Not long ago, Dino had a post here about a small victory for local skateboarders when a proposal to further limit skateboarding in the downtown was killed in committee by the committee’s chair. Last week I had the opportunity to attend a meeting where many of the participants saw this not as a small victory, but as a significant loss. And in the interest of fair and balanced reporting, I thought it prudent to look at the issue from their point of view.
The meeting was the Public Safety Meeting of Wausau Main Street. Being a property owner/manager in the “Main Street” area, I have made an effort to be at least marginally active.
The Main Street program, which represents downtown Wausau on both sides of the river (yes, downtown extends to the West Side), has a very good working relationship with the Wausau Police Department. One of the Wausau PD officers who I personally think really does a good job, Officer Max LaPorte, is the liaison between the PD and the downtown business owners.
Based on the Public Safety meeting that I attended, it was through these meetings that a proposal to further curb (pun intended) skateboarding in the downtown came about. The reason being the elements that skateboarders brought to downtown. The element is described as loitering juveniles who are rude, use profanity, litter and therefore discourage paying customers from visiting downtown businesses. In addition, in practicing their “street skills,” they cause damage to curbs, railings, planters, benches, etc. The damage to the downtown benches actually warranted a discussion that maybe the benches shouldn’t even be put downtown until the three summer CSOs (Community Service Officers) were on patrol in the downtown.
As I did with the pool issue, it is probably only fair that I make my position clear, as I don’t want people to assume that I come in with no bias whatsoever. I will admit that I have witnessed juveniles in groups “hanging out” and it can, at times, be intimidating. Also, the property that I own on the West Side has low rails protecting the sidewalk from the parking lot (or vice versa) and the painting and maintenance of these rails was a 2-3 time a year project because of damage caused by skateboarders. (I was going to have stops welded every foot or so, but was informed this may lead to potential liability issues – so instead I just chose to stop keeping the rails nice and painted.)
In essence, I fully agree that the act of skateboarding has little use on the downtown sidewalks and pedestrian areas. There is no need to do tricks on public or private property. I do see the validity of skateboarding as a form of transportation, but once you get on the crowded sidewalks of downtown, at some point public safety has to come into play.
Note, that I said that skateboard-ING has little use, and did not comment on skateboard-ERS. There is a difference. Let’s face it, I can sympathize with skateboarders, as I am a landlord. And that minority of people who do this job and do it badly gives all of us a bad name. Therefore, I can understand how a minority of rude skateboarders can give all of them a bad name. However, the more I hear, and the more that I see – first hand – I have to ask myself, are the bad apples truly a minority? Even in the comments from that article here on Citizen Wausau, one skateboarder (I assume) pointed out that running from the police was all a part of the skateboarding experience.
There was a comment at the meeting last week that from year to year, it is never the same group of kids. The age of the kids stays about the same, so each year it is a new batch. That leads me to ask the question, is it because the old batch now knows the rules and respects them and the new batch simply doesn’t know? I asked about maybe communicating with those active in the sport (like Dwellers) about educating boarders about what the downtown regulations are. The response that I got from members of the group was that because Dwellers wasn’t really supportive of the current ordinance, they would not do anything to help educate people on its specifics.
Although I naturally lean more on the side of the business owners, being one myself, I do think that there has to be a happy medium. I pride myself in being a big-picture kind of guy. One of the big problems that downtown Wausau has to deal with is getting people to come downtown, to check out what the downtown has to offer. The fundamental problem with the current skateboarding policies is that many of the people that you are trying to get to come downtown are the SAME PEOPLE who you went out of your way to chase out of downtown 5, 10 or 15 years ago. “Oh sure, NOW you want us back, yeah right!”
There has to be some type of happy middle ground. There has to be some type of way where the younger generation can spend time downtown not being chased out or shown they are so obviously not welcome. At the same time, there has to be a way for the younger generation, while they are downtown, to not cause damage to public or private property or act in a manner that is detrimental to others. There has to be some type of way where each side can see the point of view of the other side and find a way to co-exist.
Because although there is a problem with some younger people being rude and littering and making life hell for local businesses, at the same time if you chase people away from downtown when they are young, it is unrealistic to expect them to return when they have matured into adult consumers.
ohsnow
2:16 pm on March 31st
Skateboarding is transportation.
Mohawk Matt
9:37 pm on March 31st
An add in Thrasher Magazine years and years ago comes to mind. On one page, a KKK rally was being held and the caption read “These people have a right to the streets”. The next page of the add had some skaters hanging out and it read “These people don’t”.
I loved that add.
You can make as many regulations you want against skateboarding, but in my mind, if I still skated, I wouldn’t care. I’d still skate wherever I felt like.
John H. Fischer
6:46 am on April 1st
I agree in princple with Matt’s statement, and with oshnow. Skateboarding is a form of transporation, and they should have just as many rights to the streets as bikes or the KKK as Matt points out.
However, I would argue that if the KKK had a rally on the 400 Block or that triangluar area where Grand meets Forest meets 6th Street by the courthouse, and as part of that ralley they were taking pick axes and saws and damaging the curbing or taking a sledge hammer to the benches… that would be different.
