this jail project a "done deal" when construction clearly has not even begun. The main strategy that the county has been using to get this jail through is repeating the theme that this jail is a done deal, even when it is not – and that tactic has been utilized on this project for years.
As the circulation numbers of the Leader-Telegram likely show, many citizens of this community would rather cancel the newspaper than read editorials like the one you just wrote. Who wants to read editorials that tell them they can't make a difference, and discourages them from taking part in further decision making on this issue? As a result, when something is accurately reported on or well editorialized in the L-T there are fewer people to read it.
Volume One, unfortunately, is far more convinced that the jail is a done deal, to the point of not even caring to meaningfully report on it. So I do thank you and the L-T for at least discussing and reporting on the issue.
Jeremy
I wanted to point out a few things related to your editorial's theme: that the public did not object to the county jail project in time, and the public was given plenty of opportunities to have input.
From my perspective, as someone who followed the jail project closely from summer 2005 to now, the county has been fairly bad at listening to input from the general public. Early in the process the county officials would often say that input given was coming too prematurely, since the county had not entered the phase of the process for that type of input yet. Then, at a later point in time, that very same type of input would be brushed aside, when the county would say the input is coming too late, and that particular aspect of the decision was a done deal. And that is if a citizen managed to attend and speak at two public meetings on the issue -- not an easy task.
The county largely only had an interest in hearing from established groups and community leaders, such as businesses interests, and failed to take into account input from the general public. Often, these presentations only encouraged questions to clarify what was already planned, rather than input on the future or objections to past decisions. Few members of the general public got presentations or were invited to meetings or serve on committees related to the jail issue. Few if any established organizations were willing to stand up to the county or felt it was within their purview to comment on the jail issue. I saw one presentation in Spring 2007 while on the board of Downtown Eau Claire, Incorporated, and even a group like that had no interest whatsoever in providing official input on the jail plan. I had to approach Frank Draxler (Project manager for the jail) in order to get the county to give a presentation to the Student Senate in spring 2007 – which they would not have done otherwise.
I am a bit surprised that your editorial ignores, just as the county board did, that over 1,000 signatures were gathered in the summer of 2006 from across Eau Claire County objecting to the proposed location for the jail. The Student Senate, while I served on, in November 2005 passed a resolution objecting to the current plans for the project at the time – mainly its location that would destroy low-income student housing and put area businesses at risk. I count these are fairly substantial, and early, objections to the jail project but your editorial chooses to ignore them.
Finally, I find it disturbing that anyone would call this jail project a "done deal" when construction clearly has not even begun. The main strategy that the county has been using to get this jail through is repeating the theme that this jail is a done deal, even when it is not – and that tactic has been utilized on this project for years.
As the circulation numbers of the Leader-Telegram likely show, many citizens of this community would rather cancel the newspaper than read editorials like the one you just wrote. Who wants to read editorials that tell them they can't make a difference, and discourages them from taking part in further decision making on this issue? As a result, when something is accurately reported on or well editorialized in the L-T there are fewer people to read it.
Volume One, unfortunately, is far more convinced that the jail is a done deal, to the point of not even caring to meaningfully report on it. So I do thank you and the L-T for at least discussing and reporting on the issue.
Jeremy
Sunday, March 2, 2008
letter to L-T editor
Tom,
Your editorial in Sunday’s paper was wrong & miss leading.... in fact it was an example of very bad journalism as it now creates a more mis-informed public at a crucial point in time.
The City Council (that is that body of elected officials who represent the best interests of the city of Eau Claire - you know the ones who have public input on Mondays and face their constituents on a regular basis) – the City Council will have to re-zone the area that the county wants to build on... The Plan Commission will also have to take up the matter of changing the Comprehensive Plan to allow for the construction of a Jail & other future county plans in the Courthouse district in opposition to the comprehensive plan as it now stands and it’s intent. When will you mention those points????
You asked the question of where was the public during all of the county’s march toward placing the jail across the street from the bike trail ...(is that better?) on the riverfront? Well, most of Eau Claire was listening to the city talk about a new commitment to our river front development. They were attending Phoenix park events, hanging out at a restaurant downtown & watching the debate over when new projects would begin to make better use of the riverfronts. They were getting excited about a new commitment to liven up our waterfronts with restaurants, music venues, boutiques and unique shopping experiences. Some of them may have either been involved with or heard about the city’s 2 year effort to develop an award winning comprehensive plan that also promoted those same efforts. Unless they were directly involved in the development of that plan for the city, they may not have noticed that the county had refused to attend and turned its back on the opportunity to talk about their Jail plans during city’s planning sessions.
