Muskego Council Meeting Draws Crowd to Argue Both Sides of Lake Park Purchase

The Common Council meeting met expectations of crowd size and passionate arguments, as residents pro and con came out to speak on the resolution to purchase land on Little Muskego Lake for park land.

Jeff Muenkel opened the meeting just prior to public input to cover the history of the proposal, stating that the council was approached by the homeowners in late summer. He also pointed to the 2020 comprehensive plan adopted in April 2009, stating that a lake access recommendation was a result of extensive citizen input. Muenkel also said the recommendations said that the council should at least look at proposals that include lake access in the area.

The resolution includes: $1.575 million for 3.04 acres of the Dilworth parcel; $1.975 million for 1.56 acres of the Cherek parcel.

As input sessions go, the length of time it took to get through stood apart more so than the debate, as many of the same arguments pro and con rang familiar tones. 

Arguments against included the risk in owning property that at its outset is $3.55 million just to purchase the land; a parks department that is running a deficit and has a perceived difficulty in maintaining its current properties; lack of information on costs, and a seeming rush to purchase the land.

Opponents also reiterated the desire to either put the resolution to a referendum or table it. One resident also threatened recalls for the mayor and aldermen if they voted in favor of the resolution.

Arguments for a park echoed earlier wishes to right a perceived wrong over the loss of land by the city with the Dandilion Park property; potential development that can be spurred along with the Janesville Road and Pioneer Drive projects.

Interesting was the use of the economic situation on both sides of the argument, with opponents stating that continued struggles coupled with potentially higher taxes would stress taxpayers already under duress.  Proponents said that as investors, the time to purchase land was exactly during dips in the economy.

The arguments for and against were acknowledged by all the aldermen, who convened directly afterward to discuss the topic. , which passed the resolution on a  4-3 vote.