That is the ideal that I hoped to make with this post. That skateboarders using the board as a means of transporation, or as a means to having some fun is not something I have a problem with. When I have a problem is when the fun is derived from the damage of public property, or worse private property.
matthew
6:47 am on April 2nd
First of all, as a taxpayer I find damage to public property to be just as bad as damage to private property . . . and maybe worse because public property is for all of us to use. And secondly, there are already laws that ban and punish damage to property. No matter how it is presented this ordinance was an effort to target and punish a segment of our community that some people simply don’t like. If there is damage to public and/or private property, an activity that is already illegal, making something else illegal won’t stop it. What it will do is prevent the skateboarders who follow the law from doing something that they want to do. The damage argument is irrelevant. There are lsws already prohibiting it. Just like there are laws against drinkng and driving. But no one is suggesting banning all driving in Wausau to prevent a few from doing it.
John H. Fischer
7:03 am on April 2nd
Excellent point matthew… there are already laws about the destruction of property.
However, does sliding a skateboard down a stair rail one time with one boarder actually damage the property? If one person was caught sliding down the rail, could the case be made that one person damaged the property? Or, does the damage only come through doing it repeatedly, over and over again?
Also, once summer gets here, downtown sidewalks get kind of croweded… there really are customers. Plus those big planters, plus the benches to come out soon, plus sign boards put out by various businesses. Skateboards are much more efficient than walking and the disproportiate speeds make skateboarding on the sidewalks together with pedestrians a hazard. Bikes are not allowed on the sidewalks, they must use the streets.
I personally, would not have a problem with skateboarders downtown, but if they are traveling on their boards, they need to travel on the streets like bikes do.
Also, I would actually support a 15 mph speed limit downtown.
matthew
7:43 am on April 2nd
John -
If it is damage caused by repeated use then I would call it expected wear and tear from normal usage. Much like cars repeatedly driving over a street eventaully lead to the street needing to be re-surfaced. But you raise a specific activity that is used to promote a general prohibition. Sliding down the handrail may be damaging, but if it is ultimately damaged by repeated activity then each time it is done contributes to it, then, yes, the person doing it could be accused of damaging it. Just like every time you drive down a road you contribute to the eventual need for re-surfacing.
When the topic first came up I asked about a specific instance that happened to me just a few days earlier. A young family was walking downtown. The mother was pushing a stroller and a young boy, 5 or 6 years old had those sneakers that had little wheels built into the soles. Would strollers be banned? Would the little kid be allowed to wear those shoes? At what point do you stop? I have been inconvenienced many more times by strollers than by skateboarders. But I don’t advocate banning either. As far as I’m concerned all of these arguments are window dressing. There exists a group of business people downtown who find skateboarders to be undesirable and want them gone. Remember whren they began to pipe elevator music into the pedestrian mall? At least then they admitted it was to drive the young people away. It’s the same people with a different excuse, but the same motive.
John H. Fischer
8:22 am on April 2nd
Ah yes.. the piping of elevator music.. I remember those days well… one of those classic “what were they thinking” moments.
So, we have two schools of thought. We have those that believe that the “loitering” of the younger generation inhibits consumers. Then we have those that say the younger generation are also consumers, and chasing them away now keeps them away when they grow up and have more disposable income.
I would say that both schools of thought are based in a reality – that both sides are basically correct to some effect, and at the same time both sides are also wrong.
So… let’s Citizen Wausau readers do what the City has not been able to do… lets come up with a solution!
I ask of you – no challenge you – how do we ensure a safe and pleasant environment for shopping and spending time downtown WITHOUT discouraging our youth from also enjoying our downtown???
matthew
8:31 am on April 2nd
John -
Are you now suggesting that the attempted ban on skateboards was really a disguised attempt to rid the downtown of an undesirable element? And I’m not sure that this is based on economic factors. I believe that there are certain influential people downtown who disapprove of these kids and want them gone. My solution – recognize them for the bigots they are and ignore them. I also reject your assumption that the presence of young people downtown somehow creates an unpleasant and unsafe downtown environment.
John H. Fischer
9:38 am on April 2nd
I am not so much suggestiong the skateboard ban was a disguised attempt to rid downtown of an undesirable element as I don’t know that it was really disguised.
As for whether their presence creates the unpleasant/unsafe downtown.. I don’t spend that much time there… but I have seen enough to believe that the business owners MAY have a point.
Maybe this summer, I will spend more time and take my camera. Or maybe, business owners or people who shop downtown could weigh in here… or more importantly, people who DONT shop downtown could weigh in…
I would love it if boarders, our youth, if they weighed in.
And Dino.. I know you are out of town but I am sure you check this site… and I know you have some pretty strong feelings.. I eagerly await your two cents… or even a full blown nickel.
Barry Liss
4:48 am on April 3rd
These people ought worry less about curbs and more about kids.
deepintheheart
7:41 am on April 3rd
I don’t shop in Wausau–or Wisconsin for that matter. But I did. And I rode s skateboard downtown. I fondly recall sitting in the back of several squad cars because I had been “playing with my skateboard in the street.” Those are the correct words. They were important words to me then. That phrase really captured the lack of definition that police–or in my adolescent mind–adults had for my passion for skateboarding. I was insulted.