So Tom, maybe you should really be asking where has the county been the past 3 or 4 years? The downtown direction has been clear. The intent was documented and the effort was begun ..... but the county has not been paying attention to what the members of the city of Eau Claire have been saying.. The location they will be asking the city to re-zone for their future growth plans, the 4 to 5 story expanding jail, the new courthouse and the 3 story parking ramp, was not intended to hold all of that. The public read the plan, saw the direction the city was going and “assumed” the county would have heard this as well. You put the onus on the public when you should actually put it on the county. Where have they been?
I believe you need to correct the facts of your editorial. First of all we did not have a “protest” march on the county board. I helped organize it Tom. It was clearly stated as an AWARENESS RALLY. We were trying to put the focus on this issue as it will approach the city council in the near future. Then, your question of the week about referendums clouded the issue. Sure it was a disgrace that they would not give the taxpayers a change to vote on this.... but that was not what people were talking about the most. It was the focus the LT decided to follow. Either you don’t get it or you were intentionally mis-directing the discussion.
How many letters you have received about the jail issue that you have not yet published? And now your bogus editorial has done another dis-service to your readers by mis-informing, mis-accusing and mis-directing the issue once again. . If you can’t figure out what is going on right now ..... how can you expect the public to stay abreast?
Not once have you reported the procedures that still need to occur with regard to the construction of the jail. You have not reported that the city will eventually be taking up this question and will need to re-zone this property before it can continue. Without the re-zoning of this land, the jail can not be built. You have not reported about the possibility of a protest petition from the public around the re-zoning of the land that could force a required super majority vote on the council. Now who is falling down on their job and will later say that the public should have been there to stop this when they could have?
You have a responsibility to keep people informed. Something is clouding your vision.
Ken Fulgione
Your editorial in Sunday’s paper was wrong & miss leading.... in fact it was an example of very bad journalism as it now creates a more mis-informed public at a crucial point in time.
The City Council (that is that body of elected officials who represent the best interests of the city of Eau Claire - you know the ones who have public input on Mondays and face their constituents on a regular basis) – the City Council will have to re-zone the area that the county wants to build on... The Plan Commission will also have to take up the matter of changing the Comprehensive Plan to allow for the construction of a Jail & other future county plans in the Courthouse district in opposition to the comprehensive plan as it now stands and it’s intent. When will you mention those points????
You asked the question of where was the public during all of the county’s march toward placing the jail across the street from the bike trail ...(is that better?) on the riverfront? Well, most of Eau Claire was listening to the city talk about a new commitment to our river front development. They were attending Phoenix park events, hanging out at a restaurant downtown & watching the debate over when new projects would begin to make better use of the riverfronts. They were getting excited about a new commitment to liven up our waterfronts with restaurants, music venues, boutiques and unique shopping experiences. Some of them may have either been involved with or heard about the city’s 2 year effort to develop an award winning comprehensive plan that also promoted those same efforts. Unless they were directly involved in the development of that plan for the city, they may not have noticed that the county had refused to attend and turned its back on the opportunity to talk about their Jail plans during city’s planning sessions.
So Tom, maybe you should really be asking where has the county been the past 3 or 4 years? The downtown direction has been clear. The intent was documented and the effort was begun ..... but the county has not been paying attention to what the members of the city of Eau Claire have been saying.. The location they will be asking the city to re-zone for their future growth plans, the 4 to 5 story expanding jail, the new courthouse and the 3 story parking ramp, was not intended to hold all of that. The public read the plan, saw the direction the city was going and “assumed” the county would have heard this as well. You put the onus on the public when you should actually put it on the county. Where have they been?
I believe you need to correct the facts of your editorial. First of all we did not have a “protest” march on the county board. I helped organize it Tom. It was clearly stated as an AWARENESS RALLY. We were trying to put the focus on this issue as it will approach the city council in the near future. Then, your question of the week about referendums clouded the issue. Sure it was a disgrace that they would not give the taxpayers a change to vote on this.... but that was not what people were talking about the most. It was the focus the LT decided to follow. Either you don’t get it or you were intentionally mis-directing the discussion.
How many letters you have received about the jail issue that you have not yet published? And now your bogus editorial has done another dis-service to your readers by mis-informing, mis-accusing and mis-directing the issue once again. . If you can’t figure out what is going on right now ..... how can you expect the public to stay abreast?
Not once have you reported the procedures that still need to occur with regard to the construction of the jail. You have not reported that the city will eventually be taking up this question and will need to re-zone this property before it can continue. Without the re-zoning of this land, the jail can not be built. You have not reported about the possibility of a protest petition from the public around the re-zoning of the land that could force a required super majority vote on the council. Now who is falling down on their job and will later say that the public should have been there to stop this when they could have?
You have a responsibility to keep people informed. Something is clouding your vision.
Ken Fulgione
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