But I was thrilled to see signs go up downtown prohibiting me from doing what it was I had been doing. They satisfied my desire to be substantial to the larger world in some weird way. I suddenly mattered.
21 or 22 years ago we were crawling under fences to skateboard in the public pools. (More thrill than great skateboarding) We were relentless in our search for new spots to skate. We carried brooms in our cars. We were chased, harrassed, shouted at, and generally considered undesirable people. Life was grand.
And now Weston has this fabulous skatepark. Were have all the good times gone?
Mohawk Matt
2:10 pm on April 3rd
What I would like to know-How much damage have skateboarders actually caused in the last 5 years? So a curb gets a little wax on it, big deal.
Dino Corvino
3:53 pm on April 5th
I was away, and did not check this site. I do have some very, very strong opinions on this, and while I normally refrain from commenting on CW, I think this is appropriate.
1. A ban Exists. It is already illegal to skateboard in downtown. This language sought to expand said ban.
2. Vandalism is a crime. The damage to someone elses property, or public property is a crime with a legal deifnition, and a aagreed upon set of consequences.
3. Tresspassing is a crime.
4. We have a taxpayer supported police force here in Wausau.
Given that 1 exists. Given that two is real. Given that three is a fact. What we are left with is the fact that 4 is either seeking some extra cover from business owners, or is unwilling or unable to do the task of ticketing skateboarders. I know that is not the case, I know that the police have much to do, but all of these things are givens, to use geometry lingo (Hey Bill Heeren!), something is askew.
We do not need another law against vandalism, it is a legal construct we all agree with. If I damage property that is not mine, there are things that will happen to me.
The law should be enforced. Skateboarders should be given tickets for skateboarding, since you made it illegal. You chose this course when I was a young boy, and now we are here. Skateboarders should be given tickets, given fines, etc for skateboarding where it is ALREADY illegal.
We have the desire to seek to add layers of legal jargon that is specifically targeting a group. Which is unacceptable. If I do damage with roller blades, or a scooter, is the damage less significant? No.
So we need to define the reason for this ordinance. It is NOT about damage. Damage is already illegal. It is in fact about these people. These young men and women. If I damage downtown as a 38 year old, with a hatchet, well, I get a fine. This is something else. This is unfair prosecution of a class of people, based solely on a defining charecteristic or act…sounds…well…unconstitutional.
The inner workings of the “Janet Herring ad hoc committee” were my first and primary objective. The sort of back alley manner in which this came to be. Her alleged committee, her friendship with then interim City Attorney (now hired) got ordinance written ON THE CITY DIME. This fully written ordinance was brought to committee written by the City Attorney, Anne Jacobsen, with no public discussion. It appeared no where on public agendas, or public minutes for any sort of public oversight. It simply showed up in committee.
Also, I think it is unfair, and unrealistic, and in a lot of ways short sighted for these alleged businesses to be crying in their beer right now. These people could have supported the Janet Herring Ad Hoc committee, and gotten this put through. It was a large and public story in the WDH. They could have attended the meeting, they could have talked to their alderperson, the Chief of Police or CSO could have put together report. They could have asked Mr. Dudley to come and give comment, or Dr Hattenhauer….I mention them because this is what Janet Herrings ad hoc commitee held up as a reason for the ban…the damage to the Dudley or the Eye Clinic.
Sadly, none of that happened. The Police never appeared with statistics, the vandalized never came forward and told their tales of damage.
So this died, as it should. With all unwanted, unfair, and redundant ordinance.
Again, these businesses should not be the ones leading the city, because clearly they seek to isolate, and divide our community. To tag someone as undesireable, and to seek methods to remove them from downtown. What is next…no lefthanded people…who will be targeted.
In regards to Dwellers educating anyone…I have no insider knowledge…but why in gods name would they support an effort that seeks to ban their lifestyle. They are skateboarding people, this ordinance sought to ban skateboarding, what middle ground is there? If I sought to make property ownership, or owning of rental properties illegal, and snuck it through, how much middle ground would we find John? None.
Your piece is all over the place…but the current problem with any ordinance is that one already exists.
My problem with this one, was the means with which Janet Herring sought to exploit her friendship and connection with city employees to manage what clearly was a person attack…since no business owners stood by her side. This was and is clear as there was no public support for such a thing, when it was covered and scheduled in the WDH.
I dig the self awareness. I like that you seek to paint your rails, rather than weld in barriers. It is a small act, but it shows a little bit of acceptance. I like the fact that you are an unabashed business guy, a simple profit and loss dude.
Our downtown leadership…seeks to push young people out of downtown. It bickers constantly, it discusses for decades. It does not seek to invite ANYONE to the table, like this case of a private downtown citizen with some city hall cool kids juice, got something passed. Not on public merit. If my money is not soaked in shiraz, and carried in a wallet in the back of a baby stroller, do I matter less?
Do the laws already exist that both protect me, and curb my destructive actions?
You state your opinion that skateboarding has no use downtown…I state hogwash. I say that 4 wheel drive SUVs have no reason to be downtown. I know Anne Jacobsen, can I get that ban pushed through? No, I cannot.
I appreciate your perspective John, but the fact is downtown business owners already push too hard and are too exclusive. They had a chance to stand with Janet Herring against skateboarding, and they did not. So the democratic process was served.
All that was served was the ban existing the way it does now, it was not expanded.
John H. Fischer
6:44 am on April 6th
So.. I ask again… is there a solution that both sides can be happy with?
Yes, there is a ban downtown. But the question is what behavior is it that our city is trying to limit with this ban.
Is it the increased wear and tear on benches, rails and planters when they are used as skateboarding obsticals? Or, is the true purpose on the ban not to limit skateboarding, but skateboarders – and basically to limit youth in general from downtown.
If the former is the intent, then the point is well taken that there are already laws that address damage to property. Maybe the ban as it is now should be completely elimited, and those laws that are designed to protect property just tweaked to make clear which specific actions are prohibited.
If the intent truly is to limit the number of youth downtown – then our city leaders need to do some serious re-thinking.
Because I stand by my statement that one of Wausau’s largest obsticals in attracting people to the downtown is NOT the presence of youth downtown – but instead the obstical is that Wausau went out of there way to chase away today’s consumers when they were yesterday’s youth – and once you chase them away, they will resist being lured back.
matthew
7:21 am on April 6th
John =
The crux of the issue is that this is not an attempt to ban behavior. It is simply a way to drive people away. And there can’t be a solution to a problem until there is an agreement about what the problem really is. If, as you suggest, the problem is destruction of property, then the solution is simple. Enforce the laws currently on the books. If the authorities cannot enforce existing laws then passing more laws does nothing, since they will not be able to enforce the new laws either. These people need to turn their focus to the Police Department and ask them why they are not enforcing the existing laws. It is always wrong to ban a group of people based on the potential that they might engage in some illegal activity. Is there a solution that both sides can be happy with? I doubt it since one side wants to rid the downtown of ‘undesirables’. And the ‘undesirables’ don’t want to be discriminated against. I don’t know anything about the points Dino makes but they are consistent with an attempt to drive people away without revealing the real reason.
Dino Corvino
9:14 am on April 6th
I agree with Matthew on this. If the intent is wear and tear, or if it is the systematic removal of an unwanted class…the means to do this are in place. There is a ban on skateboarding, so if the goal is the removal of the youth, then there it is. If it is the protecting of benches, then laws exist.
What is missing then? Oh yeah, the police. Writing tickets, pushing the youth out of downtown in a Guiliani esque move.
You want a solution…how about the leadership that is in place…Wausau Area Events, Central Wausau Progress, McDevco, the Chamber, the City Council, the WDH Editorial board…how about if these folks lead. They have the ball, the juice, the influence. Let them put together numbers, images, let them document vandalism.
Then, go to the Chief of Police and demand action.
How about if the business owners, band together, sign a petition, create an event, do something to get attention to this issue that clearly has them all up in arms. Oh wait, they did not support Janet Herring the first time. I am guessing they are busy watching businesses go under in downtown, and are seeking ways to stay afloat. Man, that 15 year olds money does not look any less green now does it? Especially when we are losing…LaPauls, St Claires, the Fillmor (oh the public money lost), Walgreens, the jeweler next to the Fillmor…yeah lets focus on planters.
There is no solution. Only a defensive position that skateboarders must take. They are banned already. This sought to expand that ban, furthering this lack of middle ground.
There is no middle ground, no compromise, because skateboarding is banned. One side does not need to come to the table, they have the skateboarders banned.
Now, skaters have a choice…defy the ban and skatedowntown risking a ticket and criminal record, or leave a place where they have been banned.
How should skateboarders who do not damage property feel? When a cop rolls up on them while they roll home from work, and tells that young man or woman to quit skateboarding, since it is banned! What should they feel about our city?
The city banned skateboarding. Its done. They won in their view. They banned skateboarders. I do not think it is up to the banned class to come begging back to the table…in fact, I think they should go to Weston. Spend money there. When they get on the internet, well facebook about the ban. Twitter about it.
What difference does it make? No one cares, if they did care they would not have banned them in the first place. You cannot assume a moral high ground, and ask for compromise AFTER you ban someone.
The business leaders banned them. You want to lift the ban now, that is really the only talk that matters. Without that, what compromise can there be? If you had a meeting, at Washington Square about this, and invited skaters…they could not come…why not? THEY ARE BANNED!!! They could not ride their skateboards to a meeting about skateboarding and a ban of skateboarding…why not…oh yeah, ITS BANNED!!!
So, if we view this as an issue worthy of merit, then we must first address that issue. They banned skateboarding. Its done. A ban is a sort of all or nothing statement. In this case, it is a bad all or nothing statement, because laws exist already.
John H. Fischer
9:23 am on April 6th
They are banned – I get that… but to say that because they are banned that the issue is done – that I disagree with.
A group tried to expand the ban – it didn’t get anywhere. What is wrong with a different group trying to lift the ban?
You know what my favorite amendement to the constitution? It is the 21st. That is the amendment that abolished prohibition. The reason that is my favorite has nothing to do with my love of beer. The 21st Amendment basically says that the 18th amendment no longer exists.
I like that amendment because it is the most clear cut example of just because a law has been passed – that it is not done… it is not over. A law passed can easily become a law removed.
The 21st amendment reads… “1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”
If our youth and those who enjoy skateboarders want to be included in that which is downtown – should they not look to repeal said ban?
Dino Corvino
9:36 am on April 6th
Let us see…a class that cannot vote…you know under 18…should engage in a process that has already pushed them aside prior to them doing ANYTHING AT ALL, well, I do not know.
Is that not a little bit like asking the victim to reconcile with the victimizer?
What possible means do these people have to stand against the forces that you had at your meeting? Who should stand against WAE, Central Wausau Progress, McDevco, the Chamber…who should that be?
Should the example from the ban that tried to go through under Janet Herrings guidance…should the council not see that as unpopular, redundant, and exclusionary? Those arguments exist, in the air, regardless.
They do not absolutely need to skate downtown, they might not even want to, but I am sure that they should not have to go to the table and ask for something like this.
Should the people that want their dollars not look to include them in the process?
You cannot have it both ways…you cannot ban someone. And then expect them to spend money. And then when they do not ask for the ban to be lifted again point at them and say that they are not doing enough, or doing too much or whatever.
THEY BANNED THEM!! They did it to them. You are now asking that these people who were banned to beg permission to do something that they were banned for not doing, because your original article stated that it was always new kids.
So, its not even the same kids. It is new kids. You said that someone said that.
Young people who skateboard, I would think they have no vested interest in downtown Wausau, so getting them involved in the process would be tough. Want to know why? YOU BANNED THEM!!!
If I punch a guy in the face, I would not tell him to talk to me afterwards.
If someone is victimized, pushed aside, marginalized, or shall we say BANNED…it is not their responsibility to civilly point out the error of the agressive actors ways. It is their role…TO BE BANNED and to LEAVE.
They banned them, so they leave.
The only choice at all as I see it is this…
1. leave. They were banned after all. That is what the city leadership wants. People on skateboards to leave downtown wausau, and take with them their money, their excitement, and really, their money.
2. skate downtown and risk a ticket. Risk a criminal record for doing something that they love in a place that has banned it.
So this middle ground that you seek, this compromise…well, no one is really standing up for skateboarders. Will you be their advocate?
John H. Fischer
6:50 am on April 7th
They have been banned – but they have NOT been banned by the current leadership. I attended some public hearings that had to do with an indoor skateboard park, and with some in Wausau’s leadership, they have a much different view of boarders than leadership in the past.
You are correct, no one is really standing up for skateboarders… they need to stand up for themselves. They need a spokesperson – or group of spokespeople.. they need an advocate (or advocates).
The downtown businesses you speak of have a voice only because they choose to use their voice. Skateboarders (and all of our youth for that matter) have a voice also, they have chosen not to use it.
The argument that they don’t have a voice that people will listen to because they are not old enough to vote holds little wieght – many business owners also do not have a vote as many do not live within the City of Wausau.
Will I be their advocate? – No, I will not. Because 1) I have never been a boarder – as a youth I would be one of those the cool kids (like boarders) would pick on; and 2) I am a business owner who has had property damaged by boarders – I am on the other side of the issue.
(Note – just because I am on the other side of the issue does NOT mean that I am closed minded, I can still try to see the “big picture” ramifications… I can still have my views and still be open minded to the views of others.)
Mohawk Matt
7:04 am on April 7th
If you want to stop skaters downtown, hit ‘em in the knees with a pool cue as they roll in front of your business. It’s an effective deterrent.
matthew
7:16 am on April 7th
John -
Your insistence that the skateboarders speak up for themselves and if they don’t it’s their own fault strikes me as blaming the victim for the wrong that was done. And it really isn’t skateboarders. It’s teenagers who don’t look a certain way and act a certain way and don’t have a lot of money to spend. That’s who they want to get rid of. And, since you admit to being on the other side of the issue, that’s who you want to ban. The ‘damage’ allegedly caused by these people is the excuse but it’s not the reason. The reason is bigotry, plain and simple. If that’s the side you choose to support, so be it. I assume the only reason you derided the ‘elevator’ music wasn’t because it was wrong, but because it didn’t work.
John H. Fischer
7:46 am on April 7th
Matthew.. I don’t think you understand my stance at all. I disagree that youth should be banned from downtown, I hold my views that if you ban the youth from downtown, you cannot expect them to return as adults as consumers. I want those adult consumers!
I think that the youth of today has a lot going for it… and it is wrong for people to try to eliminate them completely from downtown because of the destructive or borderline criminal behavior of a few.
I can sympathize when the many are judged by the bad behavior of the few.
That is why I wrote this post.. that is why I continue to comment. I ask the question – Can we effectively deter the criminal/damage element if the complete ban was lifted? And, if we can – should that not be pursued.
I don’t want to ban the youth – I just want the youth to respect the rights of others (which I believe the majority do).
And whether it is right or not.. whether it is fair or not.. the simple reality is that if you don’t give a voice to your views in government – the other side will. And yes, they have been victims of this ban in the past… but if they oppose it – they must speak up. At some point, the victim stops being the victim and stands up for their rights.
They have not been victimized by the current Wausau government leadership. A proposal went to the city to expand the ban, this proposal made it through committee to the city council. The council did NOT approve the ban – they instead sent it back to the committe instructing the committee to get the views of boarders – the council acknowledges that boarders have a voice and asked the committee to hear that voice.
Will the ban be lifted if our youth uses their voice – I don’t know. But without the voice of change, change will not happen – that much I know.
Dino Corvino
9:25 am on April 7th
This is laughable now. I will not accept the rewriting of history on what happened here. Janet Herring and Anne Jacobsen constructed an expanded skateboarding ban, placed it in the hands of the proper committee, which voted unanimously to enact it.
Then, Deb Hadley when it arrived at City Council common meeting, moved quickly to send it back to committee, as there had been NO PUBLIC DISCUSSION. Simply two people, Janet Herring, and Anne Jacobsen seeking to enact public policy for personal reasons.
If people, this website being a leader in that, had NOT BEEN ADVOCATES, this would have slid by like a snail. Thankfully Deb Hadley acted like she did, or the council would have expanded the ban.
When it returned to committee, where voices from both sides were sought, no businesses stood with Janet Herring. My recollection is that Janet Herring herself did not even stand with Janet Herring. I believe she was absent.
Again, Matthew makes the most simple of points.
Yes, the ban can be lifted. But, not be the advocacy of the skateboarders. The ban, by its nature, will need the act of the Common Council to be lifted. Will they do it? Who knows. Who knows what or why these people are moved. But the last time the city got involved in the lives of skateboarders, it was a back alley deal that would have hurt them, so why should they not simply just take their dollars and leave?
The city council can read, they see Citizen Wausau. They know what is the right thing to do. If they want a solution, it is theirs to do. Not ours to beg for.
I want to restate this…there is nothing to oppose. There is no motion on the floor, there is no proposed ordinance change, there is no action. This opposition you seek to bring forth…that would be like opposing the sky being blue. The sky already is blue. Not a lot you can do.
Skateboarding already is banned. Like the sky being blue. The council is clearly under no obligation to go back and rewrite this, the people that want it changed are the people that businesses do not want downtown.
So it serves the money to leave them out.
The city committee effectively through the use of the cool kids network sought to slap skateboarders out of downtown more with this ban. Now, you place the onus on them to reconcile with the people that slapped them.
I say no. I say you wanted them gone, they shall honor your ban. You want to apologize for the slap, then apologize. You want to work with skateboarders, then invite them to the discussion.
Dean in Weston invited them, and they built that skatepark. They self police that skatepark. Parents and kids, and families all use that skatepark. Somehow that works.
“At some point, the victim stops being the victim and stands up for their rights.”
I am sorry John, but that is horribly insulting. You acknowledge that they are in fact victims. But then demand that the victim must take action, where is the victimizer in this? What role does the victimizer have?
matthew
9:35 am on April 7th
John -
I guess I don’t understand your stance. In your last posting you say that you disagree that kids should be banned from downtown. Okay, straight forward enough. But in your prior post, when you were discussing it you said twice that you “were on the other side of the issue”. The “other side” meaning opposite those of us opposed to banning the kids from downtown. You also say that you wonder if the criminal/damage element could be controlled if the ban were lifted. Two points: one, is it being controlled now? If so, why is it an issue? If not, what good is it doing? Second, you admit that the vast majority of kids do not damage property. How can you justify banning them? By your own admission they cause no harm. And that’s what the current ban does. But, you’re right, I am not sure what your position is. Because in your last two posts you have firmly placed yourself on both sides of the issue.
John H. Fischer
10:41 am on April 7th
my view is this – in its simplest terms
I 100% agree that damage has been done to public and private property by skateboarders and I am in support of rules that try to prevent that.
However, I also acknowledge that the current rules have gone too far and fall victim to the “Law of Uninteded Consequences”
I stated I am on the other side of the issue in response to me being the one to advocate for skateboarders. I advocate for landlords because I am one – I cannot advocate for a group for which I am not a part.
I don’t have a dog in this fight – there is no ban on the West side where my personal interests lie.
Personally – I would like to see the ban lifted and replaced with a clarification of vandalism rules to cover my concerns. That is why I am on the other side – because I have heard here that the current rules for damage to property should be sufficient.
I am sorry you consider the thought insulting that boarders should take a pro-active role in this. But, that is the way it is. Dino, you have been an advocate of people getting involved – but on this issue, it seems you say they should not get involved?
As for rewriting history – I did no such thing. It passed committee, it went to council, council sent it back to committee for input from the public. The committee chair then decided to just kill the issue instead.
John H. Fischer
10:45 am on April 7th
As for the proposed law being written from outside of the council by this ad hoc group – that is the way government works. Laws are written by the people.
I, myself, have been involved in the drafting of ordinances on the munciple level, and have had my hand in the pot on a state statute or two.
We, the people, write the laws. It is up to our elected officials to determine if such laws have any merit. And, Wausau has decided that without public input, expanding the ban on skateboarding downtown has no merit.
Dino Corvino
11:01 am on April 7th
No John, I disagree. And I did a bit of research. Typcially a issue is brought before council, it is routed to committee for further study, all the while being placed on public agenda, and having minutes available.
The committee decides that this is worthy of pursuit after public comment and much research. At least two appearance in agenda and minutes is common I have been told.
This case did not have that. This new ordninance traveled from Janet Herring, to Anne Jacobsen, to the committee. It failed to have public comment, it failed to appear on any agenda. It failed to be subject to any public scrutiny.
While laws are written by people, the abuse of a friendship to put something through to a committee is the worst form of Daly-ism we see.
This law had no public discussion prior to being introduced to the committee, so NO ONE could object. Again furthering the idea that NO ONE CARES about skateboarders. This was exploiotive of friendship, cronyism and the like.
You further the insult to boarders by wrapping it up in language like PRO ACTIVE. Again placing the onus of change on the people who have been banned. The people who are the target of this ban should not be made to be even more looked down upon for not fighting back hard enough.
That is terrible logic. That is in essence saying that if the oppressed does not fight back hard enough to sway the oppressor, then clearly they should be oppressed.
You your self state that you think the vandalism rules ar sufficient. Then you call on someone to fight back.
Well, if the rules are sufficient, why not assume the city council will see the same thing, and act on its own?
This is not even a case on unintended consequences…this is INTENDED. They banned skateboarding. THEY BANNED IT. So, when the people who skateboard leave, THAT IS INTENDED!!
They banned skateboarders, and how should they react? Do you often return to places you are unwanted? Do you return to places that people have gone so far as to make laws that make your presence illegal?
Few cities in America have gone so far as to ban me, but when they do, I tend to take them off my travel plans. For example, I am banned in Wittenberg I think after a weird night in 1997 with Frank Schoenfuss, Jim Jackan, and Matt Cravens…so I do not go to Wittenberg.
Dino Corvino
12:27 pm on April 7th
As I sat here today, I was thinking about my work, and the last week I had, and I am struck with the word WORTHY.
Are these young men and women NOT worthy of the attention of our elected leadership? Are they not worthy of the same respect given to every other class?
What makes them less worthy? What makes their activities less worthy of our city?
Janet Herring and her ilk sought to ban these young people, to FURTHER ban them technically…making them unworthy.
Janet Herring and her ilk were not willing or apparently able to show examples of bad behavior or damage, because if she had, this would have gone through.
Worthy. That is what I was thinking about.
Matthew M
4:49 pm on April 7th
Dino,
how does banning an activity equate to banning a person? Is skating the only thing that defines who someone is? You wrote several lengthy posts about how people are banned, but they are not. The activity is banned, yet you have failed to explain why the activity is appropriate? What is the appropriate role of skateboards with regards to transportation? Cars and bikes usually go on streets, while pedestrians go on sidewalks, what is appropriate for skateboards? It is appropriate for bikes to use the sidewalks on Grand Ave, but if they go down third street they should be in the road because of different traffic conditions. How should skateboards be treated? Should they be allowed on third street if they go with the flow and speed of pedestrian traffic, or should they be allowed to weave among pedestrians? Which set of road rules should apply to them, or should they have their own set of rules? When you are racing down a sidewalk and are about to pass someone else on the sidewalk from behind, should you announce “on your right” or “on your left” to let them know you are passing them, or should you just zip around them?
When people wanted to have campfires in their backyards they approached the city with their compromise between outright ban and allowing anyone to have a fire in their yard, have any skateboarders ever attempted to create a compromise or a policy other than just saying that skateboards shouldn’t be banned? Saying ‘we oppose the ban’ is not enough, the world can’t be looked at in just black and white. If you want something you have to go for it and figure out how.
It doesn’t matter to me if skateboarding is banned in downtown, I have no reason to rewrite the ordinance, but if I wanted change I would have to stand up and make it happen myself. Why haven’t skateboarders stood up and attempted to work out a solution? Why not iron out some specifics, throw it in a PowerPoint and send it to city hall?
Dino Corvino
5:50 pm on April 7th
Skateboarding is done by skateboarders. So inhernently people are banned. People who skateboard. An activity is not done in a vaccuum. Someone does an activty.
Skateboarders should be treated the same. Ticketed, arrested, prosecuted for vandalism, trespassing, etc.
I believe it is appropriate for skateboards to use the sidewalks. The same as bikes, heelies, razors, rollerblades, those weird cross country things that people use to train on, and a canoe with wheels on.
There is no compromise to be reached. Banning is a zero sum activity. The city has banned skateboarding. Arguments were made at the time, by me as well as others, to stop said ban. The ban went through.
I also want to point out this backward notion that the group affected should ask for their rights back. If I ban left handed people, why would that encourage left handed people to come back and ask for their rights back.
Those affected by the ban have no ground to stand on. They have two options, skateboard in deifance of said ban and get a ticket. Or leave. That is what a ban is for. Removal of the people who do the thing you do not want them to do.
I again want to point out that my initial reaction to this is not about protecting skateboarding, but rather the less than transparent way that Janet Herring and Anne Jacobsen sought to make this ban even larger than it is.
I do not have to justify why skateboarding is appropriate. What is inappropriate is the process with which this ban expansion was sought by Janet Herring and Anne Jacobsen.
Why is the city not under the same obligation you hold out for skateboarders, to verify, objectify, measure and prove evidence that clearly indicates that skateboarding dangerous and damaging. Where are those numbers? Why the preemptive ban?
Matthew M
8:22 pm on April 7th
Dino, banning an activity is not the same as banning a person. If I was a smoker I would not be allowed to smoke in any bar in Wausau. Your argument is that because the activity is banned that I would also be banned, yet there are plenty of smokers in bars.
You seem to be arguing that any limit on skateboarding is somehow discriminating against people, and the only way to not discriminate against someone is to allow anyone to do anything. I am asking what are reasonable limits to expect from skateboarders? If the ban is removed should there be a policy against them skating in the street. Should they be required to yield right of way to pedestrians on the sidewalk, or should pedestrians be required to get out of their way?
Since the city has built them a skate park is it reasonable to have a policy which say no grinding on public property except in the skate park? Should the city have a policy of building all handrails so that they can hold the weight of a 200+lb man jumping on it to grind, or can we just build our handrails to hold 100lbs? How should the city handle liability?
If you are opposed to the ban on skateboarding in downtown then propose what the changes should be. If you do an activity that damages other people properties, or prevents their use of the public right of way it is their right to seek a ban on that activity, and it is your right to come up with an alternative. Has anyone ever proposed an alternative solution to the given problem? Public property belongs to everyone, and it is the governments job to see that everyone can get the same utility from it.
Dino Corvino
9:35 pm on April 7th
An alternative exists Matthew…vandalism is a crime. Trespassing is a crime.
If one damages property or is someplace illegally, those are already crimes.
All the rest of it is simply window dressing. Vandalism, and trespassing are already prosecutable offenses. The means with which these things happen are irrelevant, and simply window dressing with the intent of removing an undesired element from downtown streets.
Banning an activity does not exist in the abstract. People skateboard. Skateboarding does not happen without people.
matthew
8:41 am on April 8th
Matthew Mueller -
I understand your point. All along I’ve said the ban on skateboarding isn’t aimed at skateboarders, it’s aimed at the people who do it. Again I refer to the playing of elevator music. It was done expressly to get the young people to go somewhere else. If there was a complete ban on skateboarding and the ‘undesirable’ young people still congregated downtown it would some other contrived problem and some other excuse. You’re right public property belongs to everybody and everybody, including skateboarders, has the right to use it. As to the destruction of property, again, there are many laws already to deal with this. Simply enforce the laws on the books. You don’t think that skateboarders should be allowed. I say strollers shouldn’t be allowed for exactly the same reasons. And those little kids with those little wheels in their shoes. For exactly the same reasons you want to ban skateboarders.
John H. Fischer
7:32 am on April 9th
Dino.. I will continue to disagree that those who have been legislated against should admit defeat and ride into the sunset.
I am a landlord, and because of the bad actions of the few, there are constantly laws being passed to protect the public from us. (Sound familiar??)
We, as a group, make sure that we are aware of what is going on in city counsels all over the state as well as in the capitol building as well. We look at proposed laws that affect us and some we support, some we oppose, and some we try to modify.
We probably fail in protecting ourselves against laws meant to make life difficult for us more than we succeed. When a law is passed that affects us negatively, is that the end… no.. it is not. We continue to drive on… to see if that law can be removed, or maybe there is a compromise where the law can be changed. Sometimes we have success – often we do not… but we never stop standing up for our rights.
You may say that a ban on skateboarding is not the same as a law banning more apartment buildings. But I say it does.
Your group is punished by bad behavior of the few – so is ours. You feel you have no say because you are too young to vote – we are often not residents of where the properties are (I live in the Town of Wausau, but my properties are in the City of Wausau and the Village of Weston where I cannot vote). You say the laws are more about banning the people than the activity – In many cases, laws are passed because renters are the undesirable element.
So I understand… I really really do. So yes, when a law is passed that is against you, YES – you do continue to fight, NO – that is not the end. The battle is only over when you choose to end it.
I have attended various city meetings – the general view of some in the committees and some on the counsel have changed toward boarders. Now would be a great time to open dialoge about change – but it is unreasonable to expect government to open the dialoge because (right or wrong) that’s not how it works.
Dino Corvino
9:10 am on April 9th
Why is it the responsibility of those banned? That is my issue. Why is it not the responsibility of the Council to understand that they made a bad law, and should reevaluate that? I know the answer, but would let you all find your own.
Yes, it is the same in many ways as banning rental properties. Except for the fact that rental properties generate money. Money for those who would be fighting to repeal a ban.
Skateboarding? Not so much.
Again, my objection is not if the city wants to ban skateboarding. I object to that, but in this case I was objecting to the fact that Janet Herring and Anne Jacobsen went essentially rogue, and came up with this with no public comment.
Like banning rental properties in a midnight session.
Mohawk Matt
9:31 pm on April 9th
Is there a ban against spray painting property downtown? Or a ban against spraypainters? Cause if there isn’t, and it’s just a regular old criminal damage to property fine, I may take it up. But, if spraypainters are banned from downtown, well, I guess I’m out of luck.
Barry Liss
8:28 am on April 10th
What mangled and grotesque damage have the bankruptcies and foreclosures rooted in poor leadership and inept planning caused this community? No, I think the damage to the downtown has been caused, not by skateboarders, but rather by the vulgar ambitious – those who pretend to be what they are not – and will never be